Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 6, 2004
- AFL Club
- Other Teams
The AFL is just in many ways reflective of the legal system. Outcome has a huge bearing on a sentence.One of the things that gets me is intent. I like Ollie Wines, but there was no excuse for that. We've all had that mad brain rush to the head playing footy when you line someone up with the intention to hurt. (Well I did anyway) That's what it looked like.
To my mind intent is worse than outcome. The game is not administered that way .
There is a legal principle that you take a person as you find them.
If you punch 2 people with exactly the same force, in exactly the same spot, yet one dies and one lives...then it's not murder for both. You just got lucky on the 2nd one because the person had a thicker skull or was not as susceptible to injury.
The same applies to footy. You can't rub someone out for extreme force if the incident didn't cause an extreme outcome.
Having said that, the intent and action still needs to be a very important factor as well. Perhaps the outcome should determine the length of the penalty (ie murder might be 25 years, assault 15)....but it shouldn't be the determinative factor as to whether a person gets rubbed out. Attempted murder is still a crime for example, even if you didn't get the outcome you were after!
The first assessment needs to be whether the act actually constitutes an offence (regardless of the outcome), and then the outcome should be factored in when it comes to grading.
I think this is what you get when you have 2 ex-footballers on the MRP. They don't have a legal background and aren't experts in applying law. This is why I am a strong advocate of players challenging MRP decisions. I like the tribunal process to make the ultimate decision sometimes where there is grey. I hate that players pretty much blindly accept MRP decisions.
Wines was extremely lucky.