THE AFL Tribunal is on its longest dry streak since a modern system was implemented in 2005 with clubs no longer inclined to take up the fight for their charged players.
After 25 cases in 2012, Tribunal sittings have been in constant decline, with 15 cases in 2013 and 2014, 11 in 2015 and just five last season.
Two of those five cases last year were during the pre-season, and the last of them came in round 13 when Brisbane Lions midfielder Tom Rockliff overthrew a striking charge.
Twenty-one rounds of football, including last year's finals series, have now passed without a player challenging at the Tribunal.
In that time, there have been 27 suspensions, totalling 35 weeks, that could have been challenged if clubs felt the need.
There have also been 61 financial sanctions, making a total of 87 separate charges that have gone unchallenged.
So why are clubs choosing not to take their case to the Tribunal? Is it the risk of an extra one-match suspension if unsuccessful, or has the system left players content with their penalties?
North Melbourne this week considered challenging a one-match penalty against forward Jarrad Waite for a dangerous tackle that left Adelaide forward Tom Lynch with concussion.
MRP UPDATE: Waite, Koby accept bans for dangerous tackles
Football manager Cameron Joyce on Tuesday suggested the table of offences was not leaving clubs with any room to fight charges.
"With all these types of cases involving our players, we scrutinise them very thoroughly," Joyce told nmfc.com.au.
"Based on the classification of the charge and after taking legal advice, we were unable to find any likely grounds to successfully contest it despite the fact we were keen to do so.
"We considered our options for some time yesterday, last night and again this morning, but deemed the risk of losing Jarrad for an extra week was too significant."
If the Kangaroos believed Waite had erred in his tackling technique but still wanted to challenge the ban, their only option would have been to argue down the impact and effectively dispute Adelaide's medical report.
If they believed his tackle had been reasonable in the circumstances, they would have needed to convince the Tribunal members that the MRP had wrongly identified it as a dangerous tackle.
That is not easily done, with only 17 of 71 Tribunal hearings going the player's way since 2012.
While some clubs contend there is no realistic avenue to challenge bans, others believe the MRP is handing down fair penalties and there has been no need to go to the Tribunal.
"Now that they have introduced the fines as a lesser penalty for some of the minor things, I think we're more than happy with the way they're treating it," one football manager told AFL.com.au.
"Generally, when it's two down to one or three down to two it's pretty well thought out (by the MRP).
"The last thing you want is someone getting a week for something that in our mind is accidental."
The future for the Tribunal appears to be as a mechanism to assess extreme cases, with three of last year's five hearings referred directly on by the MRP.
The two cases in 2016 that weren't direct referrals were for players challenging $1000 fines and only risking an extra $500 penalty.
That suggests clubs will support their players at the Tribunal if they feel there has been an injustice – as Bulldog Luke Goetz and Rockliff did – but only if the stakes are low.
