When it comes to the broken tribunal and MRP, keep it simple: Graham Cornes

THE tribunal and MRP are an embarrassment to the game and must be dismantled and restructured, says Graham Cornes.

Patrick Dangerfield of the Cats (front left) and Matthew Kreuzer of the Blues (right) are seen after Dangerfield executed a tackled on the ruckman during the Round 19 AFL match between the Carlton Blues and the Geelong Cats at Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, Saturday, July 29, 2017. (AAP Image/Julian Smith) NO ARCHIVING, EDITORIAL USE ONLY

• Roo slams Dangerfield decision
• Why Cats didn’t appeal
• Bone’s beef: Geelong has a lot to lose accepting decision
• Why the Brownlow could be an uncomfortable night

THE AFL’s match review/tribunal system is broken — it has been since 2004.

It is an embarrassment to the game and must be dismantled and restructured to more effectively (and fairly) serve the modern game.

A month ago in the third quarter of a tense round 15 clash between Fremantle and St Kilda in Perth, Fremantle forward Cam McCarthy did what every coach would have demanded of him. He desperately chased down and tackled Saints defender, Sam Gilbert. It was the perfect tackle, as he pinned the arms and turned Gilbert so he did not push him in the back. No free kick.

In an almost identical, but much more publicised incident last week, the AFL’s best footballer, Patrick Dangerfield, tackled Carlton’s star ruckman Matthew Kreuzer, a much bigger man.

Dangerfield appealed for a free kick for illegal disposal but play went on. No free kick.

Incredulously, after his incident was reviewed by the AFL’s controversial Match Review Panel, McCarthy was suspended for two matches. Dangerfield also was “offered” a two-match suspension but his good record and early plea saw the suspension reduced to one week.
The damning fact in both tackles was that Gilbert and Kreuzer were both stunned when their heads hit the ground — but football accidents happen. The fact that a scrupulously fair player like Dangerfield should now be ineligible to win the Brownlow Medal for what was a perfect legal football action defies any sense of football justice.

It highlights just how flawed and unnecessarily complicated the AFL’s tribunal system has become.

Football tribunals and their decisions have always been controversial and subject to criticisms but the AFL tribunal system became a laughing stock in 2004 when it was restructured and a “Match Review Panel” was forced to consider incidents within a ridiculously complicated framework of intent, force and outcome. (What did negligent, reckless or intentional mean anyway?)

It was a farce then and despite significant reforms at the end of the 2014 season, remains a farce.

There was once a time when a footballer could play his whole 300 game career without being reported. In fact, to be reported was a stain on a footballer’s character.

Today, even the most scrupulously fair player will be reported several times and occasionally will be stripped of the game’s highest individual honour, which still demands its winner is both brilliant and fair.

Our old tribunal systems weren’t perfect and could be criticised for inconsistencies but at least they were fair. The football thugs were always found out.

Jimmy Bartel, the champion Geelong Brownlow Medallist is a member of the current Match Review Panel. He seems frustrated by the framework in which he is forced to adjudicate.

He has spoken of “football acts” and non-football acts”. Clearly, a legal tackle that is not penalised by the umpire is a “football act”. Any injury sustained is surely an accident and should not incur a suspension. We all understand that the head is sacrosanct and the AFL is determined to minimise head injuries but it seems ridiculous that if Kreuzer or Gilbert broke their collarbones in the above tackles (an injury that would see them miss more games than concussion) there would have been no suspensions.

Unfortunately, the AFL moves very slowly when it is forced to admit it has got it wrong.

There is a simple solution to this mess. Every game is scrutinised by the multitude of cameras at the ground. Suspicious incidents can still be reviewed by a panel of football judges, who can then assess the degree of severity and intent and whether it was a “football act” or a “non-football act”. Penalties can be assessed on a scale of one to seven. There still be controversy but at least the tribunal will have the flexibility to discern whether the contact and its outcome was accidental. It won’t help Cam McCarthy or Patrick Dangerfield but the solution to this mess can be provided by one word — SIMPLICITY.

Originally published as When it comes to the broken tribunal and MRP, keep it simple: Graham Cornes