Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has called for significant reforms to the AFL’s tribunal system in light of the heightened focus on dangerous tackles. Concerns have been mounting among coaches regarding the increasing number of lengthy suspensions, with North Melbourne’s Paul Curtis recently receiving a three-match ban for rough conduct that resulted in a concussion for Port Adelaide’s Josh Sinn.
Alastair Clarkson, the Kangaroos coach, criticized the decision to suspend Curtis, arguing that there should be a duty of care towards both players and the game itself. He insisted that Curtis’s actions were intended solely to prevent him from retaining possession of the ball, deeming it a standard football action.
Beveridge echoed Clarkson’s remarks, advocating for a system where incidents lacking the intent to harm don’t result in suspensions. He compared Curtis’s case to that of Jackson Archer, who also faced a three-match ban for a similar incident. Beveridge described the current regulatory framework as outdated, emphasising the need to protect players whose intentions during tackles are honourable.
Addressing the existing guidelines, Beveridge stated that the definitions surrounding tackling are inadequate. He proposed a more nuanced approach, suggesting that the system should be evaluated based on the intent behind players’ actions, rather than relying solely on rigid frameworks. He argued for applying a civil law test under which if there is no intention to inflict harm, then no penalty should be applied.
Beveridge’s comments reflect a growing unease among coaches about the disproportionate nature of suspensions in relation to the actions taken on the field. He emphasised the importance of understanding the context and intent behind in-game incidents, calling for a review of the current disciplinary measures to better align with the realities of the game.