AFL tribunal news: Bradley Close and Jacob van Rooyen bans upheld, Nic Newman escapes after Lachie Neale letter
Jacob van Rooyen and Brad Close failed in their attempts to overturn their bans, but a Blue has been aided by a signed letter from the player he hit.
AFL
Don't miss out on the headlines from AFL. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Brownlow Medallist Lachie Neale’s signed letter and further evidence on video link-up helped Carlton defender Nic Newman escape a striking charge on Tuesday night.
Newman – who has been given roles on Toby Greene and Charlie Cameron this year – is now free to lockdown on Western Bulldogs star Cody Weightman in Saturday night’s top-eight encounter.
The Blues lost all three matches Newman missed last season, including the final two rounds as they were dislodged from the top eight for the first time all season.
In the last of three marathon hearings that spanned close to six hours, Neale’s evidence coupled with poor vision captured on Friday night helped dismiss the charge.
Junior Rioli’s striking charge will be heard on Wednesday.
“In this matter it is clear that at some stage in the grappling between Nic Newman and Lachie Neale there has been forceful high contact to Neale,” tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson KC said in his verdict.
Nic Newman has received a one-match suspension for striking Lachie Neale. pic.twitter.com/XSg464KAmb
— AFL (@AFL) May 6, 2023
“It is also clear that Newman moved his right arm in a way that if he made contact above Neale’s shoulder would constitute a strike.
“What is not clear is that that movement of Newman’s right arm in fact made contact above Neale’s shoulders.
“Newman said it struck Neale’s chest. Neale said the earlier left arm movement, of which Newman is not charged, connected with his chin – but that he didn’t think the second right-arm movement did connect above his shoulders.
“The vision is not sufficiently clear to enable us to determine whether the right arm contacted Neale just below or above his shoulder.
“As such, the charge as laid of an intentional high strike is not made out. A charge of a careless high strike must also fail, because we are not satisfied there was high contact.
“We’re not satisfied that a blow chest of this nature constitutes a strike to the body. Accordingly the charge is dismissed.”
Gleeson had “considerable reluctance” accepting a victim players’ evidence due to the perceived pressure to help another footballer.
But Neale’s letter was accepted as evidence because of the lack of clear vision and he was then phoned for questioning.
Newman said he felt “a little clip to my jaw” from the first action – but not the second action, for which Newman was charged.
The Blues argued that Newman’s pushing motion was not a strike.
“Why would an AFL footballer intentionally strike Lachie Neale 20m from his goal?” their counsel Peter O’Farrell argued.
“Neale’s evidence was clear that he was hit to the chest with a hand. There’s no better evidence in terms of someone that was hit than from the person that was hit.
“You’ve got that from a Brownlow Medallist. A Brownlow Medallist that has got nothing to gain from being here tonight other than demonstrating his good character.”
LEGENDS AT ODDS WITH MRO AS DEE’S BAN UPHELD
Footy legends and AFL coaches are officially at odds with the Match Review Officer and the tribunal after Jacob van Rooyen’s two-match ban for striking was upheld on Tuesday night.
Adrian Anderson, who acted as van Rooyen’s legal representative, said that under the fabric of the game it was an unrealistic expectation for van Rooyen to slow down or “simply pull out of a contest when a spoil was on the cards”.
But the fallout could see players encouraged to pull out of marking contests even if their sole intention is to mark or spoil the ball given the verdict that went against what Jonathan Brown and coaches including Adam Kingsley (GWS) and Justin Longmuir (Fremantle) had expected.
Ballard was stretchered from the field but is expected to be cleared to take on West Coast on Friday night.
In a complex hearing that lasted two hours, Anderson quoted the Laws of Australian Football document relating to marking contests.
Under “Spirit and Intention” law 18.5.1 reads: “The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so”.
Under “Permitted Contact” law 18.5.3 reads: “Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark”.
Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson KC credited that as a valid point – but said it created a “complex” issue.
“If conduct could not constitute a free kick, it is not presently apparent to me how that same conduct could constitute a reportable offence,” Gleeson said.
“If the phrase incidental contact meant simply contact that occurred in a marking contest that would result in any contact whatsoever no matter how reckless being permitted if the players’ sole objective is to contest or spoil a mark.”
van Rooyen told the tribunal: “I was looking at the ball a lot. My sole objective was to spoil the ball”.
He was unsure whether he grazed the Sherrin before his bicep connected with Ballard’s head.
Anderson said van Rooyen locked eyes on the ball when Jack Viney skied a kick forward and then changed his focus to the landing zone for “two or three steps”.
Anderson said van Rooyen only took his eyes off the ball for 0.8sec. He argued that if van Rooyen had eyes for Ballard it would’ve been a “miracle” that his hand got close to perfecting the spoil.
Anderson noted van Rooyen made a legitimate spoiling motion – not a swinging arm – and said incidental contact was regrettable at times but part of the game.
But Gleeson’s verdict was that van Rooyen had in fact committed a reportable offence.
“(van Rooyen) said that he looked up and watched the ball as he ran to the contest,” Gleeson said.
