Normally today I’d be discussing Round 12’s winners and losers. But the biggest winner was Lance Franklin, and the loser was the AFL judiciary’s credibility.
Given the league’s very public campaign against head injuries, I thought we were clear. Any player who chooses to bump, and in doing so hits an opponent’s head, gets suspended.
Not that you can’t bump, but that you have to do it precisely enough to avoid head contact, and the onus is on you to do so.
But apparently there’s a sub-clause: the rule doesn’t apply if you’re the league’s one-man celebrity TV show, and your club has a hugely hyped clash against the ladder leaders on the weekend.
I’m not saying there was a communiqué from AFL headquarters giving an order to free Buddy, as no doubt some of the conspiracy theorists languishing in moderation will state as fact. But I reckon the Match Review Panel and the Tribunal can be affected by sentiment and emotion.
The non-citation of Brownlow favourite Gary Ablett after an errant elbow a couple of weeks ago gave me the same feeling, though a better argument could be made for that decision. This one is based on nothing but not wanting to suspend Franklin.
With a white-hot Sydney set to play a white-hot Port Adelaide, the whole league has been looking forward to this game for weeks. It’s at the SCG, with the return fixture in Adelaide a tougher ask for Sydney. Fellow forward Kurt Tippett is a chance to miss with a knee injury.
Anyone in football would have been aware of these permutations, and would have known it would have been a damn shame for the spectacle if Franklin missed it. In a clash between the league’s form teams, you want their star players present and firing. If they’re not, it dampens excitement and expectation.
That’s exactly why Franklin’s hit on Gold Coast’s Clay Cameron last weekend was so disappointing: it was unnecessary, late, negligent and stupid, a Franklinesque move before a big game. It should have cost him that game. It was supposed to cost him that game. The fact that it didn’t is a scam.
When Jack Viney and Daniel Hannebery were cleared after bumps earlier this season, the decisions stirred debate but were correct. Both those players were foremost trying to win possession of the ball. Franklin was hitting a player who already had it.
As Cameron ran along the boundary line to kick, Franklin charged at him to put him off, and even when it was clear Cameron would get his kick away in time, decided to follow through with the hit on the smaller and lighter player to make him earn it.
Franklin had plenty of opportunities at his disposal: if he thought he would arrive in time, he could have dived for the smother or into a tackle. If he knew he was late he could have pulled up and prepared for the chance of an upfield turnover.
Instead he went for a hit, took no care to stay low against a shorter opponent, and gave him a shoulder to the head.
His let-off was all the more insulting given that in the same breath, Hayden Ballantyne of Fremantle was sent directly to the Tribunal for his hit on Adelaide’s Matthew Jaensch.
Ballantyne at least had the ball loose in front of him, and hit the taller man to clear a path to win possession. There was no malice, but an accidental head clash injured Jaensch. These cases get cited, and that’s known, but at least Ballantyne was contesting possession. Franklin was just throwing his weight around.
The call comes down to the panel’s assessment that Franklin’s contact was of “insufficient force” to warrant citation. Tell that to Cameron’s head, which shuddered from side to side as he fell to the ground.
Had Cameron been injured, Franklin would now be suspended. Because Cameron was fortunate, suddenly the same action is no longer an offence? It’s an absolute farce. Decisions should be made on the potential to injure an opponent, not applied and watered down based on who is and isn’t lucky.
Spare me the usual guff about how it’s a man’s game, teaspoon of cement, something about princesses, and whatever other unimaginative bon mots you can dredge from the corners of your mind stuffed with blokey crap, collecting like lint in the pockets of your jeans.
Having seen the odd game of football, I’m aware it’s a contact sport. I’m all for it. A fair bump is a great thing. But very simply, you’re not allowed to bump guys in the head. That’s the ruling from an administration concerned about former players who can’t remember their own premierships. The problem is real and it’s desperately sad.
If you bump, the onus is on you to do it low enough that you take the body. Franklin, despite his height, didn’t bother.
Yes, a free kick was paid downfield, but there’s a difference between getting clipped high in a marking contest, and copping an entire player’s body weight after the momentum of several metres’ run-up is laid in behind a shoulder the size of a Bertocchi ham.
A player shaping to kick has no chance to brace or protect himself against that contact. That’s part of the bravery of the game, getting a disposal away without letting fear make you flinch, but those players also deserve not to wear entire humans to the head.
The rules this year have been very clear, and have been ruthlessly applied. The league has been industrious about making sure that no one gets away with anything. Until now.
Now, we simply have confirmation that if you’re special enough, special treatment will be dished out in special cases. If Sydney were facing the Western Bulldogs this week, Franklin would have been out. If Franklin had been Sam Reid, he would have been out.
