Robbed, right in front of me? Casting a legal eye over the dramatic finish to the Adelaide v Sydney clash reshaping the AFL Finals
I INTRODUCTION
During what has been described as the most even season in recent history, controversy has once again struck the AFL.
A large portion of headlines this season pertain to off-field matters – namely tribunal decisions, the search for a new AFL CEO and the Hawthorn racism investigation.
On Saturday night, however, the decision to adjudge Ben Keays’ snap from the boundary as a behind created arguably the biggest storm of 2023. The Adelaide v Sydney (Adelaide) result has dramatically altered the course of the season and the finals series – despite the AFL acknowledging that the wrong decision was made.
As pointed out by Adelaide CEO Tim Silvers, there are ‘no further avenues’ for the Crows to have the decision overturned. This Microblog explores the reason no further avenues exist and assesses past instances of challenged results. Finally, we will assess options for reforming the AFL score review process, aiming to eliminate avoidable procedure-based mistakes.
II GENERAL RULES REGARDING REVIEW – THE FIELD OF PLAY DOCTRINE
Per Lebbon, field of play decisions (‘FOP’) are ‘[those involving] the application and interpretation of the rules [governing] sporting competitions. These range from determining whether a goal has been scored, to the review processes employed to appeal decisions. Generally, FOP decisions are only reviewable if the ‘specific provisions of the relevant rules and regulations governing a sport’ provide for it.
In Yang’s Case (cited in Lebbon), the Court of Arbitration for Sport postulated that FOP decisions not being justiciable ‘upholds the [umpire’s] authority…whose power to control competition is already eroded by the growing use of video replay.’ The deep dose of irony conveyed considered Saturday night’s events will be explored later in the piece.
Much of the CAS jurisprudence requires decisions not merely to be wrong, but to contain an added aggravating factor – including bad faith, fraud, arbitrariness or corruption. This is said to prevent ‘opening the floodgates’ for disgruntled athletes to review FOP decisions. This piece concurs that drastically lowering the threshold for review would unequivocally create a net negative result for the sporting and judicial landscapes overall.
III THE APPLICABLE RULES – A PRECEDENT FOR REVIEW?
As noted above, FOP decisions can only be reviewed when a sport’s rules provide for it. Regarding the AFL Rule 2.1 (v) of the 2023 AFL Rules provides that:
‘Either or both the Commission and the General Counsel shall, in furtherance and not in limitation of any other power conferred upon them by the AFL Rules and Regulations, have the power in their absolute discretion to determine all questions arising or objections made in relation to a Match or the AFL Competition.’
Upon reading rule 2.1 (v) it appears that an objection made by Adelaide regarding Saturday night’s match would be reviewable should the Commission allow it.
On its face, the AFL Commission choosing to alter the result of the 2006 clash between St Kilda and Fremantle (better known as Sirengate) provides a precedent for the outcome of matches to be changed. For those unaware of this dramatic moment in modern footballing history, Fremantle lead by a point when the siren was sounded. Problem was, the field umpires failed to hear it, resulting in play continuing and St Kilda scoring a point before the siren was blown again and the game was whistled dead. The initial declaration of a draw was overturned the following week – when the Commission declared that the final point would not stand, granting Fremantle the victory.
Whether any review would bear fruit is a different question altogether. The amount of time remaining, combined with play restarting from a centre bounce should a goal have been awarded would almost certainly result in the Commission being unwilling and unable to overturn the result entirely. Conversely, in Sirengate Fremantle were leading whilst the clock struck zero – making it far easier for the AFL to conclusively determine they were rightful winners. It is interesting to ponder what amount of time remaining in Adelaide would have been acceptable for the AFL to declare them as victors. A passionate Sydney supporter could reasonably argue that any time at all remaining on the clock could have given them a chance to score a goal – despite this requiring the improbable trifecta of a ruck free kick, subsequent 50-metre penalty and an accurate kick at goal. Such indeterminacy likely formed a large part of the rationale behind the AFL declining to take further action on the matter.
IV REFORMING A BROKEN SYSTEM – LESSONS FROM ADELAIDE:
The issues in Adelaide can be broken down into the following four points:
1. The goal umpires’ failure to correctly adjudge the kick as a goal in real time
Regarding proposition 1, this is as uncontroversial as it is forgivable. The Korean Case (cited in Lebbon) eloquently posits that ‘sometimes mistakes are made by [umpires], as they are by players.’ A judgement call, made by a human being under immense pressure is far easier criticised from afar when outside the bubble. While many fans undoubtedly are frustrated by umpiring errors, this type of error is far more understandable than the issues contained below.
2. The goal umpires’ failure to review the decision via the ARC
Put simply, declining to call for a review is nothing short of a catastrophic procedural error. This is only accentuated by the time left in the game, the score, the finals implications for not only Adelaide and Sydney, but also St Kilda, Essendon, the Giants, the Western Bulldogs and Geelong – the latter being eliminated from contention by the decision. Ironically, fan frustrations with the ARC – at least before Round 22 – primarily centred around it being employed too much for uncontentious decisions. Considering the abovementioned factors, failing to revert to the ARC when the ball was perilously close to the post cannot be comprehended. It is a procedural failure of the exact kind that should have been eliminated by the ARC’s introduction into the league.
3. Overemphasising the need for ‘continuity of play’
While all goals are reviewed upon the ball’s return to the centre circle, no such prolonged period exists when a kick is initially deemed a behind. ARC operators have approximately 6-7 seconds before a ball is brought back into play to determine that a review is required – after which, one cannot be called. While the benefit of keeping the game moving clearly outweighs stopping play every time there is a contentious call, this is not a zero-sum game. As illustrated in Footballing (soccer) leagues and tournaments across the globe, there is scope for play to continue while a score is reviewed. Detractors would likely decry the possibility of the ball having to be brought back, but we would contend that for the very few occasions where sufficient evidence exists to overturn an umpire calling a behind, the benefits far outweigh the costs. This allows for both accuracy and timeliness, improving the product as a whole.
4. The AFL’s failure to adequately invest in technology
In Adelaide, the verdict was clear – upon viewing the requisite angles, no sane individual would conclude that the kick was accurately adjudged a behind. Nevertheless, after creating a litany of controversies in recent years, a reform of the score review process is long overdue. The central focus of this should involve again looking to our round-ball rivals. The technology utilised in the recent FIFA Women’s World Cup - a tracking device placed inside the ball, combined with dedicated cameras – allows the location of the ball to be determined in minute detail. The system’s efficacy was best highlighted in the USA v Sweden last-16 tie – where a penalty kick was deemed to have crossed the line by millimetres. For the AFL, while issues regarding whether a kick was touched remain an issue, the ability to precisely determine where a ball is, down to the millimetre – is unarguably a benefit to the score review system.
V CONCLUSION
Ultimately, responsibility for Adelaide’s failures must be borne by the AFL. Declining to implement a review process adequately weighing fairness with timeliness and refusing to invest in the available technology cannot be characterised as anything short of a blight on the sport of Australian Rules. Remedying such defects must be a top priority; lest another gripping season be overshadowed by mistakes so easily avoidable.