THE AFL's judiciary process is an unmitigated, embarrassing mess.









It is clogged to the point of suffocation by its points and gradings system. There is confusion even within its own structures, with the Match Review Panel too often having no symmetry with the tribunals. Outcomes and decisions are too often conditional.





Conditional to public outrage one week.





Conditional to the accused being a good bloke in another week.





Conditional to the superstar factor, as in the higher profile and standing a player has, the more leniently he will be treated.





Conditional, as in Harvey's case, to the "he can't miss a final for that" argument.





AFL football operations boss Mark Evans' thorough review of the entire system needs to ensure, by the start of 2015, a model which, simply, seeks to address one matter only: the appropriate penalty for the infringement in question.





The current system needs not only to be blown up, but given a name change, for there should be no future link to the bomb of a system introduced by Evans' predecessor Adrian Anderson.





No more Match Review Panel, in name at least, and no more Mark Fraser, the chairman of the MRP. Unfortunately for Fraser, the system has "got" him too, as the tribunal's decision to clear Harvey of head contact with Joel Selwood made a mockery of words he said publicly a month ago





"Absolutely," he said when asked to revisit the controversial decision in round two which found Nathan Fyfe guilty of illegal head-on-head contact against Gold Coast's Michael Rischitelli.





"Yes, it is a definite rough conduct charge the way we grade things this year.





"With that same incident occurring this weekend, exactly the same penalty would occur. Whether it was Nat Fyfe or whether it was Rischitelli, it would be the same penalty."





Well, no it wouldn’t be, Mark.





Protection of the head is conditional under the current system. Your Match Review Panel actually made the right decision in producing a finding which had Harvey missing a week of football.





But the tribunal let Harvey off after peculiarly allowing many outside factors into its deliberations, including allowing Selwood to give evidence and in accepting the notion that Selwood had a propensity to be "a bleeder".





There are no two exact incidents on a football field. But there were clear parallels between Harvey's act and Fyfe's. Both players chose to bump when they had other options, both players made head contact, on both occasions their opponents were forced from the field.









And here’s the rule:





Rough Conduct (head-high contact). Where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent's head or neck unless:





a. the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or

b. the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.

Putting the Harvey-Selwood incident to that rule's test, it's clear-cut Harvey was guilty.





But hey, he couldn't miss a final – a preliminary final! – for that, now could he? Well, yes he could, given the points system actually worked accurately on his initial adjudication. Harvey actually deserved to be hit with his carryover points from prior offences.





That's what would have happened if the system actually stood for something and was impenetrable to outside influences.





But again, the judiciary process didn't stand for anything long enough, with the tribunal making a decision which went against the type of processes it has regularly used in the past.





So the message was not simply that Harvey could play against Sydney on Friday night.





The message, also, was that, under certain circumstances and conditions, it is OK to make head high contact with an opponent.





We referred to the system's decisions being conditional to public outrage.





Remember in May when the MRP refused to deal with Jack Viney's clash with Tom Lynch? And how the Tribunal then gave him a two-week ban. And how then, and only after the public frothed at the mouth, the appeals tribunal cleared him?





Tom Lynch left the field with a broken jaw after the incident with Jack Viney. Picture: AFL Media









What did the system stand for that week?





In the weeks which followed the Viney outcome, Heath Hocking, Adam Cooney and Daniel Hannebery all escaped sanction after contacting opponents in the head.





Which, when the Harvey decision is also factored in, is why Fyfe remains terribly confused, too.





Some time after Lindsay Thomas escaped punishment for head-on-head contact with Ben Reid in round one 2013, we were told it was simply a mistake, that Thomas should have been penalised.





Fine, we all make mistakes. All OK. And then, a year later, Fyfe cops his suspension.





Gee, it seemed harsh, but if that is the new rule, well, that’s the new rule. Provided you stand by it in all circumstances.





Remember in 2010 when Chris Judd belted Matthew Pavlich and wasn't cited and won a Brownlow Medal? And this year when Gary Ablett elbowed Liam Picken and nothing happened, and when Buddy Franklin bowled over Clay Cameron and escaped? What did the system stand for in those instances?





Evans has been in the AFL system long enough now to know what he needs to do in his review of the Match Review Panel-tribunal-appeals system.





He therefore knows that the new model must be very clear on what it stands for. As in crystal clear. And then be prepared to adjudicate accordingly every single time.





Only then will the game get a judiciary system which works adequately as well as one which is respected.