Instead, Franklin was Franklin, and so Franklin is in. As far as the spectacle of this week’s game is concerned, it’s a relief. As far as the integrity of the broader game is concerned, it’s a disgrace.
Jim
Guest
But come on Ads - the intent was perfectly clear from Sidebottom.... it deserved 3 weeks to be honest! Was not playing the ball, but clearly solely playing the man and took him out of the game.
Penster
Guest
I'd like to see the MRP review the infamous Hawks v Geelong "bloodbath" at Princes Park June 1985.
Ironmonger
Guest
You've given me a good idea. Maybe you should be able to pick the games you are suspended for...those games not televised maybe
John Wilkins
Guest
Olivia, Your naievety is both breathtaking and alluring - if only because it lets us all reminisce about the innocence of our youth. But I agree with you about Franklin, it was a shameful decision and the video file will hopefully come back to haunt the AFL when players seek compensation for long term illness/injuries that were not mitigated by adequately administrating for player welfare.
John Wilkins
Guest
Thanks for the article Geoff, you saved most of us a lot of typing! This was a classic case in point for the MRP to demonstrate that the AFL was serious in mitigating avoidable concussion/head/neck injury. I only hope that future player compensation claims cite video of incidents like this one to demonstrate that the AFL was negligent in their duty of care with respect to player welfare. Anyone who thinks that the AFL acts with impartiality and integrity first and foremost in its administration of the game is naive. Their, business model and self-serving fiscal expansion strategies trump all else. It would not even have been necessary for the MRP to have received a directive to find a way to not suspend Franklin. Like the judicial systems of corrupt governments, the courts know exactly what is expected of them by their masters and act accordingly. How must a guy like Paul Chapman feel, he missed last years prelim Final last year because of a bump virtually identical to this one which may well have altered the course of the finals series. I also totally agree with you re. The failure to sanction based on what they construe to be "insufficient force". This is the loophole that is always used as the joker by the MRP. Its akin to saying you can fire a gun at someone, but it's only an offence if you actually hit them - yet the errant bullet may actually have caused serious damage to someone - hence why it's still a criminal offence to fire a shot in anger in the first place - even if you miss (ie.don't actually concuss the guy there and then) Several players have been suspended recently despite the impact of their actions having the same or less consequence for their victims than Franklins hit, the suspension of Steve Johnson for head contact on Crowley for instance. He was not suspended because of the consequence of his actions (there weren't any, Crowley played only immediately and there was no medical report), so what exactly was he suspended for then? Because the action was potentially dangerous? Wasn't Franklin's then also potentially dangerous and illegal under the rules? At the very least why did they not refer the Johnson case to the tribunal as they did Ballantyne? Johnson had carryover points and they realised their grading would lead to a suspension. You can't have it both ways, either players are sanctioned because the action was potentially dangerous or not. Yet the MRP flips between the two when and as it suits them - this is not fair and equal justice - this is Manipulation. No, the Franklin case demonstrates that the AFL is now so openly amoral and imperious that only actions like players strikes or the masses voting with their wallets have any hope of turning the ship around.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
If you cannot see that contact and force does not originate from lower dow Franklin's arm (and not the shoulder) then my friend, you are ignorant. Also, anyone who does not realise that impact and subsequent medical report has no bearing needs to have a re-think. I think that was Franklin's biggest saving grace - impact was not high enough to have caused injury. However we have a contact sport - people will be injured in accidental clash of body parts - past suspensions this season were not worthy of the suspensions given.
Maggie
Guest
And further to the Ballantyne case, Ross Lyon has today been quoted on AFL site: "He (Lyon) also praised the Match Review Panel's decision to refer the decision straight to the Tribunal saying the MRP's framework for such cases was very narrow. "They haven't got much room to move," Lyon said. "They clearly made a judgment that it doesn't really fit the parameters they get to work in. "If there's going to be a review (of the MRP), they need some flexibility in their grading and interpretations I think. "They are a bit hamstrung and they are a bit uncomfortable dealing with these sorts of situations where there is a perceived bump involved but they are competing for the ball. "So therefore they did the right thing and referred it to the Tribunal."
Olivia Watts
Roar Guru
As a Sydney supporter, first off let me say that I feel Franklin's act was worthy of a suspension. That said, my opinion, and yours, and anyone else's, is just that - an opinion. I am over all these conspiracy theories about certain players being 'protected' by the AFL. Given the number of people involved with the MRP, the AFL, the Tribunal and the Appeals board, are we honestly expected to believe that every one of them is systematically and under instruction cheating? Is it plausible that such a directive could ever have been issued and yet not one person within the system have blown the whistle on deliberate institutionalised corruption within what is a mega-million dollar business? Seriously, think about it. It is possible that these business people are biased - perhaps unconsciously - towards the protection of their marque and its revenue stream and find themselves occasionally reaching a decision that seems at odds with the expected or generally deserved outcome? Of course the answer to this is yes; that is simple human nature. That is a far cry from deliberately applied policies of cheating however. Doubting the results of the system is fine. It is inevitable within any system of which human judgement is a part that error will occur and that such error may stem from inherent bias brought about through many factors. To label this as cheating and to seek conspiracy is naive and paranoid. It shows that we are as guilty of bias as those we seek to label. Folks, let's admit the error by all means - Franklin's act deserved at least a weeks holiday - but let's dial down the rhetoric and the accusations, OK?
