Sorry Saints, But Decision Was The Correct One
Sydney Morning Herald
Thursday May 4, 2006
THREE days after justice was not heard to be done in Launceston, it was seen to be done at AFL House last night. In awarding the four premiership points from Sunday's disputed Fremantle-St Kilda match to the Dockers, the league has taken a bold and correct decision.
However, while words such as "spirit of the game" and "sportsmanship" flowed freely from the lips of AFL chairman Ron Evans and chief executive officer Andrew Demetriou, things may not be so rosy up on the moral high ground for long.As any politician can tell you, a "brave decision" is the most difficult you can make. And St Kilda have the capacity to make this one seem very brave indeed.Even before the ink had dried on the press release declaring Fremantle the winners, St Kilda officials were taking out the can opener and attempting to set free the worms many had predicted would flow freely if the AFL overruled its own law that says a game is not over until the umpire has acknowledged the siren."[The decision] may have far-reaching consequences and lead to uncertainty and ambiguity at all levels of the game," claimed Saints president Rod Butterss. "For the first time in over 100 years, the umpire will not be the sole arbiter in determining the outcome of a game."That is a refrain sure to be repeated by aggrieved Saints fans and those literal-minded observers who, unlike the AFL, failed to grasp the real reason why Fremantle were the just recipients of the four points.Will the AFL now overturn the result of a game if a free-kick is awarded wrongly in the dying minutes, resulting in the winning goal? Will it intervene if it can be proven a goal umpire made a mistake that cost a team victory? Where will the AFL's meddling in the course of a match end?The answer, however, is quite simple. It ends with the AFL's responsibility to provide the correct means by which those inside the boundary - players and umpires - can go about their business. And, with a series of apologies that strayed to the grovelling side of embarrassed, the AFL admitted that, on Sunday, that had quite clearly not been the case.While the moral argument was addressed, Demetriou said that point had been decisive in the AFL's decision. "To give that rule [saying the game does not end until the umpire hears the siren] effect, the timekeeper must discharge his duty and that did not occur," he said. "The umpire was not given the opportunity to end the game."What remains to be seen is if the AFL is given the opportunity to end what has been one of the most embarrassing sagas in its history. Saints officials retreated to consider whether they would take the matter further last night.However, if they do so, they risk suffering both the wrath of the AFL and the ire of the football world. To date, the Saints have been a bit like a bank customer who finds that $100 has been wrongly lodged in their account. Perhaps they are under no obligation to return the money, but surely they cannot complain now that the money has been returned to the rightful owner.They will continue to argue that the AFL did not follow the rules. They need to learn about procedure.Outside of a St Kilda appeal, there are a few more very loose ends for the AFL to tie up.Evans was furious about a newspaper report that suggested he had decided in favour of Fremantle before the commission meeting, claiming it had "absolutely no basis in fact" and had compromised the integrity of the hearing. Yet more lawyers could be thumbing holiday brochures.The befuddled timekeeper, a man with 500 games' experience, will be given a suspension but probably not sacked. "The buck stops here," said Demetriou.And Fremantle coach Chris Connolly and president Rick Hart can expect to receive a pair of "please explain" letters for running onto the field during the game to protest. Hart, however, has been given a watertight defence. "It was over, we now know that."
© 2006 Sydney Morning Herald
Share This