Herald Sun footy writer Jon Ralph slams ‘Kangaroo court’ as Brent Harvey escapes reprimand

BRENT Harvey's dramatic victory at the AFL tribunal was a win for the theatre of September and the prospect of an epic final against Sydney.

AFL Tribunal. A happy Brent Harvey leaves the AFL tribunal after being found not guilty and free to play this weekend . Pic: Michael Klein

BRENT Harvey's dramatic victory at the AFL tribunal was a win for the theatre of September and the prospect of an epic preliminary final against Sydney.

Yet in a bizarre night in which AFL officials were handing out opinion on the case on radio as it was actually unfolding, there were few other winners in this saga.

The AFL's own judicial system is a shambles given the total lack of consistency from match review panel to tribunal.

And for the Nate Fyfe precedent to be so quickly abandoned — not to mention a commitment to protection of the head — leaves everyone in a state of utter confusion.

It beggared belief that the AFL, so heavy-handed in its recent warnings about comments before the tribunal, would suggest a reprimand was appropriate literally while the case was underway.

Yet if it seemed impossible to believe Harvey would escape punishment at 5pm, that was before Joel Selwood was allowed to testify.

Harvey cannoned into Selwood during the hotly contested first half. Picture: Channel 7

Plain and simple, Harvey sidestepped what seemed a cut-and-dried suspension because of the testimony of the Geelong captain.

A man maligned by many for his controversial ducking tactics instantly turned into North Melbourne's Patron Saint of Tribunal Testimony.

Selwood and Geelong doctor Chris Bradshaw turned the tribunal case into There Will Be Blood, except it was Selwood in the star turn rather than Daniel Day Lewis.

The Cats skipper described the incident as “slight”, said it barely hurt him and swore he only realised he was cut seconds later when he went to wipe his brow of what he believed to be sweat.

“I wasn't sure if it was sweat or blood. I felt a trickle,” he testified.

That it split him and required four stitches was explained away as a player susceptible to “lacerations” after 14 blood rule incidents in his career.

As prosecutor Jeff Gleeson sarcastically labelled him the league leader of bleeders, he said surely Selwood couldn't claim to know he was more susceptible to nicks and cuts than anyone else?

“I have been told I am, purely because (the cuts) haven't re-formed properly, I have scar tissue behind there,” Selwood replied. And with that, the tribunal jury had their loophole to jump through, as they did after just nine minutes of deliberation.

So what are we to think now if a similar incident occurs on preliminary final weekend after all we have heard about this rule?

After match review panel chairman Mark Fraser said just last month they would adjudicate the Fyfe case in an identical manner?

Harvey was all smiles leaving the tribunal. Picture: Michael Klein

As the penalty was overturned and “Boomer’s” head whipped to the left in disbelief, Roos footy boss Geoff Walsh whispered: “One for the good guys”. He is right in one respect.

We want our best players on the field in finals.

In principle we don't believe accidental head clashes like this should see players miss September games.

But if the AFL institutes a rule and then reinforces it over and over — yet abandons it when the pressure is at its height — what does it do to the credibility of the judiciary?

Mark Evans is the man to reform this judicial system and universally acclaimed for his common sense and footy nous.

But for him to state on SEN: "If Boomer walked away from this with a reprimand, I think everyone would say that's OK, play on," while aware the case was continuing was surely too rash.

At least Harvey gets to play on, with every North Melbourne supporter forever in the debt of a player they booed so heartily just last Friday night.