Sport Thought: Football's rough justice

When Carlton's Ed Curnow was suspended after round nine for intentionally touching an umpire, it appeared trial by Twitter had prevailed.

That decision capped off eight months of madness that has seen players suspended either by their club or the AFL, or a mixture of both, for a range of reasons that would be as unfamiliar to many former players as a GPS tracking device.

When you run through the list of reasons why players have missed games this season through suspension, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry:

Club-imposed penalties

Circulating an image of a woman without her consent – Nathan Broad (three matches)
Nightclub fracas – Harley Bennell (eight weeks away from club)
Drink-driving – Jordan De Goey (Indefinite suspension, returned to the AFL in round four)
Drinking on pre-season community camp – Luke McDonald (one JLT Community Series match)
Drunk in public place, inappropriate contact with a woman, breaking a curfew – Sam Powell-Pepper (three matches)
Breaching club's alcohol policy and failing to advise the club in a timely fashion – Brad Hill (one match)
Touching Easton Wood's bottom – anonymous fan (one year)*

AFL imposed

Intentional contact with an umpire – Tom Hawkins, Ed Curnow (one match each)
Playing in the VFL when not supposed to as he was suspended – Jack Redpath (one extra match)
Biting – Conor McKenna (three matches)
Tackling – Nic Naitanui (one match)
Kneeing – James Sicily (one match)
Stomping on an opponent's leg – Sicily (one match)
Swearing at opposition player as the runner – Chad Cornes (one match)
Striking – Josh Caddy, Mason Cox, Zaine Cordy, Sam Day, Matthew Leuenberger, Nick Robertson, Lindsay Thomas (one match apiece)
Rough conduct – Robbie Gray, Richard Douglas, Jack Bowes, Lachie Hunter, Jack Graham (one match apiece)
Rough conduct – Lindsay Thomas (three matches)

It shows that the range of misdemeanours that might cause a player to miss games has grown so far beyond the garden variety striking and rough conduct charges that anything is possible.

That's not to say suspensions weren't justified in certain instances and the appalling behaviour of some players in off-field incidents didn't require a response, it's just ... really, do we know what we're trying to achieve here?

If we take on Nietzsche's** advice to "distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful" then we should take little heed of those who express vindictive views on talkback or social media.

And, in particular, dismiss those unthinking souls spewing forth the motherhood statement that all they want is consistency.

Consistency is football's white whale.

Willie Rioli, the Curnow brothers, Hawkins, Dustin Martin, Steve Motlop, Ben Cunnington, Matt Crouch, Steven May, David Swallow and Jack Steven were all charged with touching umpires but a variety of penalties were applied, as I would argue, they should.

And with the code of silence underpinning a variety of AFL policies, it's very difficult for supporters to know whether suspensions are only handed out to players whose alleged transgression is publicly exposed.

Understanding nuances so that each matter is kept in proportion is what the best systems achieve.

However it appears that since Geelong successfully turned around Steve Johnson's career in 2007 when they ostracised him from the club for six weeks after a drunken night, such punishments have become de rigueur for clubs wanting to teach their players a lesson.

And tribunal and MRO decisions now cause such a reaction that some want them to fulfil a social duty as much as a football duty.

Johnson's tale of redemption remains relevant to most clubs more than a decade later with the only variation being whether the length of the suspension imposed is specified and how many parties are involved in negotiating the terms of the punishment.

I accept that missing games may still be the most effective deterrent to individuals who engage in errant behaviour but I suspect no one quite knows now what the hell demands suspension, what weeks should be apportioned to what misdemeanour and what part, if any, the rules of evidence and principles of basic justice should play.

The AFL, lawyers, administrators, social commentators, football commentators, tribunal members, integrity departments, and corporate affairs experts do their best to come up with an acceptable outcome but the reality is the industry can never win when determining penalties for such a variety of issues because the social forces that prevail on them are often hot and unrelenting.

Just this week, the AFL said a score review official should not overturn a goal umpiring decision unless they were satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt", an expression I have never seen used in a media release relating to a club-imposed suspension.

Maybe it should be in order to stare down often ill-informed public opinion.

Otherwise society could reach the point where, as one wag put it when a former player complained to police that a woman allegedly circulated a private video of him without his consent, that she should get three weeks and a tearful media conference.

Perhaps, indeed, we need an AFL sentencing advisory panel. ***

Absurd? Yep, but here's my judgment.

It's all, through no fault of anyone really, out of control.

* Joint suspension from Adelaide Crows and Stadium Management.

** Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher, who should not be confused with David Neitz, the recent Hall of Fame inductee.

*** I'm joking.