- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
There was much positive talk about the changes to the AFL tribunal process before the 2015 season.
The new style, removing the calculation of points for events that often can’t particularly be categorised was a sensible change.
However, with the Hodge suspension, the tribunal has let the game down.
When a loose ball bounced towards Brisbane’s goal square on Saturday, Steven May and Tom Rockliff were in pursuit. May used his body to take Rockliff off the ball and essentially make it a sure thing he won a crucial contested possession in his back 50.
May caught Rockliff high, there is no doubt about that, but while the result of the contact could have been disastrous for Rockliff, the process to the contact wasn’t inherently wrong.
It was well within the rules for May to bump Rockliff off the ball to make sure he won it, the contact unfortunately for both players, ended up being high.
When Luke Hodge stood up after a contest, turned around to face Andrew Swallow and brought his elbow to Swallow’s chin, it was definitely not within the rules.
In no part of the process of Hodge turning, swinging his elbow through and connecting with Swallow could it be argued he was doing anything within the rules or the spirit of the game.
While Hodge maintains he wasn’t aiming to connect with Swallow’s face, even if he had hit Swallow in the chest it would have been unnecessary contact in a dead ball situation. The exact kind of action the AFL has to set a standard on as unacceptable in the game of football.
It could be reasonably argued that May deserved his suspension – he did take Rockliff out of the match with his bump. There is no reasonable argument however, that May and Hodge deserved the same sentence. May made a mistake, but his intentions weren’t out of place, had he made contact with Rockliff’s chest it would have been textbook body work in a contest. Hodge also made a mistake, but his intensions were nothing but hazardous and violent.
If a group of young players of our game were to sit down and watch both incidents, it would be interesting to see what a coach would tell them.
As an 11-year-old I vividly remember being taught how to use my body to win a contest, not to the extreme May took it, but to place my body in a way that wins the contest and doesn’t allow my opponent to win it.
This is exactly what young players need to be taught if they plan on playing football for a long time. A coach should applaud May’s intentions, but point out his technique needs some refining.
No coach should say anything that is not condemning about Hodge’s actions. Pure violence – where the ball is not in play – has no place in our game, at any level.
Hodge should have been punished severely, and while I applaud him making a clear apology to Swallow, he should have condemned his own behaviour in front of the press.
Had Hodge stood outside the tribunal and made it clear that his action was not a part of our game and made it clear to any children watching that it shouldn’t be a part of society, he would have shaken off this incident and used it for good.
The continued problem of young adults engaging in senseless violence is yet to stop impacting society, by ruining lives on both ends of the contact.
It would not be uncommon for a young man to swing his elbow towards another on a Saturday night at the pub, which is a problem that must be tackled by the leaders of our society.
Footballers don’t mean to be role models, but they are. It would be devastating to think that a young fan saw Hodge’s actions and shrugged it off as accidental high contact. This was a chance for Hodge and the AFL to make it clear that violence in this respect is awful and should never be inflicted on others.
The tribunal giving May and Hodge three weeks each is undoubtedly wrong. The processes – May challenging his original two match ban, Hodge pleading guilty to his offence – don’t cover for the end result.
In no style of football should winning the ball – albeit illegally – be the same issue as completing a cowardly act of thuggery. Hodge isn’t a thug, but that action was thuggery, and he should be sitting on the sidelines for at least a month.
This was an opportunity for the tribunal to make it clear that unwarranted violence doesn’t belong in football or society and they failed. Hopefully it is an outlying case this season and the new style of the tribunal will learn from it.
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.
Things getting spicy in Adelaide!
Tex had plenty to say to Sam Berry after kicking the Crows' second goal.
"Wasn't meant to go there!"
Brisbane coach Chris Fagan has defended the AFL Tribunal's controversial decision to overturn star forward Charlie Cameron's one-match suspension for a dangerous tackle, as…
Chris Fagan took issue with repeat questions about the Lions' Tribunal defence of Charlie Cameron, which saw the star forward controversially reprieved.
