Schwab canvasses tribunal overhaul
Greg Denham
The Australian
August 03, 2005
A SIGNIFICANT overhaul of the tribunal system has been recommended by match review panel chairman Peter Schwab, less than 12 months since it was last revamped.
In a league document written by Schwab and addressed to club football managers last month, the former Hawthorn coach points out several weaknesses in the controversial system designed by AFL general manager of football operations Adrian Anderson.
The document, leaked this week to The Australian, is critical of the rigid structure and guidelines that the three-member match review panel has to work within.
It notes:
* Conduct (intentional, reckless or negligent) is difficult to assess.
* The system is harsh on prior offenders.
* The system is harsh on behind-the-play incidents, however minor.
* Jumper punches are becoming more prevalent and closer to disguised strikes.
In his initial look at the match review panel's role in the new system, Schwab has called on a review of its workings.
"The input from all AFL clubs as well as our own internal review at the AFL is paramount to improving the system," Schwab says.
Schwab's document mirrors what most clubs have been saying since the introduction of the new tribunal this year.
Clubs are concerned with the inconsistencies and anomalies the system has thrown up. One area of concern is the panel's judgment call on the definitions of either intentional, reckless or negligent conduct, based on the assertions of a player's motive.
It appears that both the clubs and the review panel want to revisit the definitions introduced by Anderson.
Clubs believe some players with previous tribunal records are treated too severely under the formula.
"The percentage increase for prior convictions is a bit high and perhaps they could start on a lower base, say 5 per cent, and work upwards," one club said.
Presently, a guilty tribunal record in the previous three years carries an automatic additional burden depending on the number of matches a player was suspended for. One match equates to a 10 per cent increase, two matches carries a 20 per cent increase of the base points, and a 30 per cent increase is automatic for a sentence of three or more matches.
And clubs insist that reportable offences that carry a monetary sanction, such as melees, wrestling, negligent contact with an umpire, disputing a decision, time wasting and shaking a goal post, should not be a blemish on a player's otherwise clean record.
Collingwood and West Coast have been outspoken on the harshness of the system on minor incidents behind play.
"Lower-end incidents behind the play carry too much weight in determining penalties," one club source said yesterday. "In a case of low impact to the body where no damage is done, the extra levy should not apply."
While the AFL executive has acknowledged some aspects of the new system would be reviewed at the end of the season, it has never been specific on the controversial issues relating to its match review panel categories.
Chief executive Andrew Demetriou said recently the system would be reviewed at the end of the year. His main concern was a need to address the rule that has allowed players to contest charges and still receive a reduction in their penalty by pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
"We have always said there will be things about this tribunal in year one that we will learn from," Demetriou said. "The time to rectify those things and to improve on them is at the end of the season. I have no doubt in 2006 it will be a better tribunal system than it is this year."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16134112%255E36035,00.html