“A few steps before arriving at the contest he took his eyes off the ball and looked at or in the immediate direction of Ballard, who was shaping to mark the ball.
“We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this. It was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation.
“We find that his objective at the moment of and shortly prior to impact was to spoil the mark.
“However, we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling in the way he did, would almost inevitably have resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard’s head.
“He launched and extended his arm out across Ballard’s head. In those circumstances and in light of the instructions given to the panel about the interpretation and application of law 18.5 of the Laws of the Game this was not permitted incidental contact.
“We find that Mr van Rooyen was careless and that he committed the reportable offence of striking by a forceful blow to the head.
“The force of the blow was considerable. He suffered residual neck pain and stiffness. We assess the impact as high.”
Former AFL players took to twitter to express their thoughts on the decision.
Melbourne board member and former great Brad Green asked what van Rooyen was expected to do next time.
“You coach to spoil or at least contest the marking contest. It’s a rule in the rule book,” Green said.
“If (Ballard) didn’t get stretchered off, would (van Rooyen) be playing? This is ridiculous.”
Swans champion Jude Bolton tweeted: “Ridiculous…. Got it wrong. Bit clumsy, but simply contesting a footy in the air. Penalise the non-footy actions”.
Jack Riewoldt also had his say on Fox Footy.
“I think he’s come back with the flight, tried to make a spoil, he’s out of position, caught him with the bicep area,” Riewoldt said.
“A lot of those times when you’re running back with the flight you’re actually watching the eyes of the oppo to get a bit of a general gist of where the ball’s going to land.
“Coaches harp onto key forwards about making a contest; you don’t need to mark the ball, you just need to make a contest. He’s tried to make a contest there, made a bit of a blue but I don’t think he’s gone out of his way to nuke him.”
CLOSE BAN UPHELD
Premiership forward Bradley Close will join Geelong captain Patrick Dangerfield on the sidelines for Friday night’s clash against Richmond after failing to overturn his one-match ban at the tribunal.
Close joined the likes of Zach Merrett, Will Day and Taylor Adams in unsuccessfully challenging their dangerous tackle charges this year as the tribunal moved to clear up what constituted a player’s duty of care.
Adelaide captain Jordan Dawson’s head hit the turf when he was tackled by Close, 24, on Saturday in a rough conduct charge that was graded careless conduct, high contact and medium impact.
After a 95-minute hearing where it took the tribunal almost an hour to deliberate the response was emphatic and should serve as a warning to all players.
“We accept that players tackle by grabbing an arm. But if the tackler realizes, or should realize, that the tackled player is coming to ground with momentum and does not release the tackled players’ arm that he might have used to protect himself he will likely have breached his duty of care to that player,” tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson KC said.
“That is what happened here. Not only did Mr Close not release Dawson’s arm, he held tight and pulled his wrist back as Dawson attempted to free his arm and brace.
“The force of Dawson’s head hitting the grass was apparant. His head bounced on the turf, his momentary pain was visible (and) there was a potential for a facial or concussion injury.
“We find the impact was medium.”
Close had pleaded not guilty to the charge and also attempted to have the impact downgraded from medium to low.
Former Western Bulldog Lindsay Gilbee said it was a “shocking decision” to ban Close.
What was Brad Close meant to do??
— Lindsay Gilbee (@LindsayGilbee) May 9, 2023
Shocking decision
The AFL argued that Close “held both of Dawson’s arms therefore depriving him of the opportunity to protect himself and importantly to prevent his head from hitting the ground at the force that it did”.
Adelaide doctor Marc Cesana’s medical report stated that Dawson required no immediate or ongoing treatment.
But the league said the Crows captain was “physically dazed, albeit momentarily” and the tackle could “easily” have led to a concussion or neck injury.
The Cats argued that it was Dawson’s failed attempt to burst through the tackle after having prior opportunity that caused both players to hit the ground.
Ben Ihle KC, acting for Close, noted that Dawson stood 191cm and 91kg, compared to Close’s 70.5kg.
“It’s not Brad Close who brings Dawson to ground. It’s Dawson who brings Close to ground,” Ihle said.
“If the AFL intended when it promulgated these rules that all dangerous tackles where the head hits the ground should be ‘medium’ impact, it would have said so. It hasn’t.”
Close is regarded as a key player for Geelong’s system because of his hard running up and down the field that often goes unnoticed.
Close kicked four goals against West Coast in round 5 while in the victory against Essendon at the MCG he ran 15.4km – more than any other player on the ground.
Star Crows recruit’s leading role in Rachele resurgence revealed
Josh Rachele’s resurgence continues to gather steam and the role one of Adelaide’s key off-season recruits has played has been revealed. Plus, the latest on Sid Draper and Dan Curtin.
Back from the brink: How jiu-jitsu saved footy’s ‘Etihad specialist’
Sean Tighe hit rock bottom. Then in the depths of the toughest time of his life, the former VFL star was challenged to take up jiu jitsu. PAUL AMY finds out how the gruelling sport has changed — and saved — Tighe.