From next year a permanent three-person match review panel will review all reports and, according to a table of set penalties, determine the seriousness of an offence, in what the AFL has described as a bid to improve the ‘transparency, efficiency, consistency and professionalism’ of its judicial structure.
The match review panel will issue set penalties according to a yet-to-be-determined table of offences and sanctions that will categorise and rank the degree of offences. Should a player wish to contest a case, he would stand before what will be a dramatically revamped tribunal.
The new chairman of the tribunal will be responsible only for the running of a hearing, while a three-person jury - which the AFL hopes will mainly feature ‘former AFL participants’ - will determine the result and penalty.
Other sweeping changes made to the system include the authorisation of players and clubs to use legal representation in the tribunal and appeals hearings, the abolishment of victim player representation unless required by the tribunal chairman, improvements to the technology available for reviews and hearings and a more relaxed attitude to criticism of tribunal decisions.
And the appeals system has also been overhauled, meaning it will become a less expensive and probably less frequent exercise. Under the new guidelines, players will have to contest an element of the tribunal's finding rather than simply have a re-hearing.
From 2005 it will cost $5000 to lodge an appeal, compared to the $15,000 sum that deterred the competition's less wealthy clubs from contesting tribunal decisions in the past. $2500 will now be refundable in the case of a successful appeal, compared to $7500 previously.
The changes are the result of an extensive review of the tribunal system, conducted throughout 2004 by a committee comprising of AFL general manager of football operations Adrian Anderson, AFL competition manager Rod Austin, AFL Tribunal secretary Scott Taylor, AFL Appeals Board secretary Roger Berryman, AFL legal and business consultant Jeff Browne and AFL commissioner Mike Fitzpatrick. Each of the 16 clubs was involved in the process.
"Our research has shown that the number of tribunal hearings with a model such as this … should be successful in reducing the number of hearings," Anderson said on Wednesday.
"The model of offering penalties is something that exists in various sports. The way in which we’re proposing to do that most closely approximates the model adopted in the National Rugby League."
"We believe that these changes embody to a large extent what our clubs and players' association are telling us. Clubs and players will never be happy with a system by which their players are suspended ultimately. But what we're aiming to do here is establish a system for the long-term benefit of football."
It is unclear whether former tribunal chairman Brian Collis, QC, is even in the running for the new position. But the AFL said it was eager to involve Collis in some capacity and would seek to involve figures with experience of the former tribunal system.
Although the composition of the three-person match review panel is yet to be decided, it is the AFL's wish that the trio has recent football experience. It is most likely the panel will comprise a former player, a former umpire and a former coach.
The panel members will review every match and will make out the charges accordingly.
Reports laid by umpires during a match or those recommended by umpires' observers, the umpires' director, Anderson or the chief executive officer of an opposing club will all be channelled through the match review panel. And in the case that a charge recommended to the panel is rejected, the panel will make public the reasons why it was not forwarded to the tribunal.
When a charge is laid, players have the choice of pleading guilty and accepting a set penalty according to a table of offences and sanctions, which is yet to be finalised by the AFL. The tribunal also has the flexibility to vary the set sanctions.
A player can also take his case to the tribunal, with the jury to decide the finding and apply a penalty according to the same table of offences and sanctions. The player will contest the charge entirely or seek to reduce the level of the sanction recommended by the match review panel.
The reforms were announced following the annual two-day AFL executive and commission conference held last Sunday and Monday, and a meeting of the 16 club presidents and chief executive officers on Wednesday.
