Halfway through December 2017 in the lead up to the ancient pagan Roman festival we now call Christmas, we learned that in 2018 the AFL would introduce a one-man match review panel.
While the MRP clearly needed fixing, the major solution put in place by new AFL general manager of football operations Steven Hocking – appointing Michael Christian to the role of sole AFL MRP panel member and boss (but ultimately making himself the final word on all player penalties handed down by the MRP) – strikes me as one made by a man either completely enraptured with the corporate autocracy he experienced under Brian Cook at Geelong or incredibly ignorant of the lessons of history.
I tend to think it was the latter which drove Hocking toward his solution to the MRP’s woes.
On December 8, 2017 Cook was quoted on the radio saying ‘“I’d like a simple system where the MRP is one person…They make the judgment, they look at it and say that’s what this person gets. I think you’ll get much more consistency.”
Amazingly, one week later, hey presto! Hocking announces the same thing.
The new set up of the MRP was constructed under the premise that it needed more consistency. Indeed the new system has some good points like doing away with players risking an extra week when appealing a decision and a few other little improvements around extra player fines instead of weeks off, and so on.
The obvious flaw in the plan, however, is that putting so much power in the hands of a few scarcely leads to order and consistency especially when applying rules – as the great intellectual Christopher Hitchens once said about the concentration of power, “The true essence… is in fact not its regularity but its unpredictability and caprice; those who live under it must never be able to relax, must never be quite sure if they have followed the rules correctly or not.”
Having a system ruled over by one man immediately puts that system and the penalties within it totally at the behest of that man’s emotions, inherent and subconscious biases and natural human inconsistencies.
Hocking has said of his role in the new system “Am I going to interfere? It’s not my style … I’m there to support him.” This then cedes much power to Christian with little interference from his overlord.
(Photo by Scott Barbour/AFL Media/Getty Images)
This strange new set up has also placed Christian (who I presume will be handling the media side of things) under an unnecessary amount of extra pressure handling the totality of the media and publics inevitable disdain following certain decisions.
Then there’s always the old ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ problem to also worry about.
The MRP could be set up better with four people. Three independently review incidents in separate soundproof booths eliminating discussion between them as they decide. They do this every night after games (hopefully limiting the impact of trial by media) and lock in their intent, impact, force and points decisions.
The fourth official independently oversees the process and makes the final decision alone. When the results come back differently the fourth official simply melds the two judges’ results that were most closely aligned with his majority rules criteria for the final decision.
The results of all three judges and the final decision are released to the public to keep accountability in the process.
Where the old system went wrong was that there was too much discussion between MRP members going on, which clouded the issue and made a final outcome far more complex than it had to be.
The mistake Hocking has made is assuming the MRP failed in the past because there were a number of people involved in the process, rather it was how those people interacted that was the problem.
The new MRP system may work well at first but it will unravel and when it does like history has taught us time and again it will be a quick and chaotic fall from grace.
In the lead up to Christmas last year it must’ve come as some relief for Hocking having finally sorted out the MRP’s issues, but he needn’t have looked farther than the failed empire from which the former pagan celebration derives its origins to understand that appointing a single person to control anything, particularly the governance of penalties for breaking rules, is a very very bad idea.
Sir Ossis
Guest
Tough start by Christian. What will happen to the next Cotchin diving front-on into the (sacrosanct...ish) head of a Dylan Shiel in a Prelim and concussing him out of the game? Play-on?
Nick J
Guest
In my opinion a well-written piece. I think the sources drawn in to the discussion on football were valuable. "By making culture accessible for those who would use it to improve themselves it is less likely that we will ever confront the great works of our past in their most challenging form." Hudson on Arendt, 2013.
Alphingtonian
Roar Pro
Well said Leighton. You should've written the article. ;)
Alphingtonian
Roar Pro
I actually stated in the article it would probably work well at first as these types of systems tend to early on...
