‘Game isn’t dead’: Freo skipper’s ban overturned in AFL Tribunal stunner

Fremantle’s captain is free to play after his three-match suspension was overturned in a surprise verdict at the AFL Tribunal.

Fremantle captain Alex Pearce has had his three-match ban overturned at the AFL Tribunal.

The Dockers defender had been charged by the Match Review Officer for an ugly collision with Port Adelaide’s Darcy Byrne-Jones late in Fremantle’s win over the Power on the weekend.

FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer.

Pearce had eyes for the ball but braced for impact at the last minute as he made contact with Byrne-Jones in a heavy hit.

Byrne-Jones lay on the turf and had to be helped from the field, taking no further part in the game.

The incident was graded as careless and severe impact with high contact by the AFL’s Match Review Officer, resulting in that three-week suspension.

But Fremantle successfully challenged the suspension at the Tribunal on Tuesday and had the ban overturned, allowing Pearce to play in Saturday’s game against the Gold Coast Suns.

The AFL argued Pearce’s conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances under the general rough conduct prohibition.

Port Adelaide’s medical report found Byrne-Jones was concussed and is expected to miss three days of training and one match, evening counting for the club’s bye this weekend.

Pearce said he had no choice but to impact the contest and to do otherwise would have been shirking contact.

“Yeah, it would not sit well with me if I was to pull out of that contest and not impact it,” Pearce said.

“I wouldn’t be overly comfortable in the way that would look and the way my teammates would see that.

Watch the Alex Pearce incident in the video above

Alex Pearce has escaped suspension for this hit on Darcy Byrne-Jones.

“And, to be honest, the way that the broader football public would view me as a footballer if I was to slow momentum and pull out of that contest just because there was going to be impact between two players.

“I’m aware that there is going to be a collision between the two of us,” he said.

“At that point, I drop my (left) arm and brace for the impact … to limit the impact as much as possible.

“I thought I had made a play at the ball … it felt like it was just a collision in the marking contest.

“Given my role as a defender and role as captain of our club, I don’t believe that in that situation again I would be able to make a different decision than go at that ball and at that contest 100 per cent and make a play at the ball,” he said.

Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said: “Pearce’s attempt to mark was entirely realistic.

“If not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, he would likely have taken the mark.

“We do not find that this was rough conduct.”

Reacting to the news, West Coast premiership defender Will Schofield wrote on X: “I actually can’t believe it. Maybe the game isn’t dead.”

AFL Tribunal reasoning

Byrne-Jones ran back with the flight of the ball. The kick was fairly high, and the players arrived at the ball in roughly opposite directions at almost precisely the same time.

That last point is critical.

Pearce’s attempt to mark was entirely realistic.

He had his arms out to attempt to take a chest mark, and if not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, would likely have taken the mark.

Pearce said that he didn’t deviate from his line to the ball and the vision supports that evidence.

Darcy Byrne-Jones was concussed from the incident. (Photo by Janelle St Pierre/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

Pearce said that his eyes never left the ball until the last split second when he glanced down to Byrne-Jones and it was too late to pull out of the contest. The vision supports that evidence.

Pearce said that he dropped his arms further at the last moment so as to attempt to minimise the harm to Byrne-Jones. The vision supports that evidence.

It follows that we do not find that this was rough conduct.

when all of the vision was closely examined and the evidence of Pearce was taken into account, it was clear that:

A) he intended to mark the ball.

B) He was a realistic chance to mark the ball

C) His eyes never left the ball until it was too late

D) He did what he could at the last minute to minimise impact to the oncoming player

E) This was not in fact a bump

Originally published as ‘Game isn’t dead’: Freo skipper’s ban overturned in AFL Tribunal stunner