It's already pretty ridiculous, getting rubbed out for 2 weeks for "potential" to cause injury, when you see some of the other decisions which have actually resulted in injury getting less, and incidents like Pickett in Rd 1 getting the same suspension - you can't say the potential for injury in both was the same if that's how you are judging it.
Joke of a system as it currently is, go back to the old days. Tribunal for all incidents, decision is final, no appeals. Let them use common sense and be able to compare one incident to another in determining suspensions rather than using a set classification system which gives these inconsistencies. Won't happen though.
My 2 cents worth.
Unfortunately the AFL is painting itself into a corner in trying to react to circumstances thrust upon them while still trying to maintain the basic physical nature of the game. They are doing an excellent job of painting themselves in via applying very selective interpretations of the rules and/or policies.
Once upon a time when a shirtfront was legal and biffo was commonplace (although not always justified) tribunals decisions were much easier. The game was physical so unless you clearly were caught doing something wrong (intentional elbow to the head or punch to the head from behind) virtually nothing went to the tribunal. And most of those that did were open shut cases.
Now however the AFL is scared about concussion and other injuries that could lead to it being sued. In today’s legal world they have some fair cause to be cautious. Add to that the negative health issues for young future players getting into the game, which is one reason I believe the AFL introduced the AFLW so quickly. But because the game revolves around physical contact their current approach is to try and apply a filter about what is acceptable and what is not. However the AFL want the players to apply that filter on game day in the heat of the moment, which is almost impossible. You can bump but only like this and even if you do it the wrong way by accident you get time. You can tackle but you can only tackle like this and not like that otherwise you get time.
They then multiple the confusion by using the result of said tackle or bump to filter if a penalty is applied, either in game ie free kick or post game ie report and suspension. This complicated system creates confusion for supporters, clubs and players alike. On Sunday I saw Stengle get a free kick when his opponent applied a dangerous tackle. It was because his head hit the ground (same tackle that he broke his arm but that was not the reason he got the free). Thirty seconds before that Ginbey was involved in a similar tackle but no ones head hit the ground so the umpire called my ball and tossed it up. It is like someone going into the local servo with a gun one night and asking the attendant for all the cash. Attendant says got no cash and the robber says okay and leaves. No crime committed because he got no money? Nothing to see here, move on.
No one is happy but the AFL is taking the moral high ground by saying they are trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, given the position AFL finds itself in, I think this whole process will only get worse not better. Excluding intentional malicious acts, much of the game is based on hard physical contact in an ever increasingly quicker game environment (speed which the AFL actively encouraged). That leaves less time for players to make prudent decisions. However I think the AFL will only increase the rules being introduced and imposed upon the players regarding their in game health to ensure the AFL is legally safe (as much as possible).
One thing (if they don’t already have it) is that there should be some kind of agreement signed by the players, the PA and the AFL acknowledging that players know of the risks involved in playing the game and that if they do decide to play, some kinds of health issues are accepted as a risk they take in playing.
