- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The AFL match review panel’s weighting of points system means intentional acts are not appropriately punished, while minor incidents receive sanctions disproportionate to the crime.
The match review panel (MRP), or the tribunal before it, are always going to generate debate over the penalties they hand out or the players they exonerate.
I don’t believe any system can be perfect, just as the umpires are never going to get every decision right. Our game is one of the few games where players can interact from any angle, where players in and around the contest can expect contact whether they have the ball or not.
This is part of the reason we love our game, but also the reason the game is so hard to officiate and enforce punishments for indiscretions.
An added difficulty is the almost continual tweaking of rules and regulations that alter interpretations to the point where players, umpires and the MRP are constantly having to adjust the way they play and officiate.
The points system has made some inroads into the perceived lack of consistency with the tribunal. It has certainly been a success in reducing the number of tribunal sittings by allowing the players to plead guilty to minor indiscretions.
However, there also needs to be some tweaking of the system to allow the panel to deliver punishments more suitable to the crimes.
The system already weights offences that are deemed intentional more harshly than those that are negligent or careless. The end result is also used to determine the penalty, with serious injuries earning a greater loading.
This weighting on intent needs to carry far greater weight than the end result when determining the penalty. The current system allows a player who throws an elbow at the back of someone’s head but doesn’t do any major damage to receive the same penalty for a player who may break an opponent’s jaw from a negligent act such as a bump from a head clash.
This is ridiculous, as the priority for the AFL surely needs to be removing the intentional acts of violence as opposed to punishing players for causing unintentional damage in a physical contest.
I’m not saying you don’t consider the injury incurred, but at the moment, if two people throw the same hay-maker but only one breaks a jaw, he will be punished more harshly than the guy who is not as good a punch! This makes no sense.
I also dislike the discount for pleading guilty. Most incidents these days are captured on camera, and I see nothing noble about a player pleading guilty to an offence that the entire nation has seen him commit on the news that night!
Players should not be rewarded for admitting they’ve erred when not even O.J. Simpson’s defence lawyer Johnny Cochrane could have got them off the charge!
The other issue that blurs the lines of the suspensions handed out is the carry over points attributed to players for previous offences.
This was particularly pertinent this week, where James Kelly was contentiously suspended for a bump many felt was simply part of the game. The offence actually warranted a one week suspension, yet due to an offence committed last season, he received additional loading and hence a two match ban was applied.
Many fans can’t quite handle the fact Kelly received two weeks, while in the same week Colin Sylvia seemed to intentionally elbow an opponent who was subsequently stretchered off, and only received three matches.
The system is very clear, but people cannot accept losing their star players for indiscretions that seem quite minor.
Carry over points should only be applied for intentional or reckless incidents, or repeat offences of a negligent or careless nature.
This would mean a player found guilty of a minor offence would serve the appropriate penalty without having the additional points hanging over him for the next couple of years. It also allows the AFL to punish those players willing to commit serious offences or those that continually offend.
Any system is bound to have its flaws, as consistency with its judiciary is something the AFL has been striving unsuccessfully for for decades. The points system is simply a quantifiable version of what was in place during the tribunal days.
The system still relies on the judgement of human beings, and hence is susceptible to the differing opinions of the people in place to make the judgements. The consideration of prior records and guilty pleas were something the old system included, it’s just that this is now determined by a number of points rather than the judgement of a tribunal.
We must understand the complexity of our rules make it difficult to assess incidents, and so we need a system designed to give results that are deemed fair by the players, clubs and fans.
The current system does not provides this, but it has the potential to do so with a few tweaks.
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.
Jake Kelly was left red-faced after Campbell Chesser pounced and stole an unlikely goal.
The Bomber gave away a 50-metre penalty for interfering with the mark from Bailey Williams leading to a goal.
Dyson Heppell wanted to come after the top draft pick, but his Eagles' teammate stood in the way.
Apparently, the Eagles forward has embraced the nickname too after the commentators compared his style to big Fraser Gehrig!
What on earth was this from Jobe?
