Dockers captain Nat Fyfe is tackled by Elliot Yeo, of the Eagles, during the round six derby. Credit:AFL Media/Getty Images Both players were involved in almost identical incidents where they didn't have the ball and an opponent was hanging onto them from behind, their arms wrapped around them. In frustration both threw back an elbow and struck the oponent behind them in the face or head. Both players were found guilty of striking. Both acts were considered careless. Contact in both was made high but in Nankervis' case the force was deemed medium and in Fyfe's it was low. The findings were wrong. The AFL tribunal guidelines for 2017 anticipates the precise type of incident the pair was charged with.

Section 4.2 (a) of the guidelines reads: "If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce." So if someone has their arms wrapped around you in a tackle from behind, even if they are illegally hanging on too long, and you swing an elbow or forearm back at head height where you know they are standing – because their arms are still wrapped around you – it is obvious what will happen next. It doesn't matter if you are not looking at them. Indeed the fact you swung your arm back at that height and did not chop down further suggests you are doing it in the knowledge you expect to strike the head. It's intentional. But that isn't the only bit that slots them into intentional. Read on to section 4.3 (b):

"Notwithstanding any other part of these guidelines, the fact that an act of striking occurred behind the play or off the ball or during a break in play or with a raised forearm or elbow is usually conclusive that the strike was intentional." Could they have been any clearer? Firstly if you throw an elbow back at the head of someone you know is standing right behind you then it is an intentional act. Secondly any strike with the forearm or elbow is usually conclusive evidence of an intentional strike. How did they come up with careless after reading the rules? The MRP didn't decide they didn't strike, they just said they were clumsy. They weren't clumsy. The rules are clear about clumsiness and this wasn't it.

But the MRP's clumsiness was worse. It should not and, under the rules, could not find the Fyfe strike to be low impact … even if it wanted to call it careless. Have a read of 4.3 (b): "Notwithstanding any other part of these guidelines, any careless or intentional strike which is of an inherently dangerous kind and/or where there is a potential to cause serious injury …" Wait for it, this is the crucial bit … "… (such as a strike with a raised elbow or forearm) will usually not be classified as low impact even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved."

Do we need to join the dots? Under the rules they both intentionally elbowed someone in the head. And under the rules if you intentionally elbow someone in he head, or even use your forearm, it can't be graded as low impact. The MRP is condemned by the words it is supposed to govern them.