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.
penguin
Roar Rookie
Great article. Well argued. The true test is whether it is a "non-football" act. All of them should be banned. But the dinosaurs don't see it, and the AFL will pay millions because of their failure to deal with what is such an obvious problem by properly and effectively banning the bump and "non-football" contact. They are truly a head-in-the-sand organisation when it comes to reading the room, who similarly didn't deal with the overt racism/ bullying to Adam Goodes in 2014/15, and still haven't to this day. Maybe it's an old white man problem, says this old white man.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
The problem is the concept of 'intentional' seems to only get applied to a full on punch to the head (think B.Hall, A.Gaff). Whereas the assaults launched by Pickett and McAdam can only be considered reckless and not intentional...........seemingly. To me though - the moment a guy launches like a missile then his action is very deliberate and intentional - - jumping off the ground is very, very intentional because the accepted approach is to go lower at the body and avoid high contact. It's where the 'intentional' seems more related to the contact/impact rather than the action that resulted in the impact.
Pravin Manivannan
Roar Rookie
I’m fully aware that Cripps was initially cited and suspended for his actions, I was merely questioning whether the subsequent overturning on procedural standpoints would’ve occurred if let’s say the roles had been reversed between Ah Chee and Cripps? How much did Cripps’ status as a front runner for the Brownlow incentivise the AFL to bring up something so irrelevant in order to supercede what everyone including themselves admitted was an aggregious action? And I agree that the issue stems around the punishment procedures and how open to interpretation the system currently is, and how it’s all down to one man’s interpretation; but that’s part of the AFL and what they’ve done regarding the issue not separate from the AFL. They’re the ones who have created the entire system and certain positions and limitations around punishments. Why isn’t there a separate standard for non-football acts? Why hasn’t the AFL made that delineation and tried to stamp out such acts with larger deterrents, personally I think non-football acts that make contact with a players head and carry the risk of injury should start at 4 weeks and go up from there by how severe the action was and how high the risk of injury was. But regardless of my solution, why has the AFL who every year grandstand about doing something serious, simply not done anything? Where is the equal treatment of players, and the severe treatment of non-football acts that endanger a players health and safety irresponsibly?
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
The problem we have here is that there's several forces at play and you're just attacking "the AFL". You seem to forget that Cripps WAS originally sanctioned at it took Carlton bringing the QC's/KC's online to turn it into a courtroom farce.......because - seriously - if a player wants to push a 'procedural' legal fairness argument then let the full legal system come into play and charge the player with assault. The BIGGEST issue is the MRO - Michael Christian - he arguably should have sent all three to the tribunal. IF I were the AFL Football director then I'd be at Christian's door asking what's going on. At very, very least Pickett also; and not just McAdam. Franklin I have sympathy for - he was trying to bulldoze his pathway to the ball but failed - like he did repeatedly in 2009/10 - to lower his body.....the problem of being a tall guy. Of course.........the last bloke in that role is now coaching Essendon - and Gill is still looking for his replacement; so continuity of management is perhaps an issue here. However - - the AFL Commission needs to be at the forefront on this. The AFL - and THIS is where you can attack them - have a penalties matrix based on interpretations (intentional/reckless) and severity of impact. Let's just get serious on the fact that any non-football action of contact to the head is likely to cause injury and only luck separates some incidents. And.............jumping off the ground to shoulder charge the player should be regarded a non football act......attempt the smother or tackle.......but jumping into a bloke is not on.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Pickets and McAdam are both "household names". Both were suspended. The AFL is serious about this.