Tom Morris: A Straightforward Solution for the MRO System, Described as ‘Outdated, Inflexible, and a Thing of the Past’

When the AFL overhauled its match review system and appointed Michael Christian as the sole decision-maker in late 2017, the sport of football was known for its brutal and relentless nature.

While it still upholds those qualities, the game has evolved and adapted over the years.

Upon his appointment, Christian stepped into the role of Match Review Officer during a period marked by a resurgence of bumping. With the league increasingly wary of potential lawsuits and the growing concerns surrounding concussions, players have realised that the act of bumping carries heightened risks.

Players are allowed to bump, yet they face severe repercussions if an opponent sustains a head injury as a result.

This principle extends to tackling in 2025, where the outlook is similar: ‘go for it, but tread carefully’.

The current tackling laws hearken back to early 2020, when the AFL amended its rules swiftly to safeguard ball players while imposing stricter penalties on tacklers.

These days, footballers seldom execute slingshot tackles or drive their opponents aggressively into the ground, showcasing greater caution than ever.

Previously, clubs trained their players to overpower the opposition and ‘tackle to hurt,’ but the focus has shifted to maintaining balance and minimising excessive force.

Initially, this transition faced challenges. In 2020, there were only five suspensions due to dangerous tackles. Yet by 2023, that figure had surged to over 30 for the entire season.

Given the risk of serious injury, Christian frequently escalated ‘low impact’ incidents to ‘medium impact’ in his assessments.

The crackdown on such tackles was not seamless, and while it took time, the benefits to player safety have been invaluable—much like the expenses involved in legal action.

This year, Melbourne’s Aiden Johnson received a one-week suspension for a dangerous tackle on GWS, but overall, players have adapted to the new standards out of necessity.

However, while players have evolved, the match review system remains outdated, operating like a relic of a bygone era.

Christian is confined by overly restrictive parameters, compelling him to decide whether a given incident merits a three-week suspension or none at all.

This situation is nothing short of absurd. It’s illogical for Paul Curtis to face either a three-week ban or none at all.

These narrow guidelines leave Christian in a metaphorical straightjacket, struggling to exercise discretion.

Even the most casual observer would likely recognise this as an absurd way to manage such crucial matters.

So how can we amend the situation while keeping the foundational structure intact?

It’s straightforward—add an extra classification.

You can label it whatever you like, but for the sake of this discussion, we’ll call it ‘low level careless.’

This classification pertains to actions that are nearly accidental, akin to Curtis’ tackle, and would apply within the existing dangerous tackle and bump guidelines.

In evaluating an incident like Curtis’—for which he received a three-game ban—Christian would have more flexibility to impose a monetary penalty or even a single-match suspension.

The difference between ‘intentional’ and ‘careless’ is much like distinguishing between football and non-football actions.

Intentional behaviour could refer to punching someone off the ball, while careless encompasses a bump or tackle that goes awry.

By introducing this additional dimension, it would no longer simply be a matter of 3 versus 0 for Christian to decide.

Some may argue that this approach complicates things further. However, would you prefer to see Curtis miss out on significant finals matches due to a tackle that falls somewhere between careless and accidental?

Players might incur one ‘low level careless’ tackle or bump per season, resulting in a fine. A second similar incident could then be handled according to current standards.

Sling tackles, exemplified by Nathan Broad’s on Patrick Parnell in 2023, would continue to attract four-week penalties.

It’s an exaggeration to claim the system is entirely broken, but it is undeniably outdated. One straightforward adjustment could address its most glaring deficiencies.

The dynamics of bumping and tackling have transformed significantly since 2017. It’s high time that the AFL’s processes reflect this evolution.