AFL Round 5 Tribunal: Follow the latest news on Taylor Adams, Zach Merrett and Anthony Caminiti

Zach Merrett’s challenge failed at the tribunal. But will Taylor Adams be free to play on Anzac Day? See all the verdicts from a big night at the tribunal.

Taylor Adams will challenge his one-match ban at the AFL tribunal. Picture: Getty Images

Essendon captain Zach Merrett and Collingwood midfielder Taylor Adams have both failed in their bids to play in the Anzac Day clash at the MCG.

Merrett was hit with a one-match ban for a dangerous tackle on Melbourne’s Tom Sparrow in the Bombers’ win over the Demons, while Adams couldn’t overturn his one-game suspension offered for his tackle on St Kilda’s Seb Ross during Gather Round.

On a big night at the Tribunal, St Kilda’s Anthony Caminiti also received a three-match ban for his hit on Magpie Nathan Murphy.

The Bombers captain argued that he didn’t have Sparrow “in any vulnerable position” and the Demons player’s attempted sidestep did mean that the momentum swung after what was initially a front-on tackle.

“As I was falling backwards I felt that most of him was going to fall onto me,” Merrett said.

“I didn’t think he was in any danger.

“I felt like his prior was gone so I was trying to execute a tackle to get a free kick.

“A majority of me (hit the ground first) and then I felt his impact on my right side, my ribs and my shoulder.

“I hit the ground first and then very soon after I felt him.”

Zach Merrett’s suspension has been upheld. Picture: Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images

Merrett also said that Sparrow was trying to fight the tackle.

“I felt Tom used his right arm to semi-push my chest, so I’m trying to pull him closer to me to not allow any space for him to get the ball out,” he said.

Counsel for the AFL Nick Pane KC said Merrett’s right arm being around Sparrow’s neckline throughout the tackle meant that it was “inherently dangerous”.

“The key in this action is that his right arm is wrapped around Sparrow’s neck and this ensures that his head is being guided towards the ground,” he said.

“We say a tackle in those circumstances, a hand around the neckline and bringing him towards the ground is an inherently dangerous tackle.”

The Tribunal agreed.

Chair Jeff Gleeson said while Merrett was “honest and forthright” in his submission, “there was a real risk in Sparrow’s head colliding forcefully with the ground”.

“A reasonable player in Merretts situation would have realised that there was some vulnerability in Sparrow,” he said.

“As his right arm was pinned, and would have realised that the tackle was both pulling and pushing in such a way that Sparrow’s head was driving to the ground with force.

“And there was a real risk that Sparrow wouldn’t land entirely on Merrett

“For those reasons we find that this was a dangerous tackle.”

Adams’ one was labelled as a “difficult matter” because of the presence of teammates Tom Mitchell and Beau McCreery in the tackle on Ross.

The Collingwood midfielder had pleaded guilty with the hope it would be reduced to low impact.

Adams said the way he tackled Ross actually protected him from the ground.

Taylor Adams will also miss Anzac Day. Picture: James Elsby/AFL Photos via Getty Images

“I’m lucky that I did because he would hit the ground harder,” he said.

“I know it is my duty of care to look after a player in a vulnerable position there.

“Tom has got half a foot on the ground so he has his whole body weight following onto us and Beau likes tackling so much he is tackling Tom who is tackling us.”

Pane disagreed.

“What is it that causes Ross to hit the ground? It’s not Mitchell or McCreery, it’s Adams’ tackle. He’s the one who plants his legs and pulls Ross to the ground,” he said.

“If you were to look at Adams’ actions alone, not taking into account Mitchell or McCreery, in my submission this would be a dangerous tackle. The fact there are two other players in the tackle doesn’t lessen the impact, if anything it might magnify it.”

Gleeson said it was a difficult one to judge.

“The issue of dangerous tackles in circumstances where there are more than one tackler are, in my experience at least, a novel issue for this tribunal and potentially a very important issue when it comes to the question of conduct and the question of impact,” he said.

But after deliberation, Adams’ bid to downgrade the impact to low was rejected.

“Seb Ross was tackled by three players, Taylor Adams was the third player to join the tackle,” Gleeson said.

