In light of the Sylvia situation, I've felt a need to put thought to page.

Among the oddities of the suspension system is the seeming paradox that exists in the interpretation of football incidents and non-football incidents. What I mean by this binary is: football incidents are misdemeanors occuring through a 'football' act - i.e. tackling, shirtfront... , non-football incidents are the opposite - a punch, elbow, fight, intentional trip...

There is a bizarre tendency for incidents such as punches, elbows and the like to be given one and to the maximum two week suspensions (unless you're Barry Hall). As it is rarely the case that injury is inflicted in such instances, the event is dealt with little seriousness. These are dirty acts.

On the other hand a shirtfront, or very hard tackle will likely gather two weeks automatically garners two weeks and usually more. These incidents can be dirty, but they're more often than not better considered tough.

I'm sure all out there who have played football at a level beyond under-14's will agree with the following. Stuff happens on football fields. But there still exists an appropriate way to behave. It's acceptable for the opposition to give a strong hard tackle to your best player. It's unacceptable for the other teams tagger to punch the best player.

The AFL should be much harsher on dirty acts and slightly more leniant toward tough acts (while retaining an acceptable concern for player welfare). The tribunal should favor Trengove over a Reece Conca type incident. If it is a fair and reasonable action in the play than it has to garner less time - think of the number of times Jarrad Waite has gotten off despite being reckless and hitting people in a way which in no way has any footballing benefit except hurting another player (i.e. Whelan on Hird good, Waite on the entire comp, bad).

Edited March 19, 201214 yr by pitchfork

Butcher cleared.