The AFL’s changes to its judicial system will prove confusing at first, but at first glance will calm a building wave of criticism regarding how the league doles out justice.

A Thursday afternoon press conference, smack bang in the middle of the first session of a season-shaping Ashes Test, invites pangs of cynicism. The AFL has a reputation of a burrier of bad news, and when it became clear what the subject matter of yesterday’s press briefing was, the mind automatically drifted to that usual place.

Such fears were misplaced. In his first real act as the direction-setter of the Australian Football League – retaining the bounce doesn’t count – Steven Hocking has fundamentally changed the means and ways his league manages the on field conduct of its players.

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

Hocking put Match Review Panel (MRP) and Tribunal reform at the top of his priority list at his first press conference as the league’s General Manager of Football Operations. Ahead of congestion, the ruck, and other ‘State of the Game’ matters that had become de jour at HQ in recent years. Hocking initiated an internal working group, and reportedly canvassed the views of players, coaches and administrators.

While this research has not been released – it’s still the AFL after all – one assumes the magnitude of change reflects a consensus that what was before was not working. The table of offences has not changed, and the grading system has been left untouched, but otherwise, we’re in completely new terrain.

At a fundamental level, much of the change is centred on removing a complexity that was regulated into the system bit by bit over the previous half decade. For instance, the early guilty plea – designed to provide an incentive to avoid a tribunal hearing – has been abolished for offences that attract a suspension.

Instead, clubs will now have a choice whether to accept the verdict of the MRP, and cop the requisite suspension, or head to the Tribunal and attempt to have the MRP’s verdict overturned. From the material released to date it is not clear whether the Tribunal will have the latitude to change a penalty, or be restricted to a binary guilty/not guilty decision.

As part of that change, the ‘base sanction’ for each category of offence has become what was previously offered when the early guilty plea was taken. This shifts the dial significantly. Where a player would previously risk adding an additional week to their time on the sidelines if they wished to challenge, they will now face a different incentive – more on that in a moment.

On base sanctions, players no longer have a loading applied for a good or bad record (the former was abolished a couple of years ago). The past does not matter, at least not directly.



These two changes alone will remove one of the most significant sources of confusion and exasperation with the system as it had functioned in recent years. A player will no longer receive, for example, a base sanction, which is then increased on account of a bad record, and then reduced on account of an early guilty plea.

By way of example, consider Jack Redpath’s Round 21 suspension. The Western Bulldogs’ key forward was cited for striking, which was assessed as intentional, low impact contact to the head. Redpath also had a bad record. Under the old system, Redpath initially received a two match suspension from the MRP, which was increased to a three match suspension on account of the bad record. An early guilty plea then reduced this back down to a two-week suspension.

Under the new system, Redpath is offered a one-week suspension straight up, and has the option to challenge that at Tribunal in an effort to have the suspension quashed. It goes from a situation where the Western Bulldogs risked upping a two-week offer to a three-week ban by going to the Tribunal to a situation where the Western Bulldogs risk nothing by way of player availability if they think their man is innocent.

That would result in every decision being sent to the Tribunal, right? Well, to counter that, Hocking’s system requires clubs that are challenging an MRP finding at the Tribunal to post what is effectively a $10,000 bond.

If the Tribunal challenge is successful, the player is free to play and the bond is returned. If the Tribunal challenge is unsuccessful, the club loses the $10,000 bond, and the amount is added to its football department cap tally. The football department cap.

The cap was set at $9.5 million last year, so we aren’t talking sheep stations for a challenge. But most clubs work right up to the limits of the cap to ensure they are getting bang for buck, and a few unsuccessful Tribunal hearings could push a club into equalisation tax (75c for every dollar over the cap) territory.

Indeed, the advent of Hocking’s system will likely lead to an increase in spending on legal matters within football departments.



This will almost surely result in more Tribunal hearings. The number of hearings has fallen precipitously in recent years – by design of course – from 42 in 2007 to 25 in 2012 to just four in 2017. We may not get back to the heady days of Dean Solomon and Steven Baker, but a tripling or quadrupling of tribunal hearings is not out of the question.

That is not all. The AFL has doubled down, quite literally, on its financial sanctions regime. A first offence is now worth $3,000 (up from $1,500), and a second offence is worth $5,000 (up from $2,500). Significantly, there is no longer an automatic suspension for third and subsequent low level offences. These now attract an $8,000 fine, meaning a player who continuously pushes the line will donate a sizeable chunk of their salary to the HQ Christmas party fund.

To keep things just a little bit confusing, players are still able to accept an early guilty plea discount on financial sanctions. They are also free to challenge them at a Tribunal hearing, but given the risk versus reward it would be an unusual occurrence.

On questioning, Hocking revealed Brownlow medal eligibility rules would not be changing. This means a player who received three or more financial sanctions will now remain eligible for the Brownlow medal, where under the previous system they would have been ruled ineligible. That was the way Patrick Dangerfield’s name was removed from Brownlow medal calculations in 2017.

One may argue a player that has been cited by the MRP three or more times in a single season – no matter the offence – doesn’t meet one half of the criteria of the Brownlow medal. But for now, officially, they do.

Other changes are more procedural in nature. The AFL has sanctioned a trial of “Instant MRP”, with the MRP issuing findings and sanctions for Thursday and Friday night games by 5pm eastern time the following day.

Saturdays and Sundays will be dealt with on Monday per current procedure. At his press conference, Hocking revealed that if this is successful – and, well, what’s going to stop it from being successful – Saturday games will be reviewed by 5pm on Sundays.

Finally, the MRP no longer exists. Instead, the process of match review will now be handled by a single arbiter. Michael Christian, who has been on the MRP for three seasons, and is a long term member of the football diaspora, is now a salaried AFL employee reporting through to Hocking himself.



Putting aside the roasting Christian has willingly signed himself up for – he has a Twitter account, for now – the fact this is now in the hands of an individual creates some interesting dilemmas. While it might streamline decision making, and allow for the clear communication of a single view of what happened, it is easier for one person to make a mistake than it is for three people.

Then again, the MRP is intended to be an initial first pass and attempt to streamline the process: dealing with complex matters is why the Tribunal is in place.

It’s all to come, of course. All that changed yesterday was words on a page. And, for all the change which has occurred, the league has not apparently explored the notion of football (for example: a bump that slips high) versus non-football (a punch, of any force, to any part of the body) action.

It is likely the new system will still deliver some penalties which at face value seem too harsh or too lenient – this will be the case until the table of offences is tweaked.

However, we are on the right track, and the changes Hocking has made will improve the operation of the league’s judicial system. The measure of Hocking’s new Match Review Panel and Tribunal system will be a reduction in incidents as players change their behaviour, and improved consistency of outcome when offences do occur. The jury will now begin its deliberations.