||This article needs to be updated. (September 2015)|
- 1 Points system
- 2 Administration
- 3 History
- 4 References
Source: AFL Tribunal 2011 Guidebook  Prior to 2005, any player who was reported would face a hearing at the AFL Tribunal. This process had become problematic, and in 2005, a new system (similar to that used by the NRL Judiciary at the time) was adopted. The changes were primarily made to reduce the number of tribunal hearings, and to improve the consistency of penalties.
The current tribunal process is as follows:
Match Review Panel
On-field umpires and certain off-field observers can report players for incidents which occur during games. On the Monday after the round of football, each incident is then reviewed by the Match Review Panel, a small panel of former players and umpires. Within the review, the Match Review Panel grades the severity of the incident in three factors, and awards activation points depending upon the severity. The three factors are:
The activation points from all three categories are added together to give the total activation points for the incident. It is important to note that an incident involving accidental/incidental conduct, or negligible impact, will be rejected and the player will receive no penalty, even if the activation points in the other categories are high. Because of this, any offence must rate at least three activation points to be considered further.
Next, activation points are converted into an offence level:
Next, the player is given a number of base demerit points, based on the type and level of his offence. The base demerit point totals are standardised in the Table of Offences. As an example, any player charged by the Match Review Panel with a Level 4 Kicking offence receives 550 base demerit points. This is where the Match Review Panel's role in the Tribunal process ends.
Following the Match Review Panel's findings, a player's base points are subjected to a series of additions and deductions (which are described in the next section) to arrive at a number of total demerit points. Each 100 total demerit points that a player finishes with then corresponds to a suspension for one match; e.g. a player who finished with 225 demerit points will receive a two-match suspension. If a player finishes with fewer than 100 demerit points, he is not suspended, but receives what is known as a reprimand.
Because the penalty is standardised and pre-announced by the Match Review Panel, the player has the option to plead guilty to the charge and receive his penalty without the need to attend a Tribunal hearing; he receives a deduction for doing this (see next section). Alternatively, a player may choose to appeal the findings of the Match Review Panel, and attend a Tribunal hearing to argue the case. Players may appeal to try to have their entire charge withdrawn, or may argue for a reduction in one of the three factors; e.g. a player could try to have the conduct factor reduced from reckless to negligent. Should a player successfully reduce the severity of his infraction, the penalty is re-evaluated and the player is again given the choice to plead guilty or further contest the revised charge.
If an incident is ungraded (i.e. has nine activation points), the player is required to attend a tribunal hearing.
Residuals, additions and deductions
Residuals (also called carry-over points) are any points a player may still have below the 100 required for a suspension. For every 100 points accrued, the player is suspended one week and the 100 points are subtracted; e.g., a player with 225 demerit points is suspended for two weeks; 200 points are correspondingly subtracted, and the remaining 25 are residual points; or, if a player receives a reprimand with 93.75 points, all of these points are residual as they are not enough to draw a suspension. Residual points from a previous offence will be added to the base demerit points of the player's next offence if it occurs within one year; a player's residual points are cancelled if a year elapses without a punishable offence.
A player with prior suspensions over the past two years is subject to an additional penalty known as loading. For each week in excess of two that a player has been suspended over the past two years, he receives an additional penalty of 10% of the current offence's original base score, up to a maximum penalty of 50%; e.g. a player suspended for three matches will receive a 10% loading, while one suspended for seven matches will receive a 50% loading. (Prior to 2013, the relevant period was three years, and loading began with the first match suspended.)
Any player with more than six years (increased in 2013, previously five years) experience who has not been found guilty of a punishable offence over the previous five years receives a 25% deduction.
Any reportable offence that occurs during a Grand Final match will receive an addition called the double penalty: equal to the offence's original base score as determined by the Match Review Panel. This addition is applied after the additions and deductions previously mentioned. This loading is meant to discourage excessively rough play encouraged because any penalties given as a result would not apply until the following season. A rough fight in the 2004 AFL Grand Final between Alastair Lynch and Darryl Wakelin resulted in the Tribunal handing down stiff penalties and adding the double penalty rule.
