North Melbourne have been unsuccessful in their bid to overturn Jackson Archer’s three-match ban for rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal, as part of three failed challenges on a busy night.
Archer was cited after Western Bulldogs defender Luke Cleary was concussed following a collision during their match on Saturday night, with the Roo’s knee collecting Cleary in the head as the pair competed for a loose ball.
Match Review Officer Michael Christian graded the incident as careless conduct with severe impact and high contact, triggering a three-game suspension, which the Tribunal upheld on Tuesday night.
Richmond’s Tom Lynch and Hawthorn’s Jack Scrimshaw were similarly unsuccessful, with Lynch banned for one match for a bump on Carlton ruckman Tom De Koning and Scrimshaw copping three weeks for a swinging arm which concussed Essendon defender Jordan Ridley.
The Kangaroos attempted to challenge the ban, claiming Archer’s conduct was not unreasonable in the circumstances and that he had no way of knowing Cleary would go to ground.
Lack of remonstration with Archer from Bulldogs players following the incident was also cited in his defence, as was a message from Cleary the day after saying Archer had ‘nothing to stress about’ regarding a potential suspension.
In giving evidence, Archer said he expected Cleary would keep his feet, which players are taught to do as far back as junior football, adding that he expected to receive a free in the immediate aftermath for contact below the knees.
“When he starts to pick up the ball, I’m starting to slow down enough where I can make a fair tackle,” Archer said.
“It’s not until his knee hits the ground that I realise he’s chosen to go to ground.
“I waited until midday the next day and shot him [Cleary] a text saying sorry about the incident. I didn’t have any intentions for what happened to happen and hoped he was okay.
“He got back to me pretty quickly and said he was okay, and to his credit he said to me that he didn’t think it was my fault and that I’ve got nothing to stress about.”
However, the Tribunal disagreed, upholding the ban and saying Archer should have foreseen Cleary would go to ground and done more to prevent contact.
“We find that this was rough conduct against Cleary, which, in the circumstances, was unreasonable,” a Tribunal statement reads.
“Cleary was always closer to the loose ball and was always going to reach the loose ball before Archer. Archer gave evidence that he intended to tackle Cleary if Cleary took possession of the ball. It was reasonably foreseeable that Cleary may, at least to some extent, go to ground and not cleanly gather the ball and then straighten up in a manner that would have permitted Archer to tackle him without the unreasonable risk of injury.
“We acknowledge that the rules encourage players to keep their feet to the extent possible in contest situations, and we acknowledge that players are coached to try to keep their feet, but this does not always happen.
“Players should be taken to be aware that it does not always happen. Players frequently go to ground, either because they intend to, because they stumble, or because they’re pushed. We’re unable to determine here whether Cleary made an entirely voluntary election to put his knee on the ground, or whether he did so at least in part because of his momentum, movement of the ball and the pressure of the moment.
“In our view the important matter is that it was reasonably foreseeable that he would do so.
“Cleary did not dive and did not collapse to the ground. He went to one knee and then both knees when bending over at speed in a contest situation. Ultimately, his body moved in a way that went beyond or lower than him being on both knees, but this was a product of his speed, his momentum, the way he approached the ball. Again, we say this was reasonably foreseeable.
“While there was contact below Archer’s knees, this was not a situation where the ball was in contest and where Archer could reasonably have expected that Cleary would necessarily gather the ball cleanly and straighten up so that no such low contact would be made.
“The severity of the injury that could potentially occur is also a relevant circumstance. A high speed collision from front-on of a player whose head is over the ball has the potential not only to cause injury but to cause severe injury. This informs the nature and extent of the duty of care of a player in Archer’s position.
“Given that he was running about as fast as he could, given that he was approaching Cleary from front on, and that Cleary had his head over the ball, and given that he could not reasonably predict what position clear he would be in at the moment of impact, he slowed too little and too late.
“His duty of care required him to slow more appreciably and earlier in order to give himself the opportunity to avoid or minimise head high contact.”
Speaking on 3AW, Geelong former great Jimmy Bartel was scathing of the verdict, saying Archer and current footballers must ‘carry the can’ for the league’s previously lackadaisical approach to concussion that has resulted in a string of recent lawsuits.
“It’s fantastic that the Tribunal believe their own garbage,” Bartel said sarcastically.
“They are saying that Jackson Archer, running flat out, can make up his mind and say ‘he got to the ball first, I should slow down, I should approach the way the game is played, being three-quarter speed, and that’ll be safe for everybody’.
“Someone’s concussed, you have to pay, whether it is an accident, whether it’s what we normally consider a reportable offence – too bad.
“The current day playing group is going to have to carry the can for past mismanagement of concussions. Everyone has to pay now, because we’re worried about legal actions going forward. Bad luck Jackson Archer, you’re going to pay the price as far as football games go.
“I am not blaming Luke Cleary. We all wish him very well… but there are accidents in our game. And the way that the Tribunal describes such actions or requests from players to approach the game is just pure madness.”
Archer will miss matches against Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney.
Richmond spearhead Lynch was just as unsuccessful – he will miss the Tigers’ clash with Port Adelaide on Saturday after his one-match suspension for rough conduct on Carlton’s Tom De Koning was upheld.
Richmond argued Lynch’s contact with De Koning in Thursday night’s clash, where his shoulder hit the Blue’s jaw, was due to Carlton defender Jacob Weitering pushing the forward.
“I’m in a vulnerable position and I react to get my head out of the dangerous position it was in,” Lynch said.
Lynch said he had not attempted to bump or make high contact.
Woods argued the Weitering push was “not of any significant force” and Lynch had opted to bump.
After just 17 minutes of deliberating, the tribunal of Gleeson, Scott Stevens and Paul Williams found Lynch had intended to bump De Koning and did so, and it was not caused by the push from Weitering.
The rough conduct charge and “careless” grading were upheld.
In the final challenge of the night, Scrimshaw unsuccessfully challenged his three-match ban for collecting Bomber Jordan Ridley high during a tackle attempt, that left him with a concussion.
The Hawks claimed Scrimshaw’s contact with Ridley was primarily body to body, and that he slowed down before impact, while only being elevated due to trying to intercept a handball.
However, the Tribunal viewed the incident differently, upholding his three-match ban.
“Scrimshaw swung his arm with force,” a Tribunal statement said.
“The way in which he manoeuvred his body certainly did not minimise the impact. Ridley had no reason to expect forceful head high contact, and could do little to avoid it.
“This was not a strike that was unlikely to result in a concussion. Due to the force of the impact, the fact that Ridley suffered a concussion is unsurprising.
“We are satisfied the impact of this strike was severe.”
(with AAP)
Dutch
English
French
Italian
Portuguese
Spanish
Discussion about this post