Violence in the Australian Football League: Good or Bad?

Abstract

In this chapter, the trend in violence in the Australian Football League (AFL) is examined for the period 2000–2009. We begin with a brief history of the league and the key features of the game. A distinction is made between controlled aggression and unsanctioned violence. The potential effects of both forms of violence on the future of the AFL are discussed along with the responses by the league in terms of programs to increase participation, changes to the laws of the game and their interpretation, and implementation of the tribunal system. Tribunal data for the period 2000–2009 is analyzed to see whether these changes have had any impact on both the level of violence and of attendance.

Appendix: Key Changes to the Laws of the Game [Sources: AFL (various years); Lovett (2011)]

2000

• New definition of “charging” introduced: “A charge means an act of colliding with an opposition player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the player is within 5 m of the football.”

• Players could choose to accept automatic fixed penalties when reported for minor offenses – could plead guilty and receive a monetary penalty for a first offense on any of the following charges: abusive language, disputing a decision, interfering with a player kicking a goal, pinching, spitting, wrestling, shaking the goal post, deliberately kicking the ball into the roof of a stadium or time wasting.

2001

• Given that the AFL’s view is that the Grand Final is the showpiece game of the year and must be decided by skill rather than on-field violence, any player found guilty of a reportable offense in the Grand Final would receive a more severe penalty than if he had been found guilty of a similar offense during the home and away season.

• Any player found guilty of a reportable offense in a home and away or finals match, and subsequently suspended, may not necessarily be allowed to serve that suspension during the preseason competition only.

• Spitting was deleted from the list of charges where a player may take an automatic fine.

2003

• Concern about situations where players bent over the ball are subject to heavy front-on approach by a player intending to bump or tackle. Greater emphasis on protection is given to a player on the ground, preventing any other player sliding into him with his knees.

2004

• A significant change was made to the AFL judicial process with the appointment of the game’s first Video Reports Officer whose role was to review all video footage of incidents forwarded to him to decide if a report should be laid. Previously, this was the task of the umpires officiating in a particular match.

2005

• In November 2004, the AFL Commission approved a new structure for the AFL tribunal designed to promote efficiency, transparency, and certainty (see below).

• Almost all clubs supported significant change to the current system and were overwhelmingly supportive of penalties to be offered before a tribunal hearing.

• Improved efficiency by allowing players to accept the penalties without facing a tribunal hearing.

• Improved transparency and certainty by introducing a publicly available table of offenses.

• The table of offenses is graded according to: whether the offense was intentional, reckless or negligent; whether the impact was severe, high, medium, or low; whether the incident was in play or behind play; and whether the contact was high or to the body.

• All reports (umpire, video reports officer, etc.) would be channeled through a MRP which would review all reports and determine what penalty on an offense a player could accept. Under the previous system, field umpires could make a report on the day of the match or after reviewing the video, and the AFL Investigations Officer could report players after a video review. These reports went straight to the AFL tribunal without reference to any panel.

• A Chairman would control the tribunal hearing while a three-panel jury would determine the guilt or innocence of the player and also decide the length of suspension.

• Players would face a jury of their peers if they chose not to accept the penalty offered by the MRP.

• Reduce damage done to the credibility of the tribunal process by not requiring victim players to attend and give evidence at Tribunal hearings.

• Legal representation is permitted.

• The cost of Appeals Board hearings reduced but an appeal will be restricted to certain grounds. Formerly, the cost of lodging an appeal was $15,000 ($7,500 nonrefundable), now reduced to $5,000 and $2,500, respectively.

• Melees and second and subsequent wrestling fines added to the list of penalties with a set of monetary penalties.

• Rules regarding public comment on tribunal decisions to be refined.

• Updated and improved technology available to the MRP and tribunal.

2006

• The overhaul of the MRP and the AFL tribunal system received great support at the end of its first year (2005) and was fine-tuned on the basis of feedback on its first year of operation.

2007

• Rule 15.4.5 was changed to protect a player from forceful front-on contact when that player had his head down over the ball.

• Under Rule 19.2.2, “intentionally recklessly or negligently bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has his head over the ball” will be a reportable offense and strict sanctions will be applicable.

• The above change was made to provide greater protection for players who are playing the ball and to minimize the likelihood of serious spinal injury.

• There were also stricter interpretations dangerous tackles such as by unnecessarily and dangerously driving an opponent into the ground with their arms pinned.

2008

• The new law relating to bumping a player with his head over the ball and the interpretation for policing dangerous tackles received tremendous support and continued in 2008.

2009

• Introduction of a free kick for misconduct, such as interfering with an injured player – previously players could be reported but a free kick could not be awarded.

• During the season, clubs raised concerns with the increased prevalence of prohibited contact as a tactic before matches and in between quarters. As this tactic is against the current laws and not in the spirit of the game, all umpires were instructed to closely monitor this practice and award free kicks against players who forcefully bump, push, or strike their opponents when the ball is more than 5 m away.