Finally, players will receive a 25% deduction by accepting the Match Review Panel's finding without contest; this is typically known as an early guilty plea. As a result of this rule, players are often faced with the option of accepting a shorter suspension with an early plea, or contesting the charge and risking a longer suspension if unsuccessful. Note that if a player contests the match review panel's assessment at the Tribunal, and successfully has the number of base demerit points changed, the penalty is re-evaluated, meaning the player, in spite of attending a hearing, can still take an early guilty plea on the revised charge.
The final offence score is thus calculated from this series of discrete steps:
- Residual (from prior offence(s))
- Base Score (from Match Review Panel)
- Loading (for poor record)
- Good Record Deduction
- Double Penalty (for a Grand Final offence)
- Early Guilty Plea Deduction
Each addition or deduction is made to the final result of the previous calculation step.
Offences attracting financial penalties
The Match Review Panel also assesses a variety of offences for which players are fined but not suspended, including wrestling, negligent contact with an umpire, making an obscene gesture, etc. As for physical offences, there is a standardised table of penalties, which depend upon the nature of the offence, and any prior similar offences; e.g. a player's second wrestling offence attracts double the penalty of his first. As for physical offences, a player can accept his penalty with an early guilty plea, receiving a 25% reduction in his fine, or he may contest it and risk the full penalty.
If a player wishes to appeal against a decision handed down in a tribunal hearing, he may take his case to the AFL Appeals Board. The board will re-hear the case, with a different set of panel members, and may uphold or change the Tribunal's original decision. The Appeals Board was established in 1998 following a recommendation from Justice John Hedigan of the Supreme Court of Victoria, after several tribunal findings were appealed through the Victorian court system during the mid-1990s.
As of May 2011, under the official AFL Deregistration Policy, any player who accumulates a total of at least 10 weeks of suspensions over the course of his football career (both inside and outside the AFL) receives a formal notice that further suspensions can result in his automatic deregistration from the league. Any player who accumulates a total of at least 16 weeks of suspensions over the course of his career will be automatically deregistered from the AFL and barred from any further participation. Any previous suspensions within the AFL are carried over at only half their original length (e.g. a previous suspension of four weeks will only count as two weeks under this policy), but any immediate suspension is to be considered at its full length. If a player receives an immediate first suspension of at least 16 weeks, deregistration is left to the discretion of the League.
A deregistered player may apply for an exemption to re-register or appeal the deregistration under the appropriate laws of the league. However, only one request can be made. Should a player be exempted and re-registered, any further suspension will result in permanent, irrevocable deregistation.
- Chairman: David Jones (replacing Brian Collis)
AFL Appeals Board
AFL Grievance Tribunal
- Chairman: Jack Rush QC
AFL Match Review Panel
- Former Members
- Andrew McKay (chairman) (2007–2010)
Since the overhaul, the heaviest suspension for a single offence has been an eight-week suspension handed out to Fremantle's Dean Solomon for elbowing Geelong's Cameron Ling in round 15 of the 2008 season.
In Round 4, 2008 Barry Hall of the Sydney Swans was suspended for seven matches after striking West Coast's Brent Staker. In 2007, Steven Baker of St Kilda was suspended for seven matches for rough conduct on Jeff Farmer (although the base suspension was only four weeks, with residual points and a significant loading due to his poor record his penalty increased to seven).
In June 2010, St Kilda's Steven Baker was suspended for a total of nine weeks after he pleaded guilty to three striking charges and was found guilty of a misconduct charge, all against Geelong's Steve Johnson. He was the first person to be charged with misconduct for interfering with an injured opponent.
