Afl Panel Runs Fine Lines Between Pleasure And Pain

The Age

Tuesday September 16, 2008

Greg Baum

The machinations of the review panel occur within very narrow parameters.

THE match review panel frequently straddled a fine but momentous line in its work, its chairman said on Saturday. Speaking on ABC radio, Andrew McKay said that when considering a serious charge, the panel might, by a small margin, decide not to pursue it, in which case the player would incur no penalty.

But it might decide by an equally small margin to press the charge, in which case the player might find himself suspended for a month or more. The margin between the two positions in the deliberation of the panel might be small, the margin between consequences for the player huge. This is the juror's eternal lot.

Arguably, Justin Koschitzke fell fortuitously on the right side of three fine lines in his dealings with Shane Wakelin on Saturday night.

The first and most obvious was the boundary line. The second was the arbitrary distinction between a vigorous, heavy and extended tackle, and rough conduct. The umpire on the spot, Hayden Kennedy, reported him. With residual points on his record, Koschitzke faced a minimum one-match suspension if the charge proceeded.

Yesterday, the match review panel decided not to pursue it, saying that Koschitzke's action was not unreasonable in the circumstances, "in that his tackle was all in the one motion with Koschitzke holding Wakelin at all times, and was not two separate motions".

It said Koschitzke could not have been aware that Wakelin had disposed of the ball as the tackle was applied, nor that it was not now out of bounds. In other words, the panel concluded that Koschitzke had not set out to hurt Wakelin more than any player seeks to hurt another in a legitimate tackle. He was on the right side of the line.

The third discernible line is the implicit one between an early-season match and a final. At the start of the season, the AFL said it would crack down on dangerous tackles. For a long time, nothing happened. Possibly, this was because the AFL failed to specify what constituted a dangerous tackle.

Tribunal chairman David Jones underscored this when at last, in August, a player was arraigned for rough conduct, to wit, Geelong's Darren Milburn for his tackle on Richmond's Shane Edwards.

"This case illustrates the needs for the AFL to introduce a specific offence for conduct of this nature. This has been done with front-on contact and head-high bumps with success," Jones said. "Whether it's a dangerous tackle or a throw tackle, or what's referred to in rugby league as a spear tackle, but that's a matter for the AFL."

Here was a get-out clause. Milburn's original three-match ban was mitigated to one.

Now there was a rough and ready standard for what constituted rough conduct in a tackle. But comparisons between Milburn's case and Koschitzke's are fair only to a point. The tackles were not identical. Properly, it was the work of the panel to make the distinctions. In the end, Milburn's proceeded to the tribunal, Koschitzke's did not.

Because the deliberations of the panel are not made public, we will never know its thinking, other than the single paragraph released yesterday. But it is hard not to forget that these are

ex-players, judging a player. This is not to imply poor judgement, nor timidity, nor that Koschitzke was guilty.

But it is to recognise realities. Milburn's suspension was served in a round-19 match against Melbourne. Koschitzke's would have been served in a preliminary final. If ever there was to be a crackdown on rough conduct, it would not begin in the finals. A home-and-away match and a final are not one and the same. The line is like the boundary, fine, but clear.

"It was the view of the panel that Koschitzke's action was not considered unreasonable in the circumstances in that his tackle was all in the one motion with Koschitzke holding Wakelin at all times, and was not two separate motions. The player would not have been aware the ball was out of bounds, nor that Wakelin had disposed of the ball during the tackle." -- Match review panel

© 2008 The Age

Back to News Index | Back to Home