The AFL Tribunal has overturned the controversial ban of Demons rookie Jacob van Rooyen on attraction.
Van Rooyen was handed a two-week ban on Tuesday after fronting the tribunal after his tried spoil on the Gold Coast’s Charlie Ballard noticed him gather his opponent within the head together with his proper arm.
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 >
Brisbane champion Jonathan Brown mentioned the suspension threatens to alter the material of the sport whereas AFL 360 host Mark Robinson mentioned the ban was “rubbish”.
At the time, AFL Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson dominated: “We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However, we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard’s head.”
Melbourne shocked nobody by interesting however in a marathon four-hour listening to, van Rooyen has been cleared to play towards Hawthorn on Saturday.
The Demons, represented by Will Houghton KC, argued towards the instructions given by Gleeson on Tuesday.
“We submit the Tribunal was wrong in law, because it sought to limit the true operation of the rule (18.5.3, Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark),” Houghton mentioned.
“The rule is there to protect a player whose sole objective is to either contest the mark or spoil the mark.
“He went and spoiled the mark, using an outstretched arm and fist to punch the ball away. That should’ve been the end of the matter.
“Van Rooyen was found to be an honest player, who told an honest story about an incident in which he achieved the objective every player should be able to achieve: To spoil a mark.”
The AFL was represented by Andrew Woods KC, who argued the Demons had accepted the Tribunal’s interpretation on Tuesday.
He additionally argued that if the attraction succeeded then gamers would “essentially have a blank cheque” and would have “no obligation to take reasonable care of their fellow players, so long as their sole objective is a lawful action.”
After over two hours of deliberating, the Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam discovered: “Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.”
He added: “We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.
“However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.
“It’s not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.
“Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It’s not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.”
It comes after the AFL world revolted over the preliminary choice.
Demons coach Simon Goodwin mentioned the day after the unique choice: “Clearly, the laws state that you can contest the ball, and Jacob’s only thing that he was looking at was contesting the ball. The fabric of the game has been challenged, clearly.”
Collingwood nice Nathan Buckley additionally thought the cost was excessive.
“This is the old, ‘do the whole competition a favour, Melbourne, and contest this and get the kid off’. I don’t think that he should go for that,” Buckley informed SEN.
“Having to go back with the flight, you’re not always going to be able to get your eyes back to the ball. You’re looking for the hands of the opponent and you’re trying to get your fist to the hand so you can intersect and hit the ball.”
Source: www.news.com.au
