An enormous evening on the AFL Tribunal has concluded with James Sicily and Rhyan Mansell receiving three-match bans, whereas Dan Butler efficiently overturned a harmful deal with ban.
The opening listening to noticed St Kilda’s Dan Butler efficiently overturn his one-match ban for a harmful deal with on Sydney’s Nick Blakey.
Richmond’s Rhyan Mansell copped a three-week ban for his bump on Fremantle’s James Aish, earlier than Hawthorn’s James Sicily failed in a marathon listening to over his deal with on Brisbane’s Hugh McCluggage.
Watch each match of each spherical of the 2023 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE on Kayo Sports. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >
DAN BUTLER HEARING
St Kilda efficiently argued Butler’s deal with on Sydney younger gun Nick Blakey was not harmful, with the Tribunal discovering he launched Blakey’s arm “as early as he reasonably could”.
The Saints ahead’s momentum noticed him deal with Blakey closely on Thursday evening, with Blakey’s head crashing into the SCG floor.
Butler, represented by Jack Rush, pled not responsible to tough conduct.
The Swans’ medical report famous Blakey handed his Head Impact Assessment and won’t miss any coaching or any matches.
Asked by the Saints whether or not he had any various than to deal with Blakey, Butler instructed the Tribunal: “No. I’d be dropped.”
Sally Flynn, for the AFL, requested: “You did not let Blakey’s arms go with enough time for him to sufficiently brace himself. Do you agree?”
Butler responded: “No.”
Flynn continued: “The force you used was excessive force. Do you agree?”
Butler responded: “No.”
The Saints pointed to the Tribunal’s clarification for liberating Rory Laird of his harmful deal with cost in opposition to Lachie Neale as a motive to free Butler.
Those causes included: ‘“Every situation is different, but if a player slows instead of slinging, if he releases or doesn’t pin a defensive arm, all things being equal he may be demonstrating a reasonable attempt to avoid or minimise harm to his fellow player.
“The question in these circumstances will always be whether the tackler has done enough to convert a potentially dangerous tackle into a tackle that’s not dangerous.”
Flynn argued “this tackle falls far below what a reasonable player would consider as prudent in all of the circumstances”, given his arms had been initially pinned, and never launched with sufficient time for a secure touchdown.
She additionally argued there was a second movement driving Blakey into the bottom, which the Saints objected to.
“To release the arm was quite a remarkable performance and applying the education that is received in relation to making this sort of tackle,” Rush stated for the Saints.
Rush additionally made the daring suggestion Butler’s clear document made for “exceptional and compelling circumstances” which imply they need to overturn the cost even when they discover the deal with was harmful.
Simply, Rush put it, “there was nothing else that could’ve been done by this player.”
Flynn stated the comparability to Laird deal with was not relevant given “all the momentum is this tackle is coming from Butler.”
In the Tribunal’s findings, Jeff Gleeson stated: “We find that given the speed at which Butler was traveling and the angle from which he approached the tackle, it was inevitable that he would tackle Blakey to the ground.
“The question is how did he execute the tackle? Was the method reasonable in all the circumstances? We’re not persuaded that this was a two-action tackle.
“We consider that Butler did not drive Blakey into the ground with his legs. We note he had dropped to the side and had no real power from the commencement of the tackle.
“We also find that he did not drive Blakey to the ground with his arms. Butler fell to the ground with Blakey as a result of the momentum of the tackle.
“Butler released Blakey’s defensive arm towards the end of the tackling motion.
“Butler made a conscious decision to release Blakey’s arm so that he might brace for impact.
The question is not whether he released it in time for it to be effective – thought we find that it did slightly help Blakey to brace for contact – the question is whether he did so as early as he reasonably could.
“We find that he did.
“Releasing an arm or not pinning an arm will not always be enough to avoid breaching the duty of care.
“Here, the fact that the tackled player will be brought to ground was inevitable and unavoidable was an important consideration. We find that this was not a careless act and the charge is dismissed.”
RHYAN MANSELL HEARING
Speedy Tigers half-forward Mansell was unable to make the case he didn’t bump Fremantle’s James Aish, coping a three-week ban for concussing his opponent.
He pled not responsible arguing it was not a bump, with Lisa Hannon for the AFL contending it was a excessive bump and even when not, falls inside tough conduct – pushing for a three-match suspension.
The Dockers medical report discovered Aish is anticipated to overlook two or extra matches.
Mansell argued: “If I had’ve kept running straight on, I would’ve opened myself and both of us up to injury.”
The AFL argued Mansell knew at an early level he wouldn’t get to the ball first, which the Tiger disagreed with, as they went frame-by-frame by the imaginative and prescient.
“I don’t think I had any other option but to protect myself … I don’t believe I could’ve (tackled him),” Mansell stated, additionally arguing he couldn’t decelerate on the level Aish reached the ball.
Mansell didn’t agree with the concept he “ran through him (Aish)”.
Hannon argued Mansell may’ve tackled Aish, or slowed “even slightly”, stating: “If this does not constitute a bump, what is it then?”
“At the point of the bump, Mansell wasn’t contesting the ball. If he was, it wasn’t reasonable to contest the ball in the way he did.”
