AFL Tribunal: Frustrated Carlton to appeal suspension, seeking clarity on Lachie Plowman outcome

Carlton will fight Lachie Plowman’s two-match ban as the Blues seek clarity on the rough conduct incident not just for it, but for the game, says club football manager Brad Lloyd.

Nick Holman applies the tackle that left Mitch Duncan concussed. Picture: Darrian Traynor/AFL Photos/Getty Images

Carlton will appeal defender Lachie Plowman’s two-match suspension to get “clarity” not just for the Blues, but for the game.

Plowman didn’t make the mad dash to Sydney with his teammates on Wednesday, after he was suspended for rough conduct on Tuesday night, because of a bruised knee.

Hawthorn’s Jaeger O’Meara was left concussed after a bump from Plowman in last Saturday’s game at the MCG which Carlton football manager Brad Lloyd described as “two courageous players” contesting the ball”.

An appeal date hasn’t been set but Lloyd said it was a worthwhile endeavour from which the whole competition could benefit.

Watch the 2021 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. Every match of every round Live on Kayo. New to Kayo? Try 14-Days Free Now >

Lachie Plowman will serve a two-match ban for his hit on Jaeger O'Meara. Picture: Getty Images

“We felt that the way things panned out, we want to seek some clarity not just for ourselves but for the game in general,” Lloyd said on Wednesday before the Blues flew to Sydney.

“We feel like it was two courageous players going in to a contest.

“These contests are going to happen fairly regularly and we thought it was worthy of reviewing the situation. Hopefully, if that’s successful, Lachie is available for the next game against West Coast.”

After a lengthy deliberation, and following a direction from the AFL’s representative, the tribunal judged the incident as a bump, not a marking contest.

Lloyd said he couldn’t comment on the specifics of the appeal, but said he walked away unclear on a number of matters.

“We felt there was grounds for appeal. I know I left the hearing wanting some answers on a few things,” he said.

“I don’t think it would hurt our club or hurt the industry to review the hearing.”

Direction to the jury was it wasn’t a marking contest.

“I can’t get in to specifics. We’d just like some clarity.”

HOLMAN BAN OVERTURNED IN WIN FOR ‘THE TACKLE’

Scott Gullan

The tackle lives on after Gold Coast’s Nick Holman had his two-match ban for leaving Geelong’s Mitch Duncan concussed overturned.

Despite earning a free-kick for his chase-down tackle, Holman was later hit with a suspension by the match review panel who took a dim view of Duncan being subbed out of the second half of Saturday’s game.

It was a decision which outraged the football world and the AFL tribunal agreed that the Suns forward hadn’t broken the rules despite the unfortunate injury to his opponent.

Nick Holman applies the tackle that left Mitch Duncan concussed. Picture: Darrian Traynor/AFL Photos/Getty Images

After 25 minutes deliberation, tribunal chairman Ross Howie revealed that the jury had deemed the tackle legal.

“They (the jury) do not consider that there was a second motion and their view is that the momentum of the two players is what caused the consequences of the tackle,” Howie said.

“They consider that the player acted as a reasonable player in the circumstances … and find that he was not careless.”

After a marathon sitting with three cases taking almost five hours to complete, Holman was the only player to get off with Carlton’s Lachie Plowman and Richmond’s Marlion Pickett both having their suspensions upheld.

Duncan was left dazed as Holman took a freekick. Picture: AFL Photos/Getty Images

The hype and debate surrounding the Holman case was addressed at the start of the hearing by AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson.

He urged the jury – which included Melbourne great David Neitz, ex-Hawk Richard Loveridge and Wayne Henwood – to block out the outside noise as there had been a “good deal of vitriol” over the case.

Gleeson then declared that Holman had delivered a second driving action during the tackle.

“This was a good tackle that in its final moments turned into a dangerous tackle,” Gleeson said.

The Gold Coast Suns went on the front foot early and declared there was nothing careless about Holman’s conduct.

They argued it didn’t constitute a dangerous tackle, which was how MRO Michael Christian had classified it — careless conduct, high impact and high conduct.

“The actions of player Holman were well within the rules of the game,” Gold Coast counsel Stephen Russell said.

“There was no swinging, no spinning, no second action, no excessive force, no pushing into the ground, nothing at all.”

The Holman charge had left many in the football world concerned that the league had gone too far with its duty of care argument.

Former Melbourne captain Garry Lyon said the tackle was at risk if the Holman decision was upheld.

“He got two weeks for that tackle, I think if it stands, then tackling is nearly dead,” Lyon told SEN.

“We are as on board with head incidents as anyone in this game, but you know what, you can’t legislate the hitting of the head out of the game completely.”

EYES ON THE BALL NO DEFENCE FOR BANNED BLUE

The football accident defence has again failed with Carlton defender Lachie Plowman’s two-match suspension upheld by the AFL Tribunal.

After a marathon two-hour hearing, the tribunal found that Plowman had executed a late bump on Hawthorn’s Jaeger O’Meara which had left him dazed.

The Blues had argued that the incident was an incidental collision in a marking contest and not a bump but after a lengthy deliberation the jury decided to agree with the match review panel’s ruling.

Tribunal chairman Ross Howie said the jury ruled that Plowman had come to the contest “at speed”.

“He was aware of the presence of player O’Meara while O’Meara was not aware of Plowman,” Howie said.

“They find that Plowman had effected a bump and was guilty of a charge of rough conduct.”

The match review panel had classified the incident as careless conduct, high impact and high contact.

Lachie Plowman collides with Jaeger O’Meara.

Hawthorn trainers and doctors attend to O’Meara after the clash.

Plowman told the tribunal that he only had eyes for the ball and hadn’t seen O’Meara until the last split second.

“I didn’t make any election (to bump), I had all eyes on the ball,” he said. “My pure focus was the ball.

“I was taking the dangerous space away, I have run in a straight line, continued on my way and attacked the ball.”

But the hearing dragged on with confusion over whether Plowman was involved in a marking contest when he crashed into O’Meara.

Eventually Howie put an end to the debate and ruled that given the Blues defender had admitted in evidence that he’d executed a spoil, the jury couldn’t consider the incident as a marking contest.

This brought in a whole different argument regarding the careless nature of Plowman’s actions with the debate going around and around in circles for some time.

The confusion continued for the jury – which included Melbourne great David Neitz, ex-Hawk Richard Loveridge and Wayne Henwood – who took 30 minutes to reach their decision.

A plea for a reduced sentence because of Plowman’s good record also failed.

PICKETT’S APPEAL FAILS

Richmond’s Marlion Pickett also failed in his bid to have a striking charge downgraded with his one-match ban upheld.

The Tigers had tried to have the impact of his hit on Brisbane’s Brandon Starcevich downgraded from medium to low but the tribunal disagreed which means Pickett will miss the Tigers clash with Adelaide.

Pickett’s charge had been originally classified by the match review panel as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.

Brisbane players remonstrate with Marlion Pickett. Picture: AFL Photos/Getty Images

He said he was trying to put pressure on Starcevich and interrupt his kick when he made contact with him high on the shoulder.

“I was trying to tackle him and interrupt his kick, I got my arm out to try to get him around the chest,” Pickett said.

Despite Starcevich playing out the rest of the game and reporting no issues from the incident afterwards the tribunal jury said Pickett’s swinging arm had the potential for injury.