In June 2017, the AFL challenged the tribunal's verdict for the first time in history, following an off-the-ball incident involving Richmond player Bachar Houli and Carlton's Jed Lamb. Houli was originally given a two-week suspension for striking Lamb during the first quarter of the Round 14 match at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Houli was reported for the incident, which saw Lamb sit out the remainder of the match, and sent straight to the tribunal the following day. When his case went before the tribunal that week, he was given the two-week suspension, but part of the reason the penalty was low was due to controversial character reference statements given by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and media personality Waleed Aly. Following an announcement of the penalty, there was a public outcry about the length of the suspension. The following day the AFL announced they'd challenge the decision and the matter would be heard in front of the appeals tribunal. Following an extensive review hearing, Houli's suspension was doubled from two weeks to four weeks.
Qualification - 20 matches
|Fred Rutley||2 × Kicking, 3 × Striking, Melee involvement||1925||892||North Melbourne|
|Bert Franks||Abusing and threatening umpire||1910||332||South Melbourne|
|Percy Sheehan||Striking and melee involvement||1910||28||Carlton|
|Jack Shorten||Striking and melee involvement||1910||28||Collingwood|
|Arthur Coghlan||Striking and melee involvement||1925||26||Geelong|
|Stan Thomas||Elbowing, striking and melee involvement||1925||26||Geelong|
|Dan Keily||Sustained abuse of umpire||1917||24||Carlton|
|Arthur Ford||Abusing and threatening umpire||1910||23||Carlton|
|Ben Cousins||Bringing the game into disrepute||2007||223||n/a3|
|Tom Baxter||Striking and melee involvement||1910||211||Collingwood|
|Ted Whitfield||Attempting to strike umpire, Abusing umpire, 2 × Misconduct||1945||21||South Melbourne|
|Dick Condon||Sustained abuse of umpire||1900||202||Collingwood|
|Billy Gent||3 × Striking||1904||20||South Melbourne|
|Peter Reville||3 × striking||1934||20||South Melbourne|
|Phil Carman||Striking and headbutting umpire||1980||20||Essendon|
|Chris Appleton||Gambling on AFL matches||2010||20||Goal umpire|
|Wayne Siekman||Gambling on AFL matches||2010||20||Interchange steward|
|John Wise||Gambling on AFL matches||2010||20||Interchange steward|
1 Baxter was later exonerated on appeal due to mistaken identity.
2 Prior to 1926, some players found guilty of serious offences were given a lifetime suspension, but in each case the penalty was later commuted.
3 Cousins was suspended for a period of twelve months for "bringing the game into disrepute", equating to 22 matches. His old club, West Coast, had deregistered him prior to his suspension, meaning he was not officially listed as a player at the time of his suspension.
One noteworthy suspension administered by the VFL Tribunal was that of John Bourke of the Collingwood Reserves team. In an outburst broadcast on Australian television on 4 May 1985, he kicked Sydney Swans ruckman Patrick Foy in the groin in response to Foy tagging him throughout the game. When umpire Phil Waight attempted to send Burke off for the incident, a visibly-upset Burke shoved him to the ground, pushed other umpires, struck his team's runner, and then jumped into the stands to attack a Swans fan. The Tribunal suspended him for 10 years plus 16 games (later commuted to seven years). This suspension is not listed above because he was not a member of a Senior team, but it remains one of the most infamous suspensions in the modern history of the sport: covered by Australian news for some time afterward.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 September 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-29.
- "The Supreme Court Hearing". Archived from the original on 19 February 2011. Retrieved 30 August 2011.
- "AFL National Deregistration Policy, May 2011". Retrieved 30 March 2013.
- "Steven Baker suspended for seven weeks". Herald Sun. 21 August 2007.
- Paton, Al (29 June 2010) St Kilda's Steven Baker rubbed out for nine weeks after misconduct appeal fails at tribunal; Herald Sun
- Matthews, Bruce (29 June 2010) Saint Nick's rule traps Steven Baker; Herald Sun
- on YouTube