Steve Johnson got the right punishment, but he should have been allowed to go to the tribunal and argue his case and lose.
Johnson deserved the right to go to the tribunal to argue his case, and be told the punishment was right, without facing a double penalty.
More Sport Videos
- Video duration
- 02:10
AFL plays of the finals: week one
- Video duration
- 01:03
Scott Lycett may miss 2017 season
- Video duration
- 05:22
FootyFix: Will Hawks and Swans bounce back?
- Video duration
- 01:31
Crows end Roos' season
- Video duration
- 00:34
The best niggle from Swans v Giants
- Video duration
- 01:30
Bulldogs fight home over Eagles
- Video duration
- 01:30
Cats edge Hawks in thriller
AFL plays of the finals: week one
Sons of the West win big in the West, Hawthorn and Geelong play out yet another classic, GWS have giant win over their cross-town rivals and Eddie Betts' brilliance is breathtaking.
The forward provocateur will miss the preliminary final. He does not deserve to miss a grand final, too, for having his case examined in a tribunal before missing the second-biggest match in any football season.
True, that is a minor corruption of the system because Johnson has been suspended for two matches and offered a discount to one match if he pleads guilty. It is not a one-match ban that doubles to two if he challenges the finding. It is a subtle difference for in essence it is treated popularly as tantamount to the same thing.
The AFL should change their rules and acknowledge that in September – and October – everything is different. It is a new season and the rules should reflect that.
The AFL already does this to an extent by imposing double penalties for offences committed in the grand final. This is to create a disincentive for brawling and violence in the most important game of the year, but it still establishes the principal that finals are different with the judiciary.
The AFL should now go further and recognise this in their treatment of all MRP cases in September. Maybe all finals MRP cases should be direct tribunal referrals.
In players' eyes missing one final is far worse than missing several home-and-away games, so the penalties are disproportionate.
No one would reasonably argue that what Johnson did warranted him missing a preliminary final and a grand final. So he should not risk that level of penalty in order to at least be able to argue his case. Or if not the Johnson case, anyone else in this sticky finals position should be allowed to argue thier case.
It matters not that Johnson should then lose his tribunal hearing.
These are words seldom said, so we will say them again here: the Match Review Panel got it right. I know it sounds weird doesn't it? But they got it right. What Johnson did deserved one match.
It was not intentional but it was not wholly unintentional either. He wanted to bump Kennedy and he did bump Kennedy. He had options, Kennedy didn't have the ball and did not necessarily expect the contact. He was putting body pressure on but in so doing he plainly caught Kennedy high. You can't do that, it is well established that if you bump and catch someone high you are guilty of rough conduct.
The Swans player went off for a concussion test not a shoulder, breast or chest examination, but a test of how much his head was rattled. But then he came back on. The fact that when he came back on he looked a shadow of the player he normally is cannot be entered as evidence because the doctors cleared him to play.
Johnson would necessarily have to argue that the impact deserved to be considered low not medium. That is an arguable case, or rather a case worth arguing, because there is a prescriptive time a player must be off the ground to be assessed so the fact he was off for 15 minutes. That he was off for more than half a quarter is not then relevant – no one had choice in the matter.
Johnson should be given the right to argue his case ... and lose.
At least he would have had his chance to argue a reasonable arguable point without jeopardising what is a far greater penalty – a grand final.
And where is the harm? The AFL has a night of drama in the tribunal that only creates further intrigue in the finals plot.