Kennett responds to the AFL

Members
 
Please find my response to the AFL this afternoon.
 
I have decided to pay the fine for the reasons I have articulated in my letter below.
 
As much as I would like to have pursued the issue, it is better we all get on with what we are about and that is winning games.

And secondly you could not put it past the AFL to impose sanctions on the Club, such as loss of Premiership points, if the matter was not settled, and that we would not want.
 
So let the matters of substance be settled in the court of public opinion.
 
Sorry if I have caused you distraction. Be assured my future public comments will be as bland as those who seek to control us.
 
See you all at the MCG on Saturday.
 
Go Hawks.
 
Jeff Kennett


My letter to the AFL is as follows:
 
Mr Adrian Anderson
General Manager – Football Operations
Australian Football League


Dear Mr Anderson

I refer to your letter of 28th April 2009 in which you, on behalf of Mr Demetriou and the AFL, have seen fit to reject the entirety of my explanation and decided to impose a fine on me for comments I made on 18th April 2009.

As my comments were not umpire or incident specific, were hardly outrageous, and expressed views that are felt by many in the community, one can only assume that you had already decided to fine me before receiving my letter of explanation.

I wish to state again, that my concern is with the inconsistency of umpiring, and the difficulty increasingly being faced by umpires, as a direct result of the number of rule changes imposed by the AFL on our game, and secondly, the heightened focus on individual umpires as a result of the AFL sanctioned microphoning of umpires during matches.

It is my view that both of these issues are of concern to a majority of the public.  Further, that in sanctioning me for what were factual comments, expressing a commonly held view, the AFL is again shooting the messenger rather than addressing the fundamental issues.

Your letter of penalty has given me two options, one that I be sent to what is best being described as umpiring school, or secondly, to pay a fine.

Your first option, umpiring school, only further puts the umpires under a microscope.  It would take time before I could clear my diary to provide for the three hours you believe this schooling would take, and until I had completed my three hours of re-education, the media would continue to focus on umpires and this issue.  Not to mention what they would justifiably expect from me, once I had completed this re-education.

I personally think that is unfair on umpires.

In your letter you have referred me to the Sanders Report, the National Review of Umpiring.  I have already read that document and perhaps should not find it unusual that in justifying your sanctioning of me, you have relied on your interpretation of certain recommendations in that Report, but clearly the AFL does not embrace other recommendations.

In short, you interpret those recommendations that suit the AFL’s purpose but ignore those that don’t.  Another AFL inconsistency.

Finally, in terms of the re-education issue, regardless of the number of DVDs, Reports and explanations that I would be subjected to, my complaint is not with the education of the umpires per se as they do a task of work under very difficult circumstances.

My complaint is that the AFL, by consistently introducing new rules, further confuses the umpires and the public and that once the umpire’s education is practiced on the field, there is unfortunately, because of the plethora of rules, confusion by individual umpires as well as inconsistency between any of the three umpires that might be adjudicating on the day.

You have cleverly pointed out in your letter that soccer only has one umpire, and of course you are correct.  I personally am not opposed to that concept, i.e. one umpire per game, as it would certainly ensure consistency of umpiring throughout each game, allowing for the obvious mistakes that might be made by an umpire, or any of us from time to time.

In determining my position on this issue, I have decided in the interests of my Club, and to be quite truthful, in the interest of umpires, that it is best that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible to allow all parties to get on with their primary function.  Umpires to umpire, and in my case, to oversee the conduct of affairs of the Hawthorn Football Club and to allow our players and coaches to compete on the field.

I have therefore decided, with regret, to pay the fine that you have levied.  With regret because I would rather retain my $5,000, with regret because I think your sanctions are misplaced.  But I am aware that unless I pay this fine, you at the AFL may well apply further sanctions against my Club which I certainly do not want to occur.

However, I do not resile from the thought process behind my comments that have now been explained to you twice, and my explanations which you have seen fit to reject.

So please find attached my personal cheque for $5,000, and as the AFL works to paint the sky grey, and limit free speech, be assured that many of us will continue to manage our affairs as best we can to the advancement of the code and those who support, not only our individual clubs, but the game itself.

Yours sincerely,

Jeff Kennett
President
Hawthorn Football Club