Free Hit Policy

by Pembleton

In the AFL, you are allowed to punch opposition players. The only qualification is that your punching hand has to simultaneously hold onto to the punching target's jumper. I don't think this is explicitly written in the rules, so it must be one of the AFL's infamous 'interpretations'. Admittedly, a 'jumper punch' is generally less damaging than a 'normal' punch, but allowing it to be a 'free hit'? That is surely not a good idea.

Chris Tarrant punched Nathan Eagleton last Saturday night, but because he is an experienced combatant in on field (and off field for that matter) 'i am a really really really manly man' posturing, he was savvy enough to meet the AFL's requirements for a 'free hit'. Eagleton, when he was punched, reacted in a reasonably normal manner, by throwing a punch of his own straight back. It wasn't a bad punch, as whilst it didn't have Alastair Lynch in the '05 GF type velocity on it, it did have what Lynch's flurry lacked, accuracy. Eagleton gets into more than his share of such scuffles these days, but he still lacks Tarrant's experience, and as such, he did not bother to make use of the AFL's 'free hit' policy, so he is now facing a 2 match suspension.

This all seems a bit unfair to me. Tarrant probably wouldn't have punched Eagleton if he thought he would get suspended himself, and Eagleton wouldn't have punched Tarrant if he hadn't been punched himself, so the whole thing stems from the AFL, via its match review panel and tribunal, allowing the 'free hit' loopole to exist.

Eagle will face the tribunal next Tuesday (delayed due to the week off), where he will presumably argue that being punched in the face is reasonably provocative, and thus he should receive leniency. It will be interesting to see the outcome.