Does the AFL influence Match Review Panel decisions to promote its agenda?

Source: www.adelaidenow.com.au

Once again an AFL tribunal decision has been based on what damage was done to the player and not the intent of the tackle. The incident I refer to is the Taylor Walker tackle on Harry Taylor during the Adelaide vs. Geelong game on the weekend.

Let’s consider this: both Harry Taylor and Taylor Walker are around the same size, so the strength needed to tackle the other is quite large. To put it another way Stephen Milne would have a problem trying to tackle either player given he is of smaller stature. When a player is instructed to tackle by his coaches, the instruction would be to stop the player disposing the ball legally and hence win the free kick for “holding the ball”. If the tackle is not hard enough the player is likely to be dragged to the bench for failing to obey instructions.

The intent is not to hurt the player but to win possession through obtaining a free kick.

Now the AFL will argue that this is a “sling” tackle. A sling tackle involves lifting the player off the ground and then throwing them to the ground (usually head first) in the tackle motion. This is often used in Rugby League and is quite dangerous. But the tackle from Walker on the weekend did not lift Harry Taylor far off the ground and both players fell to the ground in the tackle.

On the AFL website the determination of the number of matches was: “Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Geelong Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has a bad record of 93.75 demerit points, increasing the penalty to 318.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 239.06 points and a two-match sanction”.

The tackle itself from Taylor Walker was not high, but the contact of Harry Taylor’s head to the ground was. However that contact is covered by the medium impact charge. Thus at least two points can be removed from the charge. This reduces the penalty to 228.75 points and an early plea reduces the penalty by a further 25% to 171.56 points and a one-match suspension with 71.56 carry-over points.

In two other similar incidents on the weekend the AFL Match Review Panel (MRP) deemed the following.

“Contact between Richmond's Robin Nahas and the Sydney Swans' Nick Smith from the third quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Smith has his head down after picking up the ball when he is tackled by Nahas. Nahas applies a tackle, without making high contact, and takes Smith to ground with the forward momentum of the Sydney player. Smith's head makes contact with the ground but it was the view of the panel that Nahas did not use excessive force or drive his opponent into the ground. No further action was taken.”

“Contact between Essendon's Nathan Lovett-Murray and West Coast's Matthew Priddis from the first quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Priddis has collected the ball and is tackled by Lovett-Murray. Lovett-Murray takes Priddis to ground and it was the view of the panel the Essendon player did not sling or drive Priddis into the ground with excessive force with his tackle, and that the pair fell to the ground together. No further action was taken.”

In the Nahas case, given that Nahas is a small forward it is unlikely that he would have the strength to excessively drive someone to the ground. In the Lovett-Murray case the Essendon player did not sling the player, but both players fell to the ground in the act of tackling. So the force of the tackle was great enough to make both players fall to the ground… Just like Walker and Taylor !!

The assessment on each case is subjective in nature and consideration is given to the impact of the alleged infringement on the recipient player. But there is always going to be more damage if a larger stature player allegedly infringes on a smaller player based on power to weight ratio at time of impact.

I think there is an inconsistency between the Lovett-Murray case and the Walker case, so let’s look at it from another angle. Taylor Walker is currently leading the Coleman Medal and Adelaide play finals contenders Carlton and Collingwood in the next two weeks. Removing a goal scoring player from Adelaide’s team would provide more chance of winning to Carlton and Collingwood. The AFL needs both Carlton and Collingwood to play finals to maintain interest and a healthy profit base.

It is probable that both these teams would beat Adelaide, but the AFL wants to provide them with a greater chance and the MRP can manipulate the subjective assessments of the charge accordingly.

Similarly, both Nahas and Lovett-Murray would normally be in the starting line-ups for their teams. Richmond and Essendon play in the Dreamtime clash which the AFL uses as one of its showpiece games each year and would want both sides to have the best possible line-ups available for the clash. Therefore, in applying the subjective measures that apply to video reviews the MRP could easily manipulate their findings to satisfy the agenda of the AFL.

Sound a bit of a stretch … Well the precedent was set when Barry Hall was allowed to play in a Grand Final after blatantly punching another player in the stomach during a Preliminary Final. Hall should have received a one match penalty (at least) for the offence, but because a Grand Final might be missed and there was some public outcry, the AFL decided not to penalise Hall.

In reality the Walker case is not worth a three match penalty, in fact at a stretch a one match penalty is probably more appropriate, but there was no intent to harm Taylor so I would debate that any penalty above a free kick is overkill. The tribunal should be deciding penalties on intent rather than “damage” to the other player. Furthermore, the MRP should be independent of the AFL and not subject to being manipulated by the AFL to achieve its agenda.