Sydney superstar Lance Franklin has successfully challenged his one-match AFL suspension for striking at the tribunal and will play against Essendon.
Franklin was caught in a Luke Ryan tackle during the Swans’ win at Metricon Stadium on Sunday when he flung back his left elbow, making clear contact to the Fremantle defender’s head.\
Match review officer (MRO) Michael Christian assessed the striking action as careless conduct, high contact and medium impact, which drew an automatic one-game ban.
But the Swans were successful on Tuesday in persuading the tribunal jury, who deliberated for 26 minutes, that the impact was low instead of medium. Franklin will instead pay a $3000 fine.
The Swans used three examples from this season to back Franklin’s case – Richmond’s David Astbury against Carlton’s Lachie Plowman, Brisbane’s Joe Daniher on Sydney’s Dane Rampe and West Coast captain Luke Shuey for striking the Swans’ Callum Mills.
All three of the highlighted incidents resulted in the charged player avoiding suspension and being slapped with a fine instead.
Working in Franklin’s favour is Ryan was not injured during the incident and did not even leave the field for any sort of medical treatment.
AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson argued Franklin swung his arm in a vigorous manner.
“This is not a matter where it was a near miss … his elbow did hit the player’s head and with some force,” Gleeson said.
It is not the first time Franklin has come under MRO scrutiny this season.
The 34-year-old star was fined $2000 for making forceful front-on contact with Port Adelaide’s Jarrod Lienert last month.
Franklin is closing in on the 1000-goal milestone, having taken his tally to 983 with two majors against the Dockers.
A suspension would have been a major blow to his chances of getting there this season and would also be a hurdle for Sydney as they chase a top-four spot.
The Swans and Essendon face off at the Gabba, with both clubs having been based temporarily in Queensland for the past fortnight.
Dave
Roar Rookie
Gee a bit of late comment there mate, lol. Was more a general comment regarding buddy’s track record, nothing more. On you, if you take offence.
Swanee
Roar Rookie
If you havent seen the footage you shouldnt even be commenting!
Kevo
Roar Rookie
I won't argue with intentional whilst been swung out of play, high, probably medium but surprised Freo players did not respond more aggressively if it was a hard hit, and right in front of umpire but no report - or don't they do that now? Doesn't appear much different to thers that have got off this year. Regardless, need it out of the game and I imagine next year they'll come down on it heavily. Their findings this year have set a