- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Let’s not kid ourselves, the AFL is not serious about protecting the players, they’re only truly serious about protecting their bottom line.
I know, I know, it’s a serious allegation, but also an obvious conclusion to draw. After all, it’s a professional sporting league interested in revenue above all else. It is less an allegation than just a complaint against the open hypocrisy of the AFL.
At this point, most fans of this wonderful sport would rather just hear the truth and where the league’s priorities lie over the spiel we hear every year, about this change, that change or whatever else they want to peddle in front of us to appease our and their consciences.
Patrick Cripps won the 2022 Brownlow Medal after a sensational personal year, even if a disappointing season in the end for the Carlton Football Club. He pipped Lachie Neale at the very end with a best-on-ground performance in the final home and away round against Collingwood in a losing endeavour.
The unshakeable question that left a bad taste in my mouth as the count rolled in was of course, whether Cripps should’ve been eligible at all for the Brownlow given he had a suspension overturned on the “failure to afford procedural fairness”, which effectively equated to an error of law.
The suspension itself would’ve made him ineligible for the AFL’s Best and Fairest Award, and if served, would’ve seen him not play in the final two rounds which would’ve left him short of Lachie Neale in the vote tally anyway.
The moment he was revealed as the winner of the medal, debates began around there being a potential asterisk next to his name. The real debate in my mind is how much did the fact that it was Patrick Cripps play into the finding, how much did the draw he brings to Carlton games factor in, and how much did the fact the Carlton were playing for a finals spot factor in.
Now let’s also look at the incident in question. Cripps made undeniable high contact while Callum Ah Chee had possession – or at the very least was in very close proximity to the ball – but arriving to the contest, Cripps made an undeniably deliberate move to turn sideways, leave his feet and make full contact with he opponent.
Ah Chee wasn’t left unscathed as he was ruled out of the game and subsequent matches due to concussion.
Three major incidents requiring sanctions occurred in the opening round of 2023. Lance Franklin, was given a week’s suspension for an act in which he had no intent for the ball and delivered a high hit upon a defenceless player that never really saw it coming.
It had a ridiculously high chance of causing serious damage to the player yet he only gets one week. How much of this is due to the Buddy Franklin image, how much of it is goodwill for his legend status, and how much of an influence was the draw card that he is?
Seems like he and other superstars of the game either escape consequences for their actions or get off with what can only be described as the most lenient of punishments.
And then we have Kozzie Pickett and Shane McAdams, I’ve grouped these two incidents together, unlike the AFL, because other than the actual result that occurred I see not much difference between them.
Both players actively chose to commit non-football acts to deliver pain to their opponent and did so in a manner that could’ve seriously injured the other party. Bailey Smith simply hit the deck and got straight back up, thankfully, but as I said during the live coverage of the game, the fortune that Smith was not severely injured due to action does not excuse Pickett in any way shape or form.
The AFL says they won’t take the incident to tribunal and it’s only a two week suspension due to the fact that the consequences weren’t severe. However, if they had been, would a longer suspension have been applied, seeing as Cripps got away with concussing Ah Chee in 2022?
Are we meant to then wait for a serious incident to occur first before then trying to make sure the action that causes that incident is stamped out of the game by use of a strong deterrent?
Shane McAdam received three weeks at tribunal for an extremely similar action, one that had more severe consequences for Jacob Wehr than Pickett’s hit on Smith. And in hilarity, to excuse the differences in treatment of the Pickett and McAdam bumps, the AFL came out at tribunal and said that they found that Pickett’s hit was glancing in terms of the high contact aspect of it.
An opinion and excuse so ludicrous that even Gerard Whateley was chuckling upon hearing it during AFL 360 on Tuesday night. Was this perhaps another case influenced by how much of a household name Pickett is compared to McAdams?
Another season, and another controversy regarding AFL and the player safety protocols the league has in place. Another year of the AFL coming out and telling us that they are maintaining a constant vigilance regarding how to improve the rules and protocols they’ve put in place to protect players and punish those who contravene the rules.
Inevitably, it will be another season where the actions of the AFL completely contradict their words at the very first opportunity.
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!"
Round 5 of the AFL provided plenty of action, from big scorelines to upset wins and pressure starting to build on some clubs and coaches already.
Former great David King has blasted Match Review Officer Michael Christian's decision to not suspend Port Adelaide star Zak Butters for his high bump…