The Tigers’ Sam Tovey countered with the argument Mansell was bracing however “not driving through in a classic bumping motion”.
“Mansell’s attack on the ball was legitimate and it was genuine. Who was going to get the ball was dependent on that final bounce (which saw the ball enter Aish’s hands).
“He braces himself at the last possible moment. If this was a player who was lining up another player to bump, you would see that motion occurring earlier.”
The Tribunal disagreed with the Tigers’ case.
“The first question is whether Mansell was in the act of bumping Aish. We find that he was,” Jeff Gleeson stated.
“Although he approached the contest at speed, the vision shows that from a metre or two from the point of impact he turns and bumps Aish. This was not simply a reflexive or involuntary bumping into an opponent. It was a bump.
“It’s important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.
“This bump caused forceful contact to Aish’s head. The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball. We find that he was not.
“From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball. The charge is upheld and the sanction of three weeks’ suspension is imposed.”
JAMES SICILY HEARING
Just after coming back from a ban, the Hawthorn skipper is dealing with one other suspension – however this one could possibly be for much longer.
Sicily is difficult the careless grading of his harmful deal with on Brisbane’s Hugh McCluggage – making an attempt to be cleared totally – whereas accepting the extreme influence and excessive contact parts.
The Lions medical report said McCluggage is dealing with ongoing concussion administration remedy and can miss a minimal of 11 coaching days and one match.
The Hawks, represented by Myles Tehan, meant to name to offer proof each Sicily and Dr Liz Bradshaw, a senior lecturer in biomechanics at Deakin University.
Sicily defined he was taught just lately as a part of the damaging deal with crackdown to “try and bring them onto yourself to soften their landing and not pin the arms”.
He stated it “would’ve been a poor reflection of leadership as the captain of the club choosing not to tackle, and wouldn’t have met the standards expected of us.”
He added contact earlier than the deal with with Keidean Coleman put him off-balance and he meant to concentrate on McCluggage’s hips and “disturb his arms”.
“I was sort of in disbelief that that was the outcome (concussion) of what just happened. It’s not a good feeling to see someone lie motionless,” he stated.
Sicily went to the Brisbane change rooms post-game and spoke to Lions assistant coach Cam Bruce to see if McCluggage was nonetheless within the rooms. He requested McCluggage if he was OK, he stated “yes” after which assured him he didn’t push him on goal.
“I think the combination of him being on top of me, and one arm being free, is more than enough duty of care,” Sicily argued.
But the AFL, represented by Lisa Hannon, pointed to the very fact his proper arm – the free arm – was not the one near the bottom and thus couldn’t break his fall.
Hannon disputed the aim of biomechanist Liz Bradshaw’s proof however she was permitted to talk.
The Hawks tried to maneuver slowly by her proof however Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson requested them to rush it as much as get to the core of the case – that Brockman’s affect on the deal with contributed to the rotation.
“The way he (McCluggage) was positioned through his hips and legs was forced into a sitting position, so it was only the trunk which flexed forward and could then extend once the weight force from Brockman moved off him,” she stated.
Bradshaw argued Sicily had “no real control” as soon as Brockman impacted the competition, stating “he actually can’t slow that rotation down to change this situation.”
Asked whether or not McCluggage’s head would’ve nonetheless made contact with the bottom if Brockman wasn’t concerned, she stated there was “no way to tell”.
The AFL nonetheless argued the motion itself was not considerably influenced by Brockman, and that it was the movement of the deal with that created pressure, whereas explaining the left arm remained pinned by the deal with which contributed to the pinnacle’s influence.
The Hawks tried to argue an arm being pinned in a deal with was “not in and of itself against the rules”.
Tehan stated “desperate, diving tackles are part of Australian Football and have been for as long as the game has been around.”
He added that, with out the involvement of Brockman, this is able to’ve been a secure deal with.
The AFL Tribunal deliberated for almost 40 minutes earlier than upholding the cost.
“Sicily clung on and rotated McCluggage across his body. Tyler Brockman leapt across the back of the rotating McCluggage and made contact with him,” Gleeson stated.
“Sicily kept clinging onto McCluggage and kept rotating him. We do not accept Brockman’s involvement caused an otherwise safe tackle to be dangerous.
“Sicily continuing to rotate McCluggage, pulling him down on his left arm and pinning his left arm caused this tackle to be dangerous.
“He could’ve released the left arm. Had he done so, McCluggage would not have been rotated across his body into the ground with such force.
“Accordingly, we find this was a dangerous tackle.
“We do not accept that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances here. Two matters were raised.
“As to the first, it may be that Brockman’s involvement changed the force of the impact, but we can‘t be sufficiently satisfied as to the extent. If Brockman wasn’t there, McCluggage would’ve still been rotated into the ground with force.
“As to the second, we accept without hesitation Sicily was remorseful and immediately quite shaken by the injury to McCluggage he did not intend.
“This does not constitute exceptional and compelling circumstances.
“We impose a sanction of three weeks’ suspension.”
Originally printed as AFL Tribunal wrap: Hawks captain banned as verdicts drop for 3 essential instances
Source: www.news.com.au
