It’s time the AFL delivered a formal apology. The more humbling and grovelling the better.
It should be delivered to all the members of football’s support base, particularly those who make critical calls to talkback radio, and it should also be directed – and this might be the most teeth-gritted part of all – to members of the media who have ever criticised the AFL over its judicial processes.
The apology wouldn’t have to be particularly extensive. In effect, it would need state no more than this: ‘The Australian Football League is deeply sorry that its layers of judicial process have been allowed to fall into disarray. It apologises to those who have criticised the process in recent decades whom it has characterised as nutters.’
We could all accept that. On one condition.
The condition is a sincere undertaking that a new start now be embarked upon. The objective would be a judicial process born of exhaustive re-appraisal, that is competently manned or womaned, totally uncompromised, totally transparent, and which is encouraged at all times, without exception, to deliver totally independent outcomes.
The above relates, of course, to the two cases which this week found their way to the AFL Tribunal. Both were botched so seriously – one by the Match Review Panel and one by the tribunal – that public faith in these bodies has been further eroded.
That the cases were botched is now not just the view of this or that commentator or talkback caller. The AFL itself made the acknowledgement in the case of Bachar Houli, having appealed the two-week suspension imposed on the Richmond defender on the grounds of a ‘manifestly inadequate’ penalty.
Meanwhile, the AFL Tribunal adjudged the MRP decision on Will Schofield as botched in that it overturned the earlier guilty finding on the West Coast defender.
(AAP Image/Tony McDonough)
So, how did it come to this? Is the job of judging on-field matters like these so difficult that such errors naturally occur? Is it once people are appointed to the applicable arms of the AFL’s judicial process, guaranteeing much public interest in their findings, that they lose their judgement? Or is there something more at play?
Regarding the first of these three questions, I don’t think – and I don’t think many people who follow the game would think – that the Schofield or Houli cases were particularly difficult ones. They shouldn’t have been botched. Which suggests questions two and three might have greater applicability.
So, is it the pressure brought to bear on people who aren’t practised judges that causes what in these instances were quite bizarre outcomes?
Perhaps. We should note that the controversial penalties imposed on Schofield and Houli were handed down by two different panels of three ex-footballers. Those who sit on the Match Review Panel have no legal expertise in their midst, while Tuesday night’s tribunal jury had a QC as its chairman. One member of the tribunal jury, Wayne Henwood, is a lawyer.
So, how did such a body as the tribunal make what has been roundly viewed as a misjudgement? And why is it that such an error doesn’t feel entirely unfamiliar?
Which leads to question three: is there something else at play?
There have always been conspiracy theories in relation to outcomes on MRP and tribunal cases, almost all of which are fuelled by football’s emotional crucible. Nevertheless, that the theories exist renders the purity of operation of the two judicial bodies absolutely vital.
The MRP’s closed-room functioning is inadequate in its lack of transparency and should be reviewed immediately. As for the tribunal, perhaps it is permanently conflicted: feeling a need to satisfy both the public and the AFL. The Prime Ministerial endorsement of a player might only add to that muddle.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
It’s an interesting confluence of events that these two outcomes should have occurred this week. For it was only a few days ago that Barry Hall admitted he shouldn’t have been allowed to play in the 2005 grand final. Hall had punched St Kilda’s Matt Maguire in the stomach in a preliminary final, an action which was scrutinised by what at that time was the recently constituted MRP.
The action of the Sydney co-captain was found not to have been intentional (which offers an interesting juxtaposition with this week’s finding that Bachar Houli had intentionally struck a player who was behind him). Hall’s punch, which felled Maguire, was assessed as being of ‘low impact’.
The one-week penalty thus imposed on him opened the door to a challenge at the tribunal. The latter body found that based on the definition of what is and isn’t ‘in play’, Hall was free to help Sydney win its first grand final in 72 years.
Big Bazza was right last week: he shouldn’t have been playing in that match. His story, though, is salutary. It’s the type of event that compromises public belief in the AFL’s system of justice and it’s time the league acknowledged that this is so and did something about it.
Gecko
Guest
I think Tim is perfectly entitled to conflate these cases. The Houli and Hall ones in particular suggest a broader agenda was undermining the justice agenda, and this does undermine public confidence.
I ate pies
Guest
That's just a bit of fun, and not personal. If you can't see the difference then I'm at a loss.
I ate pies
Guest
The truth is, the dogs were on top all day other than a 5 minute burst of Josh Kenney brilliance in the second quarter...anywho, it's a new year, the dogs will always be 2016 premiers and swans supporters will always feel that the refs rip them off.
