Zak Jones decision exposes AFL’s stance on gut punches, writes Mark Robinson

THE AFL had the chance to make a huge statement about on-field violence. But it didn’t and now it comes across as hypocritical and hollow, writes MARK ROBINSON.

Sydney's Zak Jones is happy he’s free to play in Round 11. Picture. Phil Hillyard

AFL fans have probably never been more confused with the AFL, the umpires and match review panel after the weekend just gone.

The AFL today stands as weak and hypocritical.

ROBBO: AFL IS LETTING DOWN FOOTY

The match review panel stands as confused and lacking power.

Simon Lethlean last week declared the AFL was clamping down on punches. Picture: AFL Media

And the umpires don’t even give the benefit of doubt to a player playing the ball (Jayden Short) and instead pay a free kick to a player (Josh Green) who thinks he’s playing cricket and is appealing for a free kick despite giving up the contest.

And that’s not even mentioning incorrect disposal, holding the ball, handballs over the back of the head, throws, scoops, deliberate out of bounds, the bounce ... layer upon layer of decision-making which has the coaches most of the time sympathetic to the umpires.

But it is the punch which leaves the AFL most exposed.

In a speech to the nation this time last week, firstly by chief executive Gillon McLachlan and then by head of football Simon Lethlean, the AFL pounced on punching.

McLachlan said: “I don’t like punching in our game and I don’t think it’s the look we want. To the extent if our rules don’t provide for it, we’ll look to change them,” McLachlan said.

Lethlean said: “I don’t like the current practice of on-field punches by players — I’m strong on that view. As of this weekend’s matches, players and clubs are on notice that we won’t tolerate it going forward.’’

Strong words, but then there was no rule change. It might have sounded Churchillian but after the MRP’s verdict on Monday, all of it is hollow.

Sydney’s Zak Jones was fined $1500 for punching Hawthorn’s Luke Breust. The MRP judged the punch as intentional, low and to the body.

The AFL argued the Jones incident and the ones involving Marcus Bontempelli, Heath Grundy and Jack Steven would’ve escaped a penalty if they occurred last week, and they didn’t this week, so they were satisfied with the match review outcomes.

So, kids, you can still throw punches but just make them low impact and you can still throw elbows, such as what Grundy did Luke Hodge, and know you will only get a fine.

Jones should be suspended for one week for stupidity.

His actions have embarrassed the hierarchy at the AFL, but the AFL is partly to blame.

They could’ve made a historic statement last week and change the rules at AFL Commission level, but all they did was stamp their feet, talk tough and encourage the MRP to be tougher under their guidelines.

Then Jones throws a punch and he plays next week.

We can accept that the punch was low impact, but we can’t have a state of the nation address one week and then Jones gets off on a grading system the next.

The image of the game — or the optics as McLachlan likes to say — holds no weight under that system.

Really, is low grading more central to this situation than the images that travelled around Australia of Jones throwing a punch.

What’s more important, AFL?

What message are you sending?

Here was an opportunity to back up the tough talk of the week before and suspend Jones.

But the MRP, under your guidance from last week, baulked and clearly after Jimmy Bartel’s comments in the past two weeks, there is confusion about the MRP’s ability to judge incidents and AFL’s expectation of the MRP.

The Jones punch should not be about impact, it should be about throwing a punch.

Who cares if it’s low impact, who cares if Breust didn’t complain, who cares about the blokes complaining footy is a man’s game and punches the guts are part of the game.

The AFL had to make a tougher stand last week, so Jones would be suspended this week.

The AFL Commission has to immediately ban the punch and change the rules accordingly.

Not only would it further clean up the sport, it would be a powerful statement to the rest of society.

Zak Jones’ blow on Luke Breust. Picture: Channel 7

Where else is punching accepted outside of a ring or octagon?

Who really would campaign to bring punching back to football?

As for the Short decision, the divided football community tells us deliberate or lack of intent to keep the ball in play is a major point of contention.

In the pursuit of more game time and less stoppages, the AFL has abandoned its most fundamental rule: Protect the player playing the ball.

Players waving their arms for a free kick after giving up the contest is not what football is about.