GEORGIE PARKER: North Melbourne player Paul Curtis’ three-match ban latest in AFL’s concussion crackdown

The AFL judiciary and grading system desperately needs an overhaul. Or at least it needs to be more transparent in how it punishes a player who causes a concussion, even if it’s an accident.

North Melbourne’s Paul Curtis is the latest AFL player to be suspended for a tackle which concussed his opponent - Port player Josh Sinn.

In the second quarter of the Kangaroos’ nine-point loss to the Power on Saturday, Curtis ran down Sinn from behind and pinned both arms.

The Port Adelaide defender fell forward and hit his head on the Adelaide Oval turf.

Because Sinn was concussed, the Curtis tackle was graded severe impact, along with high contact and careless conduct.

The Kangaroos will challenge the ban at the tribunal tomorrow night.

When Curtis was reported and his tackle was put through the match review officer’s matrix, the only option was either three matches, which was what he was handed, or nothing at all.

Had there been no concussion, I doubt it would have been cited and Curtis could have won a free kick for a holding the ball call.

The complete absence of taking into consideration a player’s intention, compared to the heavy hand applied to the outcome, is frustrating for fans, and I can’t imagine the frustration levels within clubs.

The AFL is obviously scared of what the future looks like in terms of the inevitable litigation against them from concussion-affected players once they retire that they think the only way to handle the issue is to suspend a player every time a concussion is inflicted.

To punish bad luck similarly to deliberate action is wrong, and all it does is confirm what we already know, which is the AFL seemingly isn’t looking at the action, just the outcome.

There needs to be a middle ground, something the match review officer’s matrix doesn’t offer.

Three matches for a football accident is harsh. Is there a world where the AFL puts their hands up and says ‘we’re taking concussion seriously, so every player that causes a concussion will have a minimum one-match suspension’ regardless of how it was caused?

This means their duty of care box is ticked, and we no longer have this situation we’re in now which is either three matches or none. It’s either too hefty, or nothing at all, which makes zero sense.

The AFL is pretending they’re grading without the concussion issue at the forefront of their decisions. Can they instead be honest and say concussion is the driving factor without handing out such a hefty penalty?

There will still be moments where you might think that a player shouldn’t be suspended because it’s an accident, but one week out of the game is just inconvenient rather than season-defining.

I understand the AFL is facing one of its biggest challenges in its long history as concussion is very difficult to manage, but at the moment the system is punishing the wrong thing.

Injuries and concussions in such a strong and tough game will continue to happen, but a chase-down tackle like the one Curtis made is not worth three matches on the sideline because the player they tackled was hurt badly. It was just a terrible accident.