West Coast ruckman Nic Naitanui must serve a one-game suspension for a rough conduct charge that has sparked furious AFL debate.
After a tribunal hearing lasting almost two hours, the three-man jury took longer than usual to find Naitanui guilty of his brutal tackle on Port Adelaide midfielder Karl Amon.
After Wednesday evening hearing, Naitanui defiantly said the suspension would not affect the way he played.
“I’m not going to change the way I go about things,” he said.
“That’s what brings my aspect of playing the game … it is a physical game at the end of the day – it is a contact sport.
“I will just have to keep playing the way I play.
“It’s just unfortunate that Amon, who was the guy that was tackled in this incident, hit his head in the last little bit of it.”
AFL advocate Jeff Gleeson QC argued that Naitanui, a much-bigger player than Amon, had a duty of care when he laid the tackle.
When he cross-examined Naitanui, he asked the Eagles’ star what he weighed and what he thought Amon weighed.
Naitanui replied 110kg for himself and about 80kg for Amon.
But Naitanui’s counsel David Grace QC said the West Coast ruckman’s tackle was not unreasonable and Amon’s concussion might have happened because of other incidents during the game.
“I’ve tried my best to make sure that Amon didn’t have my whole 110kg on his small frame,” Naitanui said in his evidence, via a video link with Perth.
But Naitanui’s defence suffered a blow when veteran Port Adelaide doctor Mark Fisher said several times in his evidence that he thought the tackle from the ruckman had caused Amon to suffer delayed concussion.
Fisher stuck to his argument under cross-examination from Grace.
Amon is in doubt for Saturday’s Showdown clash with Adelaide because of the concussion.
The three-man jury took 15 minutes to decide the tackle was unreasonable and impact was medium – not low – meaning the one-game ban for Naitanui.
The hearing was delayed by a day because Grace had been unavailable.
Amid furious debate around the future of the bump in the game, this case also sparked plenty of passionate commentary around tackling.
Match review officer Michael Christian said on Tuesday that charging Naitanui was the easiest call he had made since taking over the role at the start of the season.
Eagles coach Adam Simpson said the decision to charge Naitanui was a head scratcher.
Early in the hearing, Grace asked that the tribunal jury should disregard Christian’s comments.
His request prompted tribunal chairman David Jones to stress that the three-man jury was independent.
Jones made the comment again to jury members Richard Loveridge, David Neitz and Shane Wakelin at the end of the hearing, before they considered their verdict.
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
Everyone gets tackled hard at some stage. Sometimes they’re similar sized players, sometimes they’re not. It’s just how it is. It’s a contact game. Very few serious injuries result from it. Leave it alone.
peter chrisp
Guest
It was a bit rough a spur of the moment decision he only had 1 second to make a decision but no big deal how about a fine instead?
Vocans
Guest
Yes, the size difference is irrelevant.
Gordon Smith
Guest
Agreed - if the head is sacrosanct then a player who I see careless though not deliberately hits his own team mate the next it is an interesting dilemma
jeznez
Roar Guru
Amon pulls a full 180 in the half a second before Naitanui hits him. When Naitanui is inside 5m of him and lowering himself for the hit Amon is about to catch the ball and is facing him. So you catch the ball, turn your back on a player that is already committed and the other bloke gets suspended? I'm a rugby man and freely admit I don't know the rules of the code but gee that seems stiff.
piru
Roar Rookie
What was wrong with that? Come over to rugby Nic, the Force will find you a spot mate!
User
Roar Rookie
I have no problem that he was suspended, it happens. I don't agree with the statements made by Christian or the statement by the afl counsel that to effect was nic needs to take into account he's bigger and more powerful than most, his size should not be taken into account only the tackle.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
It was a poor decision. Appears to have been made on the basis of the aftermath, delayed concussion rather than on the tackle.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I reckon that's exactly why the "do you expect him to adjust to the size of the player" claims don't wash, especially if you acknowledge the free was there. Basically, if he wasn't able to adjust then it was a reckless approach which made the free kick/illegal tackle too hard to avoid. If his approach wasn't reckless, then he chose not to reasonably adjust to avoid the free kick/illegal tackle (maybe because he didn't want to ball released effectively, or perhaps because he wanted him to stay tackled). Either way, putting it in the clearest and simplest terms, it was an illegal tackle that resulted in a concussion.
vocans
Guest
Push in the back is penalised. Driven push in the back is careless and dangerous. But I agree we need to keep vigilant about the erosion of physicality and its skills. However, this tackle was very unskilled and illegal.
vocans
Guest
Yes, and you put your back to the opposing player so as to give better access to the ball, and he has to watch he doesn't infringe you in the back, over the shoulder, or without the ball. That is skill taught young for those first to the ball. It is up to the tackler to adjust his approach accordingly. Nic didn't do that.
anon
Roar Pro
Instead that Naitanui had committed himself to a fair and legal tackle intending to take Amon in the side, with the tackle also landing him on his side- and thereby laying a near-ideal tackle. But he didn't do that, and has a history of not doing that. Therefore he needs to adjust his technique.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I think that's more a case of trying to shift blame. Amon's movements were consistent with getting more space to dispose of the ball by foot. Most of Natanui's chase down was done while Amon was waiting for the ball, he grabbed it in shrinking space and it makes perfect sense (and to the eye) he simply turned to have a chance at kicking it.
J
Guest
Some great points made in this article. Changed my mind on the decision.
Cat
Roar Guru
Here's a tip – guidelines change every year. The public isn't always in the loop. The plays, coaches, trainer and other staff is. The umpires go around to every team and talk to them. They put together videos of things that are a focus. Internal memo's are circulated all the time. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean changes haven't been made. The very fact that we've gone from an MRP to an MRO would point to change. The fact that we know the third fine no longer results in an automatic one week suspension is another change this year.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Shoulda got 2 weeks. Lol.
Scorching
Guest
From last year. 12 months ago. I haven't seen any announcement by the AFL since then that they are cracking down on this. Neither, O dare say, has Nic Nah or any players
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Isn't that what I said, Cat?
Cat
Roar Guru
Its pointless to compare incidents from different years. It fails to take into account changes in rules and guidelines. As knowledge of concussions continue to increase expect the guidelines and rules to continue to tighten.
Cat
Roar Guru
The issue would be the tackle not the speed.