The legal terms such as ‘negligent’, ‘reckless’ and ‘intentional’ that form the framework of the tribunal system would be laughable, to my mind, if their consequences weren’t so serious. This is because the act of taking the field in an AFL game requires you to be all of the above: reckless, negligent, and intent enough to commit to a contest without regard for your own safety.
The consistency with which we are suspending players on these grounds has become an alarming trend.
From the comfort of the commentary box it’s very easy to forget the incredible duress that players are under at any given moment in the game, and the same goes for the match review panel. Do they consider the lung-burning, gut-busting pain and physical stress that comes with competing at this level when handing down their penalties?
Slowing incidents down, watching them frame by frame on the tribunal monitor and casually discussing the merits of reasonable force, alternative options and negligent contact are often a world away from the chaos of actually playing AFL.
A few years ago, Mumford was 25 kilos overweight; the only reckless thing he was being accused of was eating 16 sausages in one sitting. Fast-track to today: the main reason that Mumford finds himself in Sydney on a four-year, million-dollar-plus deal is because he is one of the few ruckmen in the competition capable of laying the type of tackle on Ablett that now has him missing the next two weeks.
The Big Mummy’s eight-tackle game on the weekend against his old side is exactly the way that Paul Roos wants him to play. In fact, it’s possible that Mumford will be back in Bunyip sooner rather than later if he fails to tackle with the same intensity as he showed on the weekend.
Sometimes players need to be protected from themselves and from their own bravery. The AFL has been ahead of its time in protecting players from injury, and a big part of this is suspending those who play outside the rules of the game. They correctly outlawed the double-action tackle that pins an opponent’s arms and dangerously drives his head into the ground. But having looked at the Mumford tackle a number of times, I strongly feel that it doesn’t fall into this category.
It’s impossible to measure the end-cost of a one or two-week suspension to a key player - but it shouldn’t be taken flippantly. Losing Mumford for two weeks has the potential to derail the Sydney Swans’ whole season. With Mark Seaby out injured, they now face the Western Bulldogs and Fremantle without a ruckman. It could mean the difference between making the finals or missing out!
In 2003/2004 I found myself at the tribunal three times in quick succession. I was found not guilty of striking Shane Woewodin and Darren Jolly, and I was let off for making negligent contact with an umpire.
On each occasion, my ability to defend myself was enhanced by insisting that the incident be reviewed in real time rather than frame by frame. I was innocent on all three occasions, but the opportunity to stand up in front of the tribunal and describe the split-second, chaotic nature of the game helped my cause.
I was strutting around at the time thinking I was David Galbally QC. The tribunal chairman, Neil Busse, sent the club a message to the effect that he’d had just about enough of me and that it was in my best interest not to be there again anytime soon.
Rule 8.24 (d) states that if there is doubt surrounding a goal umpiring decision, the umpire will always apply the lesser score. It is another of the nuances of the game that I had never heard of until this week.
I wish the match review panel would follow a similar rule. I’d call it the Mumford Rule. If a member of the panel is in doubt on whether to suspend a player on the basis of a technical legal charge - such as ‘negligence’ - then he/she should defer to the lesser charge or the alternative of finding the player not guilty.
The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.