“He admits his tackle was dangerous and his conduct was careless. But he says the impact was only low and not medium.

“Having carefully viewed the vision and the still shots we find... there is no significant movement of Ross, or Mitchell or McCreery to the ground until Adams joined the tackle.

“Adams applied a very strong tackle to Ross and pulled Ross to the ground.

“The force that brought Ross to the ground was the force overwhelmingly supplied by Adams.

“There was potential for a concussive injury and that combined with the actual force warranted a finding of medium impact.”

Saint escapes monster ban

St Kilda’s Anthony Caminiti has received a three-match suspension for an incident that left Collingwood’s Nathan Murphy concussed.

But the young key forward will be breathing a sigh of relief after the AFL asked that he be slapped with a five-match ban, before the Tribunal found that his strike on Murphy was not intentional, rather careless.

The incident that left Murphy concussed occurred in the final quarter of the Pies’ narrow win over the Saints at Adelaide Oval on Sunday, the last game of Gather Round.

It happened off the ball, as the two jostled as Caminiti sought separation from Murphy to make a lead.

Match review panel officer Michael Christian did grade the Saints’ forwards strike as intentional conduct, severe impact and high contact – with a penalty of between four and six weeks.

Anthony Caminiti has been suspended for three matches. Picture: Dylan Burns/AFL Photos

The Saints’ bid to downgrade this got off to a less-than-ideal start when they couldn’t get a victim statement from Murphy taken into evidence.

This centered around Murphy slipping slightly before he was struck, which the Tribunal said was already apparent from the vision.

Caminiti said the strike was one he has performed “countless times” in his short AFL career and would have done it on four other occasions during the match.

“As part of my craft as a forward, I have been taught to face my opponent and contact my forearm through his chest so I can create separation between me and them,” he said.

“So what I do is I identify if the ball is in dispute and if I can identify if the ball.

“I just go to my opponent and put my forearm into his chest, I use quite minimal force.

“Usually I am able to create separation that way.

“I used the same force throughout the game.

“I identified that the ball was in dispute, the last thing I saw was that my teammate had the ball so I anticipated that the ball would be launched into the forward line.

“As part of his defending if my back to was him he would put his forearm into my back. and because I turned around I felt like he was trying to defend himself by putting his arm into my neck and as part of my forward craft I went to put my forearm into his chest.

“At the time I was completely unaware I hit him anywhere near the head or the chin.

“I thought it was a normal hit to the chest, but now looking at the vision it is clear that I must have hit him somewhere on the chin.”

Caminiti said he spoke to Murphy on Sunday evening.

“I was very remorseful and I wanted to know how sorry I was at the action and I felt kind of bad for the outcome,” he said.

Counsel for the AFL Nick Pane KC said Caminiti should get a five-match ban if the strike was deemed intentional.

“Mr Caminiti has given evidence that he was not retaliating to player Murphy… but player Caminiti’s evidence was quite clear that he was intending to make forceful contact with player Murphy, especially with his left arm,” he said.

“In my submission player Caminiti intended to strike player Murphy rather than fend or push him off.”

Caminiti’s hit on Nathan Murphy left the Magpie concussed.

The Saints pushed for a three or four match ban, depending on the classification.

Tribunal chair Jeff Glesson said Caminiti did not intend to strike Murphy in the head but it was careless.

“Murphy’s body lowers before impact and that appears to have significantly contributed to Caminiti’s forearm making contact with his head rather than his neck or shoulder,” he said.

“We also note that at all time after impact, Caminiti did not even glance down at Murphy, who was lying motionless on the ground.

“This is consistent with a player who did not intend to strike or knew that he had struck his opponent to the head.

“The question is whether Caminiti intended to strike Murphy in the body, he gave evidence that he intended to push off to get separation and in his evidence he candidly admitted it was a forceful push.

“The vision shows a swinging impact and we are not entirely convinced that he was doing no more than pushing, nor are we entirely satisfied that Caminiti intended to commit a reportable offence of a strike to the body.”

Originally published as AFL Round 5 Tribunal: Follow the latest news on Taylor Adams, Zach Merrett and Anthony Caminiti