Lack of AFL Tribunal Consistency Disturbing to Some in Many Quarters

The creative vocabulary coming out of the AFL tribunal is of the sort that if the members were of a mind, our jobs would be in serious jeopardy.

Some of the players might pose a threat, as well.

AFL Players’ Association President Patrick Dangerfield used “farcical” to describe the decision of the Tribunal’s decision to downgrade the intentional umpire contact levied against Jake and Elwood, aka The Blues Brothers, aka Ed and Charlie Curnow.

Farcical sent us scrambling for our dictionaries, but no sooner had we added that one to our extensive collection of words used to compose sentences and paragraphs than we were confronted with a phrase that left us speechless.

“Manifestly inadequate” was how the AFL referred to the Tribunal’s decision to let the Curnow boys off with light fines of $1000 when the brothers successfully argued that their contact with the umpire was simply careless and totally minus any “premeditated malice.”

Danger was upset that something similar occurred with his mate Tom Hawkins, who did cop a one-game ban.

It might be the view of some, by which we mean us, that simply being forced to play for the Blues is adequate punishment for past, present and future transgressions, but even Collingwood Magpies Coach Nathan Buckley.

This could be a case decided according to whose ox was being gored, but it is true that the subjectivity coming out of the AFL Tribunal to this stage of the Toyota 2018 AFL Premiership competition is indeed pertaining to or in the nature of a farce, which is exactly what Danger meant when he succinctly told SEN, “I certainly echo the sentiments of Bucks. I think it was farcical, to be honest.”

We saw the contact that sent Hawkins off for the week. To us, that tap on the wrist was done in a totally “jesticular” manner.

Look under the letter “J,” between jest and jesticulate.