AFL boss Andrew Dillon says the tribunal system is working correctly to protect players’ safety despite a pair of suspensions sparking outrage from current and former players.
Dillon said the league would look at whether its match review “matrix” was still fit for purpose but suggested he was reluctant to change how incidents were graded by the MRO.
It comes as the AFL appeals board prepares to sit for the second week in a row when Brisbane and GWS challenge the three-match bans handed to their respective forwards Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford at the tribunal.
Lions star Cameron was unsuccessful in overturning his rough conduct charge against West Coast co-captain Liam Duggan, while Bedford failed to downgrade his ban for a tackle on Richmond’s Tim Taranto.
The tackled players were concussed in both incidents.
Former Sydney captain Jude Bolton was among a raft of past players who expressed concern over the suspensions, calling the tribunal decisions “ridiculous”.
“Can’t stand the way things are going in the AFL … both (Cameron and Bedford) received a grading of careless (conduct), severe (impact) and high (contact) from the AFL, which is just not right,” Bolton wrote on X.
Collingwood great Mick McGuane said the tribunal had “lost the plot” and urged the Lions and Giants to challenge the sanctions.
“The AFL (is) just jumping at shadows. The fabric of our game is being tested,” he posted on X.
In Perth for the AFL club chief executives’ conference on Wednesday, Dillon insisted the tribunal system was still working as intended.
“Our tribunal system is based on prioritising the health and safety of our players – so that’s the number one, two and three priority for the system,” he said.
“Last year we had 35 dangerous tackles graded by the MRO and the tribunal.
“As we sit here more than two thirds of the way through the season, we’ve got – including the two that are going to be appealed this week – only 11 (dangerous) tackles.”
Dillon said it showed players had adapted to the increasing demands of the league’s disciplinary system, but said the grading matrix used by match review officer Michael Christian would be reviewed.
“We review the tribunal guidelines each year, and the matrix is something we continue to look at,” he said.
“It’s a system that’s been in place since about 2004, so it’s been in place and served the game well for a long time.”
Bedford’s teammate and captain Toby Greene told Fox Footy he could understand a one-week ban for the forward but the three-match sentence was “overstepping the mark”.
“When I first saw it, I was standing next to (Richmond defender) Nathan Broad and having a discussion about it,” Greene said.
“We saw the replay and thought if Tim’s concussed then they might give it a week and then you’d probably challenge it.
“‘Once he got three weeks, it doesn’t seem right to me. He’s making a legitimate play. I feel like this is overstepping the mark.
“This is a tackle that you’re going to see in AFL footy for the next 50 years. If you eradicate this, you’re just going to have to tackle standing up.”
Leave a Reply