Tweet
This is why the AFL needs to introduce the send-off rule. The Laws of Football already have this rule, but it is at the discretion of each league whether they have it. The AFL doesn't. The AFL should introduce it after gaining agreement from the clubs. I have discussed this before so I won't go into more detail here.
That's probably going too far. Another way is possible. I would be in favour of making the perpetrators legally and personally liable for their misconduct. Perpetrators would reconsider wilful misconduct if their misconduct forced an opponent to retire, they got sued, and they were forced to pay their victims a big compensation settlement. That settlement would be coming straight out of the salary cap of the club. That would force such perpetrators out of the game. How likely is this? Not very; only one or two incidents occur each year that would be deemed wilful and most of them would not force an opponent to retire.
I can see legal action from victims against perpetrators as being the next change. Leigh Matthews was charged with assault for an on-field incident because the (then) VFL didn't use video footage as evidence. The VFL changed the Tribunal rules to allow it. Bad decisions could not be appealed so a player took it to court. The AFL introduced the Appeals Tribunal. Other examples that forced a change include Greg Williams getting nine weeks for umpire contact, Dunkley's late Tribunal hearing before the 1996 Grand Final. Another one that may force a change is Bedford (GWS) waiting 12 days for a Tribunal hearing because the Tribunal panel took a week off. The AFL needs to review its Tribunal processes and may need to change the Laws of Football as well, to clarify what is a reportable incident.
Finally, the Maynard decision was wrong IMO. Jumping into the air was not a legitimate attempt to smother the ball. Brayshaw was not kicking the ball with a foot growing out of his head.
That's probably going too far. Another way is possible. I would be in favour of making the perpetrators legally and personally liable for their misconduct. Perpetrators would reconsider wilful misconduct if their misconduct forced an opponent to retire, they got sued, and they were forced to pay their victims a big compensation settlement. That settlement would be coming straight out of the salary cap of the club. That would force such perpetrators out of the game. How likely is this? Not very; only one or two incidents occur each year that would be deemed wilful and most of them would not force an opponent to retire.
I can see legal action from victims against perpetrators as being the next change. Leigh Matthews was charged with assault for an on-field incident because the (then) VFL didn't use video footage as evidence. The VFL changed the Tribunal rules to allow it. Bad decisions could not be appealed so a player took it to court. The AFL introduced the Appeals Tribunal. Other examples that forced a change include Greg Williams getting nine weeks for umpire contact, Dunkley's late Tribunal hearing before the 1996 Grand Final. Another one that may force a change is Bedford (GWS) waiting 12 days for a Tribunal hearing because the Tribunal panel took a week off. The AFL needs to review its Tribunal processes and may need to change the Laws of Football as well, to clarify what is a reportable incident.
Finally, the Maynard decision was wrong IMO. Jumping into the air was not a legitimate attempt to smother the ball. Brayshaw was not kicking the ball with a foot growing out of his head.
Comment