Brisbane's Nick Robertson clutches his face after an incident involving Richmond's Dustin Martin. Credit:AAP/Julian Smith That memo was sent by Simon Lethlean, who until last week was the AFL football operations manager. Change is not uncommon at the AFL. So which memo should we ignore? The one from the AFL that Damien Hardwick reminded us after the match that said don't "niggle players" with punches in the back or umpires will pay free kicks? Hardwick was right, that memo was ignored. Or is it the mid-season one we ignore that said don't "jumper punch" or punch anyone to the head – no matter how soft – or you will be punished worse than you were in the first half of the year? Punch someone and you will get a week. Or does the match review panel ignore both of those memos and reflect instead on the tribunal decision to let West Coast player Will Schofield off for elbowing Melbourne's Clayton Oliver to the jaw? The tribunal chose to ignore a doctor's report and the fact Oliver went to ground.

Bernie Vince's elbow to Eddie Betts on Saturday night was more reminiscent of Schofield's to Oliver but it would seem that will still be hard to argue contact in that incident was insufficient. Did Robertson take a dive from Martin's hit? Maybe, but his jaw appeared to move, suggesting the contact was more than glancing or incidental. Did it get Robertson in the neck more than the jaw? It doesn't really matter as both are considered high under AFL rules, but the video – from the wrong side admittedly – does appear to show Robertson's jaw move. Robertson went to ground holding his face but he got up quickly and played on untroubled by the blow. Did he go down to milk a free? If the MRP believe that then they should cite him for staging. If they don't think that, they have to charge Martin, unless they can find a way to call it insufficient force – but that is where that pesky mid-season memo about level of contact from punches becomes a problem. Ordinarily when a player is hit off the ball, he should not expect to be punched. That wasn't the case here. Robertson should have expected to be punched. He wanted to be punched.

Robertson had been running around picking fights all day. His role as provocateur was to needle Martin to the point of distraction – the better that he was interested in a scrap than getting the ball because he was having no trouble getting the ball – and to that end he succeeded. Robertson had been punching and elbowing Martin in the back. He kneed him in the thigh and hip at the previous stoppage seemingly trying to cork him (he could or should be cited for that). And only moments earlier he was reported by the umpire on the ground for headbutting Trent Cotchin – softly – in the face after he had already kneed him in the backside. The headbutt to Cotchin was of less force than Martin's punch, but this brings us to the nub of why Martin is in trouble (and Robertson for that matter but he is not the star here) and it is all to do with the level of impact. Not on the player hit but on the viewer watching. The AFL does not like the image of players punching each other in the head. They don't like headbutting. They want the players playing the game. And fair enough. The problem here is that Martin does that. He does go out to play the game, not hit someone. He doesn't pick fights. Is it right that a player is needled to the point of retaliation by an opponent whose sole plan is to irritate him to the point of distraction?

Mitchell the Magnificent, despite loss to Cats Fighting chance: Tom Mitchell showed his indomitable spirit with a superb display in the round 17 loss to the Cats. Credit:Adam Trafford/AFL Media When the game was there to be won, what happened? Tom Mitchell won the clearance. This was a stat that mattered. Not all numbers are the same, this was a number that counted. Mitchell had 50 touches in a game earlier this season and was rightly not regarded – even by his own coach as it transpired – to have been best on ground. The rating of his game did not say he was poor, only that he was not as influential or dominant as raw numbers suggested.

This time there was no doubting Mitchell's influence. He was superb in the three-point loss to the Cats as evidenced not only by his big numbers in the first quarter but by his consequential touches such as that final centre clearance. When the game needed to be won with 20 seconds to go, Mitchell won the clearance. He got it to Jack Gunston, who marked and cut a short kick to Isaac Smith. Smith played on and missed. As his captain Jarryd Roughead noted on TV on Sunday, he had a couple of set shots earlier in the game. Plainly, in retrospect, he would have gone back and taken his kick. Would it have made a difference? The focus on that last kick and the deserved hyperbole and bewilderment at the extraordinary Patty Dangerfield performance meant Mitchell has not been given due credit. This was a game of true impact. For pick 14 and a back-end pick shuffle? Not a bad trade. Pies get the points but lose 'their man' Forward pressure: Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley planned to build an offensive unit around Darcy Moore. Credit:Getty Images

Collingwood had a win on Saturday and a loss on Sunday. The loss might prove more profound than the win. The loss was one that was completely out of their hands and occurred when schoolboy multi-sport prodigy Will Sutherland surprised many by choosing cricket over football. So why is that anything to do with Collingwood? Well Sutherland was the best key forward in this year's draft. He was not the best player in the draft but the best tall forward at least. He was favoured as a top five to 10 pick on talent. Collingwood are plainly in need of another key forward. OK they have a few priorities – a line-breaking defender, another key back and a fast crumbing forward – but key forwards are hardest to find and are normally sourced from high draft picks. Other clubs also want a key forward – Carlton and Richmond for example – but Collingwood presently have a pick that would have been in the right range for Sutherland.

Things can change in the final rounds, but it would be expected Collingwood would finish about where they are and thus have a pick in the five to eight bracket. Carlton's will be earlier than that and Richmond's much later. Collingwood's pick therefore would be about as early as you might have thought Sutherland could go. The Pies were looking at him but must now move. Giants lose their lustre Toppled: Giants Shane Mumford and Steve Johnson after the round 17 loss to the Swans. Credit:Getty Images The Giants were top of the ladder without being convincing. That, paradoxically, was what was supposed to be convincing about them – how good sides found ways to win even when they didn't play well.

The Giants have had an awful number of injuries this year, more than other teams, yet still won close games. But after a win, a couple of draws and two losses the lustre is rubbing off. They have not played well for some time now. Against the Swans one of their problems was brought into acute focus. The ball trampolines out of the Giants' forward line because they have too few players who naturally hunt the man with the ball. They play a forward line of three talls where others use one or two for the simple reason they have three very good talls and any side would play all three talls. Jeremy Cameron was out on Saturday, but he is not defensive as a forward anyway. Rory Lobb and Jon Patton are not defensive. Steve Johnson is not defensive and neither is Dev Smith. Too much therefore falls to Toby Greene. This has not been a huge problem because the Giants' midfield and run from half-back has been so damaging it compensates for the ball coming out of the forward zone.