Rick
Guest
Contested possessions W.B. 172 SYD. 149 I was neutral that day as well and in my opinion W.B. won fair and square, three of Sydneys players gave away 9 free kicks between them (that's nearly half their total) I call that undisciplined, one was Gary Rohan who had a stinker. It's too simplistic to just look at a free kick tally, the Bulldogs were simply better.
Dangertroy
Guest
The structure of this article leaves a lot to be desired. It offers up the wording an apology should take without explaining what the apology is for. It's almost half way through the article before it's explained what went wrong, and even after reading it, I had to go and read another article to understand it as is wasn't really well explained. Whats wrong with saying in the first paragraph that the AFL should be apologising for the quality of decisions made recently by the MRP?
anon
Roar Pro
I'm a neutral and Sydney got robbed in the Grand Final. One free kick from the 13 minute mark of the FIRST QUARTER to early in the FOURTH QUARTER. It must be some kind of record. Don't give me that Bulldogs were "first to the ball" talk because contested possessions were even all day.
GJ
Guest
Where do you go with the Ballantyne and Selwood clash on the weekend then? Does Ballantyne get reported because he was ok afterwards. Or does Selwood get reported because he was a fraction of a second too late to take possession of the ball. Seriously, how do you feel about that contest? Can you explain the differences that make this contest a non-event and Viney vs Hurn contest reportable? To me there not much difference. The main difference I see is that Viney was in the air competing and it was his hip that made contact with Hurn. In both cases I see players competing for the ball. At some level I feel people are forming opinions based on emotion. And if I barracked for WC I may well feel the same way.
Mickyo
Guest
Press red for Ed. If you don't barrack for Collingwood at the end of the day his call may enrage but it is entertainment, people lose sight of that. And of course a chance to bag him, that's fun.
Mickyo
Guest
Extract the pineapple, it is obviously causing discomfort.
Mantra
Guest
True but since they are the largest supporter base and creates controversy, I'll guess we have to just grit our teeth, close the blinds and think of England. He doesn't do it on Fox now does he except that special time to draw in Foxtel cutomers they had a special Collingwood broadcast channel.
Cat
Roar Guru
Tribunal or MRP?
Pelican
Guest
Whether it was intentional or not I all ways get a little kick out of seeing a tagger get dropped. The proliferation of the serial pest and the scraggers as mentioned by the pope is a blight on the game and plays into the hands of defensive coaches with no idea of how to play attacking football. I'm talking about you Ross Lyon
Hunter
Guest
To be fair i think the tribunal has come leaps and bounds over the last few years. It used to be a guessing game. Might not be a popular opinion but at least there is a degree of consistency now. This also partly explains the outrage at the leniency of this decision as it stands.
Cat
Roar Guru
I agree with GJ, the old system was much worse. I think what needs an overhaul is the complete disconnect between the MRP and Tribunal. They don't ever seem to be on the same wavelength. The MRP cracks down on something at the AFL's directives and the Tribunal eases off. If anything teams should just start challenging everything – the Tribunal certainly doesn't appear to 'have the MRP's back' as the saying goes.
Alicesprings
Guest
Haha..give the AFL another 10 years or so and no doubt he will be commentating Tasmanian games. Surely couldn't be worst then Eddie. Still can't work out how and why Eddie is able to commentate Collingwood games!
Cat
Roar Guru
Mantra
Guest
Yes he is as biased as McGuire when Lane calls Carlton games and god forbid Tasmanian games though he claims it was in his contract that he wouldn't work with McGuire on Collingwood games so his resignation is fair enough - maybe Nine wanted to warehouse him off the airwaves - has happened before by hiring the opposition and then forcing them out - yes haven't heard a Kieran Jack apology.
GJ
Guest
Most systems, as soon as you add people into the mix, become flawed. I prefer the current system to the previous system of points. The current system probably needs some additional tweaking, not a major overhaul. Pretty much everyone who views an incident, sees something slightly different from the next person. This doesn't necessarily make 1 person right or wrong.
Cat
Roar Guru
Sorry when i read your I think there was the scope for Schofield’s report to be reduced from “Intentional” to “Careless” I just assumed you meant the Tribunal because the MRP sets the grading so there is nothing to actually reduce at the MRP. Cleared up, no harm done.
Mantra
Guest
I am with him on Viney though it begs the question about duty of care when 2 players are in the air going for the ball which the 2 Rugby codes also struggle with.