Leighton
Guest
Yep. Much of this current arrangements shows a lousy understanding of concepts such as segregation of duties, conflicts of interest, impartiality of judgement etc. The emphasis should be on position and institution, not one person and their opinions. Its a poor set up set up, for an increasingly shoddy outfit that is not being governed in a way appropriate for its size. And I agree that this isn't a law making body. But it is an entity with significant financial size and power with governing arrangements that reflect how the AFL was 20 years ago, not now.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think it's worth comparing two quotes, one from each person involved Hocking “Am I going to interfere? It’s not my style … I’m there to support him.” and “Steve Hocking is very keen to bring it back under the AFL banner. Every decision I make will be ratified by the AFL,” Christian said. “I’ll make a decision and then Steve will look at them. If he disagrees, then we’ll sit down at thrash it out.” Obviously the areas of contention will be how much Hocking is prepared to disagree with Christian and over what, as well as the working relationship between the two men - you wouldn't want to see a situation for example where they had a disagreement in the media over a contentious case The main thing though I want to see is consistency throughout the season in the decisions, I'm not fussed what players get rubbed out for, they know the rules, I just want to make sure the same players get rubbed out for the same contact, because that has not always happened, particularly when finals come around and personalities are involved
Paul D
Roar Guru
Sure, but this is the AFL, not the Constitution or Federal Parliament. They'll just change the system if it's not working in future. Let's see how this goes. Alph is saying below the process won't work - well a lot of people now would say the process isn't working, I think you're going to have philosophical disagreements or pre-determined judgments aplenty on an issue like this every time it comes up. Judge him on the outcomes - and I personally believe it's a one man panel with a one man review panel, it's not just one man
Martin
Roar Rookie
A match review panel is inherently argumentative. When arguments start it can become very heated and people become emotionally charged and get tense. Others can get dogmatic and develop a chip on their shoulder. Personality clashes will develop and members of a MRP will end up not talking to each other. I'm not saying it's as bad as the House of Representatives in Canberra; but nevertheless, any prolonged argument could cause stress, which in turn can cause ill health. If it were possible to have all members of a MRP with personalities that were mature, levelheaded and with some compassion for fairness then it could work well. I guess there are many ideas that seem good in theory but are not practical, so I would review the situation at the end of the season to compare between the two models.
Alphingtonian
Roar Pro
It's not about him. You give anybody that type of power and history shows they'll very quickly become inconsistent in their 'rulings.' It's not Christian it's the process that won't work no matter who's put there.
Alphingtonian
Roar Pro
Yes Christian may say that but the quote from Hocking in my piece pretty much completely contradicts that.
Alphingtonian
Roar Pro
Nothing to do with that Cat. I'm against the inherent tyranny the new system has woven through it. Absolutely nothing to do with Steven Hocking.
XI
Roar Guru
A harsh lesson from history is that you don't build a system assuming the next person to have your job will be as good or well-meaning as you. You build it assuming that the next person will have no idea or malevolent intentions to ensure that people won't be negatively affected. Of course this isn't as important as a constitution for a country but concentrating power almost always isn't a good idea.
Rissole
Guest
In an interview today Christian said that each decision is made in consultation with Hocking. So it seems that it's effectively a two man panel. I like it so far, it appears more transparent. We will have to wait and see though.
Aligee
Guest
Agreed, but the chances are IMO that a 3 man panel would be better, but Chritsian may have a great feel for it and do a great job. Christian by name but i wonder if by nature ?.
Paul D
Roar Guru
This is entirely a philosophical argument. You're simply assuming that Michael Christian will be ineffectual at the role based on being the sole arbiter (and the fact he's from Geelong, surely you're running out of space on your wrists for new scars by now) Simply claiming that 4 people will do a better job than 1 person is not a given. He may well be brilliant at the job.
Cat
Roar Guru
I have a clear Geelong bias though, so I am out. Until a club has the gall to actually ask Christensen to recuse himself from a case, I can't see a strong case for bias being made.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Guess you're halfway to becoming a MRP member, Cat ;)
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Guessing you're only referring to the eighteen AFL clubs, yeah? Because it might get a bit difficult to prohibit anyone ever associated with any footy club.
Cat
Roar Guru
Article would make more sense if this new MRP had made some questionable decisions, but so far everything seems sensible enough and in line with the given rules.
Cat
Roar Guru
Should we also get people who have never watched AFL and who didn't grow up in Australia (they may have barracked for someone) too?