They also wanted the whole thing to be independent of the AFL, with the judging panel not even at arm's length of the AFL but beyond touching distance. The panel was to be as independent as the tribunal. They offered incentives for pleading guilty and wanted to reduce the number of tribunal hearings.

Lawyers were allowed in to streamline the process and assist in navigating through the ever more complex definitions of intent. What was careless to one was reckless for another, but were both just accidental? Were you being maliciously clumsy or just doofus clumsy?

Or the lawyer could try to tackle the issue of what was a tackle? Was it a sling, a spear or a cuddle?

Was it a bump? But was a bump a bump or a block? Was it a shepherd? And if you were allowed to block and shepherd how could you be punished when you did it? How could a legal action result in an illegal act?

As Tex Perkins sang: "Better get a lawyer, son, better get a real good one."

The system, the structure, the points, the lawyers, were all there to deliver greater consistency. And in large part they did. It was more consistent, but still not consistent per se.

Then a new head of football came in and tinkered with it. Mark Evans got rid of the points system because that tedious aggregation was leading to results that were worse than the sum of the parts. The change would lead to more consistency, Evans said.

Then Simon Lethlean briefly held the job and his most obvious intervention was to step in mid-year to clamp down on "jumper punches". The change would lead to more consistency, he said.

That match review panel was rebuked and told to sharpen up on what they were letting slip - they were out of line with AFL expectation. Independence was challenged.

Then Lethlean left and Steve Hocking came in. He has also made changes ??? to bring more consistency.

Every AFL football manager has wanted consistency. Every one has introduced well-intended changes they thought would deliver consistency. And in large part they delivered on what they hoped, but it is a judicial system that, like umpiring the game, is devilishly hard to police.

The match review panel has now gone, to be replaced by the match review person. And all pretence of independence has been abandoned, for Hocking will ratify all decisions.

This is probably smart. It should avoid the messiness of this year when Lethlean had to intercede because the MRP was not prosecuting the rules the way the AFL wanted them to. The idea that the AFL would appeal their own MRP was deemed unappealing. It shouldn't have been and this is a good change.

So, too, is the discount for a guilty plea. The one-game discount if you pleaded guilty and didn't go to the tribunal was in another light an extra punishment if you went to the tribunal. This punishment was deemed too high for the risk. Now, instead, clubs will stump up cash.

This too is right. There inevitably will be more tribunal hearings next year and that is not a bad thing. The AFL each year has applauded the fact that the number of tribunal cases has been dropping. Why this was a matter of congratulation is bewildering.

It did not mean fewer offences were occurring, just fewer court hearings. The AFL evidently didn't like tribunal hearings and the violence on the field being forensically recounted. Without tribunal hearings the hope was the conversation of the week would move on quickly from the punch, bump and hit. But it didn't. Fewer hearings does not stop the issue getting a hearing. There was more sniping through gritted teeth by clubs about a loaded system.

More players will be fined for lower-grade offences than will lose weeks suspended. This is not a bad option, but the fines should not be uniform. Yes, this would, by definition, not deliver "consistency" but why should the rookie pay the same fine as million-dollar men such as Lance Franklin? One is paying a much bigger percentage of their wage than the other - that is not consistent or fair. The AFL reveals players' salaries in pay brackets in each year's annual report. Players should pay a fine commensurate with the pay band they fall into.

That might deliver more consistency and we all want that. Indeed, in the end, the most consistent thing about the tribunal is that each new footy manager makes his change.