Long appeal falls on deaf ears at tribunal
St Kilda will be forced into three changes for their sudden-death clash against Richmond on Friday night.
St Kilda’s Ben Long has failed to have his one-match ban for rough conduct overturned in the AFL Appeals Board hearing ahead of Friday night’s cut-throat semi-final against Richmond at Metricon Stadium.
In a two-hour long hearing the appeals board deliberated for more than 30 minutes before finding the appeal should be dismissed and his ban stands.
Long was suspended for one match at the AFL Tribunal on Monday night for engaging in rough conduct against Jack Macrae in the Saints’ elimination final win over the Western Bulldogs at the Gabba on Saturday.
Vowing to “leave no stone unturned” in trying to prove Long’s innocence, St Kilda appealed the sanction on the grounds “an error of law has occurred” and the “classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive”.
But the AFL Appeals Board chairman Murray Kellman QC said the panel’s decision did not support St Kilda’s arguments.
“Given the degree of force, the degree of head impact, the momentum of player Long, all of which the jury were entitled to find was clearly established by the video, we consider that no error of law has been identified in the findings of the jury,” Kellman said. “The jury had to give consideration as to the appropriate level (of impact) and in our view the findings of medium impact was squarely within the range of findings open to the jury.
“Accordingly we consider that the appeal should be dismissed.”
The Saints did not immediately offer a comment after the decision was handed down.
The appeal board decision means the Saints will be forced to make three changes for the clash against the Tigers.
Jake Carlisle has left the Saints hub to join his wife for the birth of their third child, while ruckman Paddy Ryder suffered a heartbreaking hamstring injury late in the match against the Bulldogs.
It is Long’s second ban this year, after missing three matches for a bump on Fremantle’s Sean Darcy.
Long, represented by Jack Rush QC, argued there had been an “overfocus” on the potential for injury rather than on the medical evidence that there was “no injury”.
But AFL representative Jeff Gleeson QC said the jury had been entitled to ask about the potential for injury and “could this have been worse?”
Herald Sun
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout