As we know, Schulz was found by the AFL Match Review Panel to not be guilty of any offence. And notwithstanding either the Bryce Gibbs precedent or the injury sustained by Richards, it's possible to see how this outcome was reached.

Perhaps, though, the MRP was led astray by the white noise. The panel clearly examined the incident through the single, nebulous prism of so-called sling tackles. The panel doesn't appear to have given consideration to the fact that Richards had lost possession of the ball before Schulz took him out of the vertical position.

This meant his tackle was clearly in breach of the rules. Surely such an offence, one causing risk of a head injury and leaving a player unconscious, can't be considered as other than "rough conduct which in the circumstances was unreasonable".

Yet this was lost on the esteemed trio.

Why? I would venture to suggest it's because the idea of a player being dumped to the ground even though no longer in possession of the ball is these days not seen as abnormal. Indeed, in this case it didn't warrant a free kick.

For as well as escaping the wrath of the MRP, the Port Adelaide forward was adjudged by the umpires on the night to be not guilty of holding the man. Well, in this case of holding the man and throwing him into the turf with such force as to knock him out.

While the photo of the incident magnifies the degree of umpiring error, that shouldn't be cause for the AFL football department to ignore what went wrong.

This is the type of injury that, with good reason, football is deeply concerned about. Yet in this case it has tut-tutted and said it will review the rules.

In terms of on-field attention to detail you wouldn't know it. So inured has the viewing public become to modern playing and umpiring methods that the matter of a knock-out tackle being applied to a player who didn't have the ball has gone almost unremarked upon.

We've become used to the balance of adjudication favouring the tackler.  There was comment made about it during the television coverage, but merely to the effect that Schulz couldn't be expected to know Richards didn't have the ball when the later part of the tackle was being executed.

While that may be so, if players were to be penalised whenever they continue a tackle after a player has lost possession of the ball, they would quickly learn to be more circumspect.

The reality of modern umpiring and its philosophy of intervening less, while rewarding tacklers more, is that the ball being jolted free in a tackle seems to entitle the tackler to finish the job. Which is exactly what Schulz did.

Once upon a time, liability in such exchanges lay with the tackler.

To make observations like this, of course, is to be seen as a dinosaur who doesn't get modern football. But the problem is that injurious outcomes are occurring as a result of non-intervention.

Not that it's the fault of the current umpires; it's a culture that's been afoot for a good decade and a half.

Last year, I wrote about another example: the case of Dean Cox and Tyrone Vickery when Richmond played West Coast in Perth. Cox belted Vickery in the midriff before a throw-in, and an angered Vickery retaliated and copped a four-week suspension. My view was that had the umpire attended to the first misdemeanour as he should have, Vickery wouldn't have lashed out.

The reaction to this suggestion was an angry spray from the umpiring department.

Last Thursday in Adelaide, on a wet night when the ball was often at ground level and 171 tackles were laid, a total of 15 free kicks were awarded. On Friday night, in fine conditions, there were 31 per cent fewer tackles, yet 55 free kicks.

The point has frequently been made here that the infringements occur; it is simply a matter of which ones the umpires choose to acknowledge.

You might say it's okay that the umpires paid so few frees on Thursday. It was a good game and the manner of the umpiring contributed to that.

But where does it take the game in terms of the framework delineating what is permissible and what's not? Currently it's a blur.

The problems with such an approach are manifold. Most important, as the bar is set lower on what is permissible, the umpires simply become less inclined to blow the whistle.

So a tackle applied after a player has ceased to be in possession is let go because everything happened too quickly and, anyway, it wasn't seen to impact on the game.

But it does impact upon the game when the ensuing tackle causes a player to be stretchered off. It also impacts upon the game as the great whistle-aversion breeds mauling gang tackles which have brought to the Aussie game an ever-more rugby-like look.