Dylan Shiel has lost his AFL tribunal “test case” meaning he will miss the game against St Kilda on Friday night, after a hearing that lasted almost two hours.
It was a similar story for Adelaide’s Rory Laird, who also failed to beat his one-match ban for rough contact in the win over West Coast, meaning he’ll miss the blockbuster against Collingwood.
Shiel faced an unusual rough conduct charge, in that was a direct referral, with the AFL arguing for a one-game ban.
Shiel pushed Geelong’s Mark O’Connor in the back in last Friday night’s match, causing a sickening incident in which Bombers youngster Luamon Lual catapulted over the top of the Cats defender and landed awkwardly on his neck and shoulder.
Lual had to leave the field in obvious distress, but was able to return before being subbed out of the game.
At the heart of the hearing will be whether Shiel can be found guilty of an incident that affected his own teammate.
In charging Shiel, the AFL noted that under the laws of the game he had a duty of care to everyone on the field – not just opponents.
Shiel began by giving evidence to the Tribunal hearing, noting that he was, at worst, trying to get Mark O’Connor under the ball and protect the drop zone.
“I’ve got eyes on the ball the whole time. I thought I was in a one-on-one marking contest,” Shiel said.
Shiel dismissed the AFL’s suggestions that he should’ve seen players in his peripheral vision.
The Bomber also said that he had no idea how Lual got hurt until the staff on the bench informed him it was from the marking contest that he was involved in.
The AFL said Shiel is guilty of “conduct against an opposition player which in the circumstances is unreasonable”.
It listed two reasons why Shiel’s actions went beyond those of a reasonable player due to the force of the push and that it was in the direction of the path of the ball and oncoming players.
“Shiel was not contesting the mark and instead chose to forcefully push his opponent towards the fall of the ball in circumstances where he knew or should’ve known other players would be arriving to contest the ball,” AFL legal representative Nick Pane said.
“The push of a player into the path of oncoming players is inherently dangerous and brings with it a high potential for injury.”
But the Bombers dismissed that claim, saying the intention of the rules is the protection of opposition players and the focus should be on O’Connor, not Luamon Lual, and that at worst it is a fine.
The Tribunal took more than two hours before handing down the verdict.
“Shiel and O’Connor were grappling with one another as the ball was approaching in the air. As the ball got close, Shiel forcefully pushed O’Connor into the marking contest, causing him to collide heavily with player Lual,” the Tribunal statement read.
“The forceful push on O’Connor was unreasonable in the circumstances. It was not conduct that a reasonable player would consider prudent.
“Shiel breached his duty of care by pushing O’Connor in the way he did and in the circumstances.
“We do not accept that Shiel had eyes on the ball at all relevant times and did not see other players in position to contest the mark. That evidence is not supported by the vision of the incident. Vision captures Shiel looking in the direction of the oncoming players at the time he pushed O’Connor.
“Even if Shiel did not see the other players, it was careless of him to push O’Connor when he should have reasonably expected that other players would likely be positioning to contest the mark given the length of time the ball was in the air.
“Lual’s body was flung into the air, which reveals the force with which they collided.”
While O’Connor was not injured, the Tribunal considered that the circumstances of the push were so dangerous that there was significant potential for injury to O’Connor.
“Had Lual’s body position in the marking contest been slightly different at the time of impact, O’Connor’s head or face could have made forceful contact with Lual’s hip or knee, causing O’Connor a serious injury,” the Tribunal stated.
“The potential for a concussion or facial injury was real.
“O’Connor was forcefully pushed into a dynamic situation where he could have sustained a number of serious head and facial injuries.
“We consider a one-match suspension to be appropriate in the circumstances.
“The contact to O’Connor was to the body, but the impact is high due to the significant potential to cause injury to O’Connor.”
The incident has split opinion, with coach Brad Scott, earlier in the day, struggling to see how the Essendon veteran has a case to answer.
Bombers coach Scott, previously the head of AFL football operations, wondered post-match whether a player could be suspended for injuring a teammate.
“It’s been ungraded and sent to the tribunal effectively. It looks to me like it’s just well, it’s a hard one for the MRO to come to a decision on, to they’ve sent it to the tribunal to get their opinion,” Scott said.
“We have a high level of confidence in our case, though.
“The decision to me looks like ‘we don’t know either, so let’s give it to someone else to decide’.
“But the tribunal chair is appointed by the AFL, so I’m not sure they’re an independent body, to be honest, but that’s the way it’s set up.”
Scott noted Essendon had copped a “triple whammy” of punishment: a free kick, Lual’s injury and a tribunal case.
“So we’ve been penalised three times without the opposition actually being the victim, as far as I can see,” he said.
“The Geelong player wasn’t injured. I struggle to see how’s there’s a case to answer, but again, I’m not a lawyer.”
GWS coach Adam Kingsley compared the incident to Richmond player Rhyan Mansell, whose three-game ban was upheld at the tribunal earlier this season for pushing St Kilda’s Liam O’Connell into a marking contest.
“I didn’t like the action. All the way to Rhyan Mansell earlier on in the season, it’s a similar-type act,” Kingsley told Fox Footy.
“It could have ended really badly, so the fact that it was his teammate who potentially could have gotten really badly injured – I guess, potentially, is the sticking point.”
But Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge said Shiel’s intent was key.
“I don’t think he’s planning to push someone into his teammate. I see it the other way,” Beveridge said.
“Is he protecting the space for himself? If he is, let him off. But if they think that he’s pushed an opposition player … into someone else, then that’s a different thing. I can’t see it that way, looking at that (vision).”
Adelaide’s Laird was up next at Tribunal, after being handed a one-game suspension for his high bump on Jamie Cripps in the third term of Sunday’s great escape against West Coast.
The bump was graded as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact, meaning a one-game ban – but the Crows decided to contest the charge, saying it should not have been classified as rough conduct.
Representing the AFL, Sam Bird told the hearing that Laird tucked his right arm and executed a bumping motion with his eyes on Jamie Cripps rather than the ball.
“Laird was not contesting the ball and at no point was he in a position to take possession of the ball,” Mr Bird said.
The Crows responded by saying Laird did not actually bump at all, instead was attempting to push Cripps off his kick
“Laird doesn’t tuck his arm… It’s because of the dynamic of the collision that that is where his arm ends up,” Adelaide legal representative Andrew Culshaw said.
“He doesn’t launch himself, that’s a function of the tangle of legs.”
In a far shorter deliberation than the evening’s first case, the Tribunal returned a decision in around 20 minutes to uphold the ban.
“Rory Laird quite sensibly does not dispute the classification of the charge,” the Tribunal stated.
“His case is that his conduct does not constitute rough conduct. He contends that he did not elect to bump his opponent, and he did not bump him.
“He submitted that the vision and stills show that he pushed his opponent. He submitted that it was a push gone wrong, but it was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
“We have carefully examined all of the evidence, and we find that Laird did bump his opponent, and in doing so, he made high contact.
“Laird sensibly conceded that if the Tribunal was satisfied that the conduct involved a high bump that the charge is to be upheld.”
Adelaide sits on top of the ladder, but a heavy loss could see either the Cats, Magpies or Fremantle – who are one win behind – jump ahead of them.
– with AAP
www.theroar.com.au (Article Sourced Website)
#Bombers #veteran #Shiel #learns #fate #test #case #push #injured #teammate #Laird #set #Pies #blockbuster