Historic nine-match ban handed to Carlton midfielder Greg Williams prompted Supreme Court action

90s Cases: Carlton great Greg Williams' nine-match ban for pushing an umpire ended with Supreme Court action.

Williams

THE opening round of the 1997 AFL season saw a fiery clash between Carlton and Essendon.

Several players were either reported or asked by the league to explain their actions after various incidents during the match or at half-time.

But it was a momentary brush of the hand after the final siren that earned a historic nine-match suspension for star Carlton midfielder Greg Williams.

Williams became embroiled in a verbal dispute with Essendon’s Sean Denham, who urged him to look at the scoreboard and called him a “fat c...”.

As Williams reacted, others in the vicinity tried to intervene.

Among them was field umpire Andrew Coates, whom an irate Williams appeared to try to push away.

None of the umpires reported Williams, with Coates offering a clear explanation why, in a letter to the general manager (football operations) shortly after the match on March 31.

"Williams became extremely upset and moved towards ... Denham to remonstrate,” he wrote.

“Whilst trying to persuade Williams not to pursue the matter ... Williams told me to "go away" and simultaneously pushed me in the chest.

“I believe that this was a reflex action and one that was a result of sheer frustration and anger directed at ... Denham.

“Whilst his actions could be construed as interfering with an umpire, at no time did I feel threatened nor, given the above circumstances, that I was interfered with to an extent that would warrant such a serious charge and accordingly no report has been made."

But after an AFL review of the video footage, Williams was charged with unduly interfering with an umpire.

Before Williams had even fronted the tribunal, his manager was flagging court action should he be found guilty.

Only six months earlier another club, Sydney, had successfully argued for a Supreme Court injunction after defender Andrew Dunkley was reported for striking in the days before the Grand Final.

The move meant Dunkley was able to play that week.

The Swans lost the Grand Final and Dunkley was later suspended for the 1997 pre-season competition and the first two matches.

At the Williams tribunal hearing, Coates gave evidence that he did not think the player had unduly interfered with him.

A neuro-psychologist was called and gave the opinion that Coates was outside of Williams’ field of vision and he would not have known it was an umpire.

Williams himself told the tribunal he was fixed on Denham and did not know who he had pushed away.

The tribunal decided Williams had breached the rule, having heard argument that intent was not necessary to prove the charge.

It handed him a nine-week suspension.

Carlton and Williams sought an injunction two days later, and the justice who heard the application had to ask what colors the Blues and Bombers wore.

But he did grant an injunction pending a proper hearing of the case at a later date, allowing Williams to return to the field for Round 2.

The hearing began before Justice John Hedigan on May 13, 1997.

Over three days the court heard evidence about the financial impact of the suspension on Williams and Carlton, with claims the club could lose out on $1.475 million if it missed the Grand Final.

It was also argued that should the suspension stand it would damage Williams’s reputation was “represent a major blot on Williams’s outstanding career”.

Williams himself filed an affidavit outlining the potential effects of the ban, saying he’d struggle to regain a senior spot afterwards because he would lack match -fitness.

His lawyers argued Williams’s contract meant he had legal right to have a tribunal hearing according to the rules.

But a finding that he had unduly interfered with the umpire where there was no evidence to support it, that would breach both natural justice and the contract because it was “unreasonable”.

Justice Hedigan handed down his decision on May 29, 1997.

He concluded that no reasonable tribunal could have found Williams guilty because there was no evidence he had intended to interfere with the umpire.

“It verged on the trivial,” he said.

Despite commending the tribunal for its work generally, Justice Hedigan did call into question the AFL’s tribunal process, which he said offered no “middle stage’ between the tribunal’s decision and an appeal to the Supreme Court.

“The procedures and playing laws have an air of the past,” he said.

He also queried the lack of explanation given by the tribunal for their decisions.

Justice Hedigan acknowledged the concern of the AFL that the case would result in a flood of players challenging suspensions in the courts.

“Speaking only for myself, I would not view with much joy the prospect of routine striking cases being brought to this court,” he said.

“But it is hardly likely to happen.”

He noted the Williams case was an unusual one involving an umpire and a very long suspension.

But the AFL appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal.

In a split 2-1 decision, Justices Clive Tadgell, Ken Hayne and David Ashley restored the suspension.

“The exercise in analysis of the material that the judge so painstakingly undertook was, I must respectfully say, to usurp the Tribunal's task,” Justice Tadgell said.

Justice Hayne agreed.

“I do not accept that it is shown that the Tribunal did misconstrue the rule it was required to consider. Nor do I accept that there was no evidence from which the Tribunal could find that Williams had breached rule 16.9.1,” he said.

Justice Hayne noted in his judgment that football was more than just a game – in the previous year the AFL’s revenue was $74 million.

His judgment explained the role of court was really to settle a contract dispute, and not to review the tribunal’s decision.

”This appeal is not to be determined according to some a priori classification of football as a game, a business, or, as some would have it, a religion,” he said.

“It is not to be determined according to whether "sporting disputes" should be played out in the courts, left on the playing field or decided "in club".

“This appeal was said to turn on what was agreed between Williams, his club (Carlton) and the AFL in the contract that they made in March 1997 for Williams to play football for Carlton.”

The Court of Appeal refused to grant a stay that would have allowed Williams to keep playing while the club sought leave to appeal to the High Court.

They said there was “insufficient” prospect of being granted leave to take the appeal further.

The Williams and Dunkley cases highlighted flaws in the AFL’s processes and saw changes to the way tribunal cases are handled.

The AFL set up an appeals board for the following season, and the entire tribunal system was overhauled for the 2005 season.

One of the architects of the modern tribunal system, former AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson, had appeared as an instructing solicitor in the Dunkley case, representing the player and club.

Media and sports lawyer Justin Quill says tribunal reforms have gone a way towards reducing the number of AFL-related appeals to the courts.

“When people can appeal, they feel like they’ve had a chance for someone to review the initial decision,” Mr Quill told heraldsun.com.au.

“That emotional desire to have someone review the initial decision has been taken care of.

“It’s no longer the case that going to court is the only way to appease the angst of players and clubs who think a decision is wrong.”

He said it was unlikely there would be a court case like the Williams one in modern football.

“Their systems and procedures are tighter and they are more likely to follow the appropriate procedures such as providing players with natural justice,” he says.

Williams’ suspension began officially in round 17 of the 1997 season.

He retired and did not serve out the suspension.