“This has sort of been the tipping point for me,” Riewoldt told Fox Footy. “I’m confused ... I don’t like it. The Nic Naitanui-Ryan Burton scenario is where it gets really confusing. “Burton comes in and bumps, his alternative is to tackle, he doesn’t tackle ... and it was assessed that he couldn’t reasonably foresee that [Higgins injury] happening. “Well, how is Naitanui in his instance any different? The aftermath of the incident. Credit:AAP

“Either Michael Christian is having an absolute ’mare - he’s having a nightmare, he’s having an absolute shocker - or the rules are wrong. “So [Christian’s] interpretations are OK but the rules are just fundamentally wrong because we can’t end up with those two separate results.” AFL football chief Steve Hocking brought Christian in to replace the match review panel in the off-season in a bid to streamline the league’s disciplinary process. Amon was also concussed but Riewoldt described Naitanui’s action as “a good football tackle” that was a free kick in the back at worst. North's Shaun Higgins falls to the ground after being knocked unconscious by Hawthorn's Ryan Burton.

In explaining why he felt Burton had no case to answer, Christian was at pains to point out that the bump is still alive and well - and legal - in the AFL. But players must execute them correctly. If they do so and an accidental injury occurs that a player couldn’t reasonably foresee then most of the time they won’t have a case to answer. But that doesn’t wash with Riewoldt. “We were told that accidents happen after [Burton] then Naitanui lays a tackle, but now we’re not allowed accidents?’’ an incredulous Riewoldt asked. “I think what we’ve seen this year, the body of work from the MRO and the results that have gone certain ways, I’m just confused. ‘‘We went to a one-man panel to have more consistency ... but what happens if the one man actually just gets a bit confused himself?’’

Goddard said it was “laughable” for players to be expected to compute the height and weight of both themselves and the player they’re about to tackle as a matter of duty care before laying a tackle, as AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson contended at the tribunal on Wednesday night. Loading “What did they say? It was 0.8 of a second he had to think about his height and weight,” Goddard told RSN. “It’s confusing, I’m not sure. I think we all know where they’re trying to take it but I think common sense prevails doesn’t it? You’d like to think so. “It was a good strong tackle and as Nic Nat’s words [said], there was no malice in it – he’s a big guy, but fell into his back, which he got a free kick for and unfortunately [Amon] knocked his head.

“So if there was no head knock, I don’t think he was concussed as such, but if there was no dizziness or whatever, is he fine? It comes back to that - if you’re unlucky or lucky if you hit your head or there’s a slight knock then you’re fine.” Goddard said players were now being asked to think about too much while they’re out on the field and were being pushed into a catch-22 position more and more. “That’s why we still see incidents like this because we’re not thinking like that,” Goddard said of the expectation of players to take duty of opponents’ care into account. “The AFL or the match review panel would argue that you have to but how much more do you want us to think about on a footy field? We shouldn’t be put in that position. “It makes us all look silly at the end of the day, doesn’t it? And then you get guys questioning whether they should just put their head over the ball, or go hard at the ball, because some guys are more courageous and reckless in their ability to be courageous.

“Guys are going to start questioning that, and if a few guys jump out of the way because they’re seriously conscious about hurting someone and then they look silly and then they get berated for jumping out of the way and they didn’t go in and then the experts pipe up and say, ‘They should’ve went then and it was his turn to go and he didn’t’. This is the position we’re being put in as players.” Taylor was equally critical of Naitanui’s suspension, saying that he laid a good aggressive tackle and that the whole concept of ''duty of care'' has no place in footy. “He didn’t have the arms pinned, the ball did spill out in the end, he didn’t sling him. That whole rule was brought in for one reason - not to stop dangerous tackles, it was brought in to stop slinging tackles which is the dangerous one when you’re propelled out of control and can’t help but bang your head,” Taylor told Triple M. “As recently as this year we have had rugby players teaching AFL players how to tackle because they’re the best tacklers ... this duty of care thing does not wash with me in a full-on contact sport and nor should it. “When you sign a contract to play, the duty of care should be thrown out the window upon receiving $900,000 a year – that’s the risk you take. I’ve got a bloody metal knee, I took the risk, I’m not whinging about that was risky and [about] OH&S and I should’ve zigged when I zagged. What a load of crap.

“The game [in 2018] is no different in a physical sense, the coaches keep reminding us, ‘Oh, you’ve got to be tough to play the game today – just as tough as you had to be 20 years ago’, and I agree with that. It’s a tough game.” Murphy didn’t think Naitanui deserved a ban, either. “How would you be as a player? The night before your game you put your head on the pillow and you ask yourself that little question, ‘How will I answer the challenge tomorrow that the game sometimes throws up where the ball bounces in between me and [my opponent]? What do you do? How are you going to be judged?’,” Murphy asked on Fox Footy. “Now they have got this to worry about as well. ‘I’ve still got to get in first. If I don’t, do I bump, do I tackle?’” However, AFL legend Malcolm Blight provided a counter-argument.