IT IS irrefutable and uncontested that in the dying moments of last Sunday's game at Telstra Dome, Sydney had 19 players on the field against North Melbourne. It is also beyond argument that had North Melbourne called for a count of players in those fateful seconds, the Swans would have had their score annulled and lost the match. Yet, because the Swans' offence emerged via official documentation rather than an on-field count, a lesser penalty has been dispensed. The penalty has been determined by the manner of detection.

As an issue, it's like Winston Churchill's view of Russia: a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. The major questions are whether the AFL should have acted retrospectively to compensate for the failure of a match-day rule to take effect; if so, what penalty should have been applied; and, finally, how can the relevant rule be more effectively written?

This need not have been such an issue were it not for the "Sirengate" match between St Kilda and Fremantle in Launceston two seasons ago. Then, as was the case last Sunday, a match ended in a draw and was followed by controversy over how the result had been achieved.

In 2006, the AFL Commission contrived a technical pathway through the code's rules — which authorise umpires alone to start and end play — and overturned the result. This was done with scant regard for any concept of the separation of the governing body's power from that of those who police and manage on-field matters.

The game's administration effectively appointed itself video umpire when it adjudged circumstances required it. Its philosophy appeared to be that since we had all seen what happened, justice could only be seen to be done if the result of the match was changed.

This was a decision that had the potential to come back and bite the AFL and last week, it did so. Once again, the public has been made aware that there was a major match-day gaffe and that an argument could be mounted that the wrong result to a game was achieved. This time, though, the match result has been allowed to stand.

Without "Sirengate", the AFL could have legitimately defended its response this week on the grounds that there is a match-day mechanism for the treatment of such issues and the opportunity for this to be employed had passed. It could have slapped a fine on Sydney for some form of misconduct and moved on. But having once overturned a result achieved on the ground, the AFL had created a precedent.

The sense of inconsistent justice is heightened by the knowledge that in the 2006 game, St Kilda was guilty of nothing. All the Saints did was play under the laws until the umpire ended the contest and when that happened, the scores were tied and they had two premiership points. Yet those points were taken from them, an outcome that cost them a top-four finish and the double chance in the finals.

Last Sunday, Sydney clearly did something wrong. However it came to pass, the Swans had an extra player on the field during the crucial seconds when the last score of the game was achieved. Yet they have retained their points. Of all the inequities this most pragmatic of organisations has ever delivered, the AFL's findings on these two events — when examined side-by-side — rank among its more questionable.

The laws of football don't differentiate between wilful and accidental breaches when a team has more than the permissible number of players on the field. Yet the AFL football operations manager, Adrian Anderson, explained the penalty he dispensed by calling the breach an "accident". He also justified the outcome by saying Jesse White, the 19th man, was "not involved in play". Such obfuscation does little for the credibility of the outcome.

Whereas in 2006, the commission very quickly took the issue out of the hands of its football department, last week, there was no such move. The decision was left with Anderson, whose findings were achieved without an independent investigation.

As for what the AFL should do in case of future infractions, the obvious suggestion is that retrospectivity, based on documentation and video evidence, be employed to enforce the current law.

After all, the matter of how many players each team has on the ground is not a trivial one. This would need to be done in a way that informed a team of the potential impact to its score of any breach during a game.

Clearly, it's impossible for any team to act on the number of opposition players on the ground in such frenzied circumstances as those of the dying minutes last Sunday. Yet just as clearly, the game must have a response to ensure that what happened in that game doesn't occur again. Sydney was very lucky. Lucky, perhaps, its name isn't St Kilda.