Almanac Footy: Reform of the Tribunal – Restorative Justice is an option

 

There are many forms of justice that apply to the way the AFL works. Distributive justice applies in giving each club a fair amount of resources to maintain their costs, and for each club to have a fair chance in competing and winning a premiership. (SECA’s Longmuir Shield could learn something about this.) Procedural justice is its governance. (Which may beg the question: Is there the potential of a conflict of interest in allowing a Sportsbet employee to be an AFL umpire?) Retributive justice is a practice the AFL exceeds at – fines and penalties allegedly more severe than the old Soviet Union. Then, there is restorative justice, a practice the AFL believes can be best achieved by applying retributive justice – hence, the reference to the old Soviet Union. Then, of course, there is social justice, which, if you consider the underlying problems within the AFL, its underlying problem with past & present players, and the creeping influence of organised crime upon these players, the AFL is just learning about. So what does the AFL do about restorative justice? With all the changes the AFL make to the rules each year, can’t they take time to reform the way their tribunal justice operates? How can it be applied to the tribunal and the Foot v Butters case?

 

Firstly as a school teacher, most schools, especially primary schools, run through restorative justice. This is a healing type of justice, where conflicting parties are brought together to talk through their conflicting views, to make peace and shake hands. Sometimes, it just ends in the parties saying sorry to each other. Wouldn’t it have been great if the result of the tribunal would have been Foot and Butters shaking each other’s hand, saying sorry to each other, and sending out a mutually positive message that abuse is not welcome on a football field.

 

Secondly, where has the retributive form of justice got the AFL in the Foot v Butters case? Has it raised questions regarding procedural justice in the AFL? We know now, at this point, that the tribunal decision is being appealed against. That there is a continuing disagreement between an AFL umpire, the tribunal, an AFL player and his AFL club. Justice is still being sought. The way the current system works, Butters and the Port Adelaide FC are headed towards a hiding to nothing. (Excuse me if I’ve mixed my metafors.)

 

Thirdly, let’s address the fact that the AFL have changed almost everything that we know about the AFL/VFL since when we / I were kids. I look at the 1967 grand final, my first grand final as a boy. Nearly everything has changed regarding AFL / VFL since then. The playing field and its markings are very different. Out of bounds is very different. The number of umpires is very different. The reserves / interchange bench looks very different. Many of the rules are changed, and rechanged, in an enddless loop. The new rucking rules remind me very much of the outcome after the Dempsey/Moore final, I think at Waverley, circa 1978 – ruckmen couldn’t touch each other and had to run at each other. Then, there has been the repeated loop of holding the ball / holding the man. In the past, we have seen players like Phil Carman, Robbie Muir and others receive retributive justice by the tribunal without scope for the tribunal to look at the underlying causes. In Carman’s cases, he was often the retaliator, without the Tribunal giving any heed to the protagonism. In Muir’s cases, we now blanket the inherent racism over as part of the ‘dark old days of the VFL’, which are over now. (Smirk, smirk!) Surely, if there have been so many changes to the rules, there must be scope the change the AFL’s methods for procedural fairness and promoting restorative justice in the tribunal, without the tribunal needing to brand a player as a liar.

 

Finally, the match review process was reviewed and reformed a number of years ago by a Mr Anderson, if I remember correctly. Even though he was roundly criticised and abandoned by the AFL hierarchy, his reforms and consequent procedures have had a lasting influence. Surely if the match review process has been reformed, the tribunal’s procedural justice and restorative justice can be reformed?

 

So, in summary, this Butters v Foot appeal is an opportunity for the AFL to belatedly include restorative justice to the tribunal system. Restorative justice can lead to more positive outcomes for the AFL. Further, the AFL has changed so many things already to our (LOL) game, can it include restorative justice within its outcomes? The AFL has shown that it can positively reform the match review process, can it show the same vigour towards its tribunal procedural justice?

 

I say, it can and should include restorative justice to the tribunal system, before a captain decides to walk his/her team off the field.

 

But it also needs to seriously ask itself: Is there the potential of a conflict of interest in allowing a Sportsbet employee to be an AFL umpire?)

 

 

More from Micky McTigger can be read Here.

 

 

To return to the www.footyalmanac.com.au  home page click HERE

 

Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.

 

Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help keep things ticking over please consider making your own contribution.

 

Become an Almanac (annual) member – CLICK HERE