In Australia, the Australian Football League (AFL) is under fire. This follows Carlton midfielder Adam Cerra recently facing sanctions for making contact with an umpire in a match. The incident ignited a national firestorm around the NFL’s disciplinary practices. It brought into serious question just how effective these measures are at keeping players in line.
Cerra’s case exposes how broken the league continues to be. He was looking at a one-year suspension, but ultimately received a fine of $5,500. This is far more than the typical fines levied prior to the hardline enforcement of no contact with umpires. As many have pointed out, this strategy is arbitrary, capricious, and opaque.
The situation arose in a contest where Cerra accidentally bumped into a referee during a game. In reply, the AFL sought an increased penalty of $6,250 on the basis that the amenity value required a stronger deterrent. Carlton representatives contended that any fine should be capped at a maximum of $5,000. After mediation, the tribunal agreed to a penalty of just $5,500—a decision that has shocked supporters and commentators across the country.
The tribunal hearing was a little more than an hour long. Attorneys fought bitterly over a dispute of just $1,250. In fact, almost everyone is quick to blame the AFL for squandering precious time and dollars. They think their cases take way too long because of this nuisance sum.
Tribunal chairman at the time Jeff Gleeson noted the obvious lack of understanding exhibited by players as to their obligation not to make contact with umpires. He stated, “Players who repeatedly commit offence of careless contact with an umpire will not necessarily benefit from an incrementally increased fine, or indeed that a fine will always be the appropriate sanction.” His statements indicate that the tribunal is aware of the complexities involved in enforcing penalties but is unable to adopt a uniform standard.
This incident occurred alongside two other notable cases: Tristan Xerri and Zac Bailey. Cronulla halfback Braydon Xerri will miss the next three matches after unsuccessfully challenging a dangerous contact ban for contact that left Melbourne stand-in halfback Tom Sparrow concussed. Elsewhere, Bailey failed to overturn his one-match rough conduct ban against Carlton veteran Nick Haynes. These cases draw attention to the well-documented pattern of punitive measures in the league.
Gerard Whateley, an influential AFL commentator, expressed his outrage at the tribunal’s response to Cerra’s incident. He derided the turn of events as a new degree of “high farce.” He underscored that, moving forward, the AFL needs to do a better job of holding players accountable. Whateley noted, “If you wanted to make a stand, and a stand worth making, you had to leave the spectre of suspension on the table.” Though he does wish the league hadn’t pulled this option off the table so soon.
Whateley further argued that simply increasing fines without addressing underlying issues is ineffective: “This is just wasting everybody’s time. If you want to ramp the fines up, just write it into the guidelines and ramp the fines up.” His statement underscores an emerging mindset that large fines can be an effective punishment for wrongdoing. These measures do not really get at the deeper issues the league is grappling with when it comes to handling player conduct.
Carlton’s counsel, Elizabeth Bateman of the Environmental Defense Fund, joined in opposing the way penalties are being calculated. She stated that it would be unfair to punish Cerra just because there had been an uptick in the number of contacts with umpires this season. “To penalise Cerra for the higher number of umpire contacts this year would be unfair,” she stated. Bateman is adamant that players should never be punished for factors outside of their control.
