Hotdog60
19-02-2013, 03:47 PM
This is a article written by Les Zigomanis LINK (http://www.backpagelead.com.au/afl/8607-afl-penalises-without-punishing-)
In light of whats been going on in the AFL lately it's an interesting point of view.
Read on.
There have been so many transgressions lately in the AFL, you'd be forgiven for believing they'd whack hard in response, not only to punish the offender, but to caution anybody else thinking of following in the offender's footsteps.
However, thinking about this the other day, I could recall only two incidents – in my opinion – where the AFL punished a guilty-party of wrongdoing. These were disallowing Brett Chalmers from playing for Collingwood for three years, when Collingwood were accused of draft tampering in 1993; the other was suspending Justin Charles for sixteen games in 1997 after he tested positive for steroids.
That's it, as far as I'm concerned – the only two occasions offenders were punished.
Now I'm sure some will point to the penalties handed out to Carlton for breaching the salary cap following the 2002 season. But, for mine, whilst the penalties were extreme, and whilst they were penalising, they actually weren't punishing.
Fines are irrelevant in the modern competition, given the AFL will ultimately just subsidize any club financially struggling. Clubs are now too intricately interwoven into the broadcast rights to allow one to suddenly disappear.
As for the loss of draft picks, how much did they really hurt? Compare Carlton to the Western Bulldogs: the Bulldogs have come off a moderately successful period, their older, better players have now retired (or are in their declining years), and they're forced to embrace a full rebuild. If you took away a couple of first rounders, it might stall the rebuild, but it's not really going to affect the fortunes of a club which'll probably sit in the bottom four for the next few years.
Similarly with Carlton back then. They were coming off moderate success (a grand final appearance in 1999, finals in 2000 and 2001), and their older guns were on the way out. They were one of the last (if not the last) club to embrace the new AFL environment (drafting, rebuilding), so the bottom dropped out. Depriving them of a Goddard and Wells, for example, really didn't affect their fortunes in the short and medium term. If anything, the presence of them might've improved them just enough that they would've missed out on Murphy, Gibbs, Kreuzer (and also the currency to secure Judd).
Still, given the penalties (on Carlton) were meant to be the AFL's ironclad imposition on cheating the salary cap, their line in the sand, you would think anybody guilty of any similar indiscretions would be given a proper whack.
Not so. Look at Adelaide. They've been struck with a feather. Worse – farcically – but the player at the centre of their rorting (in Kurt Tippett) has still been able to get to his preferred destination. Who the hell was punished here? Was anybody? Carlton supporters would be forgiven for feeling robbed.
Then you have the Melbourne Football Club, levelled by admissions of tanking. We all know the AFL system encourages clubs who are not in the finals hunt to finish as low as possible and gain access to the best young talent in the country. This was particularly true when priority picks existed. I'm unsure how some in the media can deny this occurs. In fact, clubs – any clubs – should be charged with ignorance and stupidity if, given the opportunity, they don't attempt to exploit the system.
And now there's admissions from Melbourne themselves they tanked (even after the AFL proclaimed tanking did not exist), and what's happened? The penalties which have been announced (a $500,000 fine and suspensions for Chris Connolly and Dean Bailey) are laughable.
Why should any subsequent club follow the AFL's regulations when there really seems no meaningful punishment for infractions? How does anybody learn?
For mine, if you're going to punish a club, then the penalties need to be karmic. For example, if a club cheats the salary cap by $500,000, then I would rule that club must operate with $500,000 less in their salary cap for the next ten years. That's at least one very good player, or a couple of good ones. As the club cheated the salary cap to hold onto talent, they must now operate on a lesser player field, which increases their risk of losing talent. If you've tanked, deregister the players gained for two years, which'll force that club to trade those players – probably at a bargain price. Sure, you can still issue fines and deprive clubs of draft picks, but clubs should also meaningfully feel the punishment of their crimes.
This is how it should play out. You can penalise a club. Or you can punish them. Punishing them should disadvantage them every bit as much as their transgressions advantaged them. Penalising them is like giving three years for assault to a prisoner already serving life.
