We were right

When the AFL’s staging sanctions were announced in February, AussieRulesBlog noted that:

• the co-released explanatory video was crucial in understanding the intent of the ruling; and
• slow-motion replays would be the primary source of identification, thus the match review panel would be involved rather than on-field umpires.

 

News that Kane Cornes has been investigated under these new staging rules confirms our interpretation of the rule and its application.

 

The point on which the MRP’s investigation hinged was whether contact had been made between Cornes and Corey Enright. The umpire paid a free kick to Cornes for contact being made off the ball — that is, the ball was not being contested.

 

If it could be proved, through the slow-motion video evidence, that Enright had made contact with Cornes, then the charge could not be sustained.

 

If, on the other hand, it could be proved that no contact had occurred, the charge of staging would be sustained and Cornes would face the specified sanctions.

 

Let us make this point very clearly: contact would mean the staging charge could not be sustained.

 

If Cornes had faked contact — let’s call it by the right name — and tried to milk a free kick, he would be guilty of staging.

 

In the event, the MRP was unable to determine from the evidence whether contact was made or not.

 

In an ironic coincidence (tautology?), the AFL’s explanatory video also featured Cornes doing an ‘autumn leaf’ impression.

 

Extrapolating from this decision, if the ball is being contested, such as in a marking contest, and there is an illegal contact which is accentuated, such as the blogosphere has been screaming about Nick Riewoldt’s ‘diving’ for weeks, the staging sanctions do not apply.

 

By extension, our view that video evidence would mean the MRP, not the umpires, would be the agency carrying responsibility for enforcing the rule is also confirmed.

 

AussieRulesBlog Rules! Yeah!