Why the code of silence is dead Jon Ralph
From: Herald Sun
August 31, 2011 RICHMOND was in a happy place on Monday night. The match review panel had come through and not only had Jake King got off, but so had a pair of key midfielders.
Dustin Martin's sling tackle on Adelaide's Bernie Vince was studied but given the all-clear by the panel, and Bachar Houli's bump on Graham Johncock wasn't even scrutinised.
Then Adelaide got involved.
The Crows version is that during a phone conversation between Phil Harper and AFL official Scott Taylor, the Adelaide football manager mentioned the King hit in passing.
Later that night the AFL called back and told them the MRP was re-opening its findings.
According to Adelaide, they were shocked by the league's response and tried to plead with the league not to review the case.
Officials from the Crows yesterday used words to explain their regret like "shattered'', and "mortified''.
By 9pm the Tigers had not only been notified about the case, they were told King would get two weeks.
The inference was clear - an Adelaide football department dirty about the lack of scrutiny on Richmond players had put it in.
As the Tigers would argue, why would Adelaide be talking to the match review panel or AFL officials if not to bring the case to light?
They could understand a cheap shot behind play being highlighted, but not a regulation tackle caught by half a dozen cameras.
Dobbing. Lagging. Whatever you want to call it, the old-fashioned player code is now dead.
Partly it has come about because of the professional age, and precedents where players including Campbell Brown have been fined for lying about tribunal cases.
But the introduction of medical reports which basically decide cases has also flared tension between clubs.
Melbourne was filthy that Adelaide reported concussion for Patrick Dangerfield from a Jack Trengove sling tackle only days before the Crows star kicked six goals against the Gold Coast.
Dangerfield was legitimately concussed but it shows how easily clubs can be at each other's throats.
As the AFL points, there is no double jeopardy in the King case because he hasn't been tried.
But the match review panel had been given the chance to look at the incident, which somehow fell between the cracks.
Exactly why is a fair question to ask.
But in a culture when tiny advantages have never been more important, there are no beg pardons any more between rival teams.
WHAT THEY SAIDTigers president Gary March said Adelaide's conduct was far from ideal.
"If they did that, it's disappointing. It's not something I imagine we would ever do. If it came from Adelaide raising it, that's disappointing. I don't really think it's in the spirit of the 17 clubs,'' he told the aifHerald Sun.aif
"It's pretty disappointing from a person in football. I know it's not something I would condone.''
AFL spokesman Patrick Keane yesterday said there was no set time on AFL investigations on or off the field.
"Generally we are made aware of all the vision and there can be a couple of late cases on Tuesday or Wednesday but there are also investigations which can run two or three days,'' he said.
"If we are aware of it before the next match is played, we will act on it.''
Adelaide football operations manager Phil Harper yesterday said he had not deliberately alerted the AFL.
"I want to make it clear the Adelaide Football Club did not ask the AFL to investigate the incident or supply any video of the alleged incident,'' he said.
"The incident was mentioned in a discussion with an AFL official late yesterday after the release of the match review panel findings but it was certainly not our intention for any investigation to occur. In fact, we thought it was too late for that.''
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/why-the-code-of-silence-is-dead/story-fn6cisdj-1226126079529