Of course, though, that's just my opinion.
Now let's see how the AFL handle the next offender.
In light of whats been going on in the AFL lately it's an interesting point of view.
Read on.
There have been so many transgressions lately in the AFL, you'd be forgiven for believing they'd whack hard in response, not only to punish the offender, but to caution anybody else thinking of following in the offender's footsteps.
However, thinking about this the other day, I could recall only two incidents – in my opinion – where the AFL punished a guilty-party of wrongdoing. These were disallowing Brett Chalmers from playing for Collingwood for three years, when Collingwood were accused of draft tampering in 1993; the other was suspending Justin Charles for sixteen games in 1997 after he tested positive for steroids.
That's it, as far as I'm concerned – the only two occasions offenders were punished.
Now I'm sure some will point to the penalties handed out to Carlton for breaching the salary cap following the 2002 season. But, for mine, whilst the penalties were extreme, and whilst they were penalising, they actually weren't punishing.
Fines are irrelevant in the modern competition, given the AFL will ultimately just subsidize any club financially struggling. Clubs are now too intricately interwoven into the broadcast rights to allow one to suddenly disappear.
As for the loss of draft picks, how much did they really hurt? Compare Carlton to the Western Bulldogs: the Bulldogs have come off a moderately successful period, their older, better players have now retired (or are in their declining years), and they're forced to embrace a full rebuild. If you took away a couple of first rounders, it might stall the rebuild, but it's not really going to affect the fortunes of a club which'll probably sit in the bottom four for the next few years.
Similarly with Carlton back then. They were coming off moderate success (a grand final appearance in 1999, finals in 2000 and 2001), and their older guns were on the way out. They were one of the last (if not the last) club to embrace the new AFL environment (drafting, rebuilding), so the bottom dropped out. Depriving them of a Goddard and Wells, for example, really didn't affect their fortunes in the short and medium term. If anything, the presence of them might've improved them just enough that they would've missed out on Murphy, Gibbs, Kreuzer (and also the currency to secure Judd).
Still, given the penalties (on Carlton) were meant to be the AFL's ironclad imposition on cheating the salary cap, their line in the sand, you would think anybody guilty of any similar indiscretions would be given a proper whack.
Not so. Look at Adelaide. They've been struck with a feather. Worse – farcically – but the player at the centre of their rorting (in Kurt Tippett) has still been able to get to his preferred destination. Who the hell was punished here? Was anybody? Carlton supporters would be forgiven for feeling robbed.
Then you have the Melbourne Football Club, levelled by admissions of tanking. We all know the AFL system encourages clubs who are not in the finals hunt to finish as low as possible and gain access to the best young talent in the country. This was particularly true when priority picks existed. I'm unsure how some in the media can deny this occurs. In fact, clubs – any clubs – should be charged with ignorance and stupidity if, given the opportunity, they don't attempt to exploit the system.
And now there's admissions from Melbourne themselves they tanked (even after the AFL proclaimed tanking did not exist), and what's happened? The penalties which have been announced (a $500,000 fine and suspensions for Chris Connolly and Dean Bailey) are laughable.
Why should any subsequent club follow the AFL's regulations when there really seems no meaningful punishment for infractions? How does anybody learn?
For mine, if you're going to punish a club, then the penalties need to be karmic. For example, if a club cheats the salary cap by $500,000, then I would rule that club must operate with $500,000 less in their salary cap for the next ten years. That's at least one very good player, or a couple of good ones. As the club cheated the salary cap to hold onto talent, they must now operate on a lesser player field, which increases their risk of losing talent. If you've tanked, deregister the players gained for two years, which'll force that club to trade those players – probably at a bargain price. Sure, you can still issue fines and deprive clubs of draft picks, but clubs should also meaningfully feel the punishment of their crimes.
This is how it should play out. You can penalise a club. Or you can punish them. Punishing them should disadvantage them every bit as much as their transgressions advantaged them. Penalising them is like giving three years for assault to a prisoner already serving life.
Of course, though, that's just my opinion.
Now let's see how the AFL handle the next offender.