Maggie
Guest
Ballantyne had a case to answer because Jaensch was concussed and took no further part in the match. Franklin's bump was deemed negligible impact and so no case to answer because Cameron got straight up and ran back into the contest unhurt. As I have said elsewhere, if you think the rules the MRP works to are wrong, then (constructively) criticise the rules. What you have done here is attack the MRP and accuse them of partiality.
Macca
Guest
"It is not just contact though, it is also impact." Correct they also look at intent but that doesn't mean that they assess contact to different parts of the head differently and "Regard will also be had to the potential to cause injury." Doesn't mean they feel that concussion is worse than a potential broken jaw or that they think that a hit to the jaw is less likely cause concussion. "As the MRP stated it was several factors that saw him got off (arm tucked in, no injury to the player) not just the fact he hit the jaw." Please show where they said hgitting him in the jaw and not the head helped to get him off?
Macca
Guest
You do realise that pin pointing the temporal region and then applying it's specifics to the entire skull it ludicrous right? And again where is the evidence for your assertion the MRP treat different parts of the head differently?
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
It is not just contact though, it is also impact. The guidelines state: "In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to the extent of force and in particular, any injury who was offended against. Regard will also be had to the potential to cause injury. http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/AFL-Tribunal-Booklet-2012.pdf As the MRP stated it was several factors that saw him got off (arm tucked in, no injury to the player) not just the fact he hit the jaw. I also stated it if he caused injury (i.e. broken jaw) he would have been rubbed out based on the MRP 'logic'
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
A direct hit to the skull, specifically the temporal region carries a higher risk of serious brain injury or even death. When determining a free kick, then yes anything above the shoulders is "head high" However, when determining a reportable offence the specific area of the upper body the player has made contact with (neck, face, skull) is also taking into consideration.
Macca
Guest
"Being hit in the jaw and the neck is different from being hit in the skull from a reporting perspective." Please provide some evidence of this (actual evidence not supposed examples) - the categories are "high contact" and "low contact" not Jaw, Nose neck etc
Macca
Guest
"Typically the jaw will absorb some of the blow and not allow it to transfer to the brain, thus the risk of brain damage is reduced. That is not to say a player will not get concussion from being hit in the jaw, it just makes it less likely." And this is based on what medical evidence? And given the Jaw is part of the head, and the AFL rules include the jaw in the "High Contact" category and at the very least you can get concussed, "fractures, haemorrhages, contusion, bleeding on the brain" (although I am not sure I have ever heard of anyone getting a fractured brain) from impact to the jaw plus a fractured jaw why do you think the AFL would deem a blow to the jaw as less than a blow to the "skull"? Given we are using their rules not yours?
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
For the purposes of determining a free kick then yes anything above the shoulders is classifies as "head-high" regardless of whether the contact is around the neck, face or the skull. However, in the context of the MRP they will look at which part of the upper body the player has made contact with before making a ruling. For example Franlkin's coathanger against Scott Thompson in round 4 was also assessed the force used was below that of a reportable offence. Being hit in the jaw and the neck is different from being hit in the skull from a reporting perspective.
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
It is not just about concussion, but other types of brain injuries. Direct blows to the skull increase the risk of other serious brain injuries such as fractures, haemorrhages, contusion, bleeding on the brain etc Typically the jaw will absorb some of the blow and not allow it to transfer to the brain, thus the risk of brain damage is reduced. That is not to say a player will not get concussion from being hit in the jaw, it just makes it less likely. As for your point regarding the severity of injury determining the penalty we are in agreement. I think it is ridiculous that the MRP seems to be basing their decisions based on what happens to the victim rather than the intent of the perpetrator. However that is the way they are doing it, so I basing my explanation according to their rules not mine.
Macca
Guest
Maybe it depends on whether he had his mouht open or closed at the time of impact?
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Last time I looked, the jaw was still attached to the head???? Of course unless your Roger Ramjet. Brent Tate or Buzz Lightyear!
Macca
Guest
If you go to the Doctor with a broken Cheek or a blocked nose or a sore ear do you say your head hurts? Or do you think a player could be hit in any of these areas and it be deemed not to be the head? I hope you're not allowed out of the house by yourself...