Clear the Gray zone: Tribunal hearing could weaken new AFL judge on his first ruling

NEW AFL match review officer Michael Christian’s first verdict - on the confusing and controversial bump debate - could be undermined at AFL tribunal, writes Michelangelo Rucci.

New lone AFL match review judge Michael Christian’s first viewing of AFL action this season has delivered his first big test as the league’s judge of reportable incidents. Picture: James Ross

• Why Port has nothign to lose in challenging ban
• Parenthood perfect tonic for Gray after cancer
• New MRP whacks Gray with ban
• West Coast edge Power in thrilling clash

DO it Robbie, do it.

Give the AFL its first test of its new judiciary - and ask what is a player supposed to do in a high-speed collision sport to avoid bumps.

And if Port Adelaide midfielder-forward Robbie Gray did win a tribunal hearing against his one-match ban for the bump on West Coast defender Jeremy McGovern, what becomes of new lone match review judge Michael Christian’s status?

Gray this morning has the chance to put on the agenda - and get an answer from the AFL tribunal - just how far the AFL will hold a player responsible for his actions on the field. When is a bump acceptable? When is it dangerous?

Port Adelaide star Robbie Gray collects West Coast player Jeremy McGovern for the JLT Series on Sunday.

Clearly, Christian - and new AFL football boss Steven Hocking - have declared with the one-match ban on Gray that unintentional contact to an opponent’s head will carry the risk of a suspension. More so if - as noted in West Coast’s medical report with McGovern - a player cannot stay on the field nor return after the bump.

If the tribunal agrees with Christian (and Hocking), the players will be clear on what they are facing this season. Christian, of course, must be consistent with his verdicts. And the players will have to adjust their game or pay a price by suspensions.

But what if the tribunal - a panel of former players - rules in Gray’s favour? Fremantle hero Paul Haselby is the prototype of the former AFL player the league inducts to the tribunal. He ruled on Sunday that Gray’s bump fell short of justifying a ban.

This highlights how a tribunal hearing could easily undermine Christian’s verdict. And then what happens to Christian’s authority and credibility after his first session as the AFL’s new, lone judge of reportable incidents?

This would leave Christian on shaky ground. He would have to re-evaluate his reading of the match review guidelines and reassess how he judges reportable incidents.

Gray has absolutely nothing to lose by challenging Christian’s view at the tribunal.

In a change to the judiciary system, there is no risk of an increased ban. There is the personal benefit of being cleared to play in the premiership-season opener at Adelaide Oval next month. There is the peer gain of giving all of his 800 colleagues across the 18-team league new hope that the bump is still part of the game.

The $10,000 the Port Adelaide Football Club would need to put up at AFL House this morning for a tribunal hearing would be well spent regardless of the outcome.

Christian has a heap to lose by Gray being successful in a tribunal challenge. And so would Hocking as the AFL becomes increasingly vulnerable - and aware - of the exposure the league has to future claims from players who suffer concussions after accidental or intentional bumps.

This is a fascinating test moment for the new process for the AFL tribunal. It is one Gray should take up - and not just for himself.

[e-mail]