GEORGIE PARKER: Tarni White suspension shows AFL tribunal guidelines need to change for AFLW’s shorter season

Tarni White, the young Collingwood AFLW player, was handed a three-week suspension from the AFL for her bump on Sydney’s Maddie Collier last week.

It was labelled as careless conduct, severe impact, and high contact by the MRO, and her appeal where she pleaded not guilty was overturned.

Many Collingwood fans can argue all they want that it was a fair bump as it looks like shoulder-to-shoulder contact.

However, ultimately a player was concussed.

And as the AFL does, and will continue to understandably do, she was handed a hefty suspension because they’re wanting to protect the head (and their future bank account come the lawsuits that will inevitably come their way).

But let’s break this down.

While I think a suspension was necessary, and Maddie missing a week with concussion protocols, is the three-week penalty fair?

While the men play a 24-week season, the women play 11, yet the MRO table for suspensions/fines are carbon copies of each other.

Proportionately, White has been handed a fine double the length of her male counterpart and will now miss a third of her season.

Can we imagine this in the men’s competition, where a player would miss 30 per cent of their season due to a bump? Oh, the outrage!

Imagine this in the men’s competition, where a player would miss 30 per cent of their season due to a bump. Oh, the outrage!

I think the AFL is in a really hard place, they can’t just slide the scale down, and they need to still look as though they’re treating head knocks very seriously.

However, the current model doesn’t sit well with me.

We have had some big suspensions for bumps during the men’s season, with Dan Houston and Jimmy Webster being two of those.

Webster was given seven matches in the pre-season, and Houston, more recently, five.

Neither of these though, in my opinion, are comparable to Tarni’s situation.

Those two were both sent directly to the Tribunal not using the MRO guidelines where it has a clear set of rules, meaning their bumps were of a much more serious nature and quite exceptional circumstances.

So, a comparable bump, given the guidelines at play, is Kozzie Pickett in his round 24 match. He was also handed a three-week suspension for his careless conduct, severe impact, and high contact bump.

For me, it doesn’t seem fair that the same crime, in essence, is given half the amount of punishment than the women are receiving.

On paper the comparable bump is Kozzie.

But we have to look at Webster’s act - one that was quite shocking and received a ban that was the longest in six years - as the comparable act, because that penalty was similar percentage the season Tarni will miss.

Look at those two incidents side by side and tell me they deserve the same penalty (because they don’t).

So, while the fix for this is pretty easy - give the women a longer season - we all know this isn’t an option any time soon.

Instead, the guidelines need to be changed to a proportionately fair punishment.

The AFL are able to change rules, length of matches, number of players on the field and the size of the ball to accommodate the women, why can’t this be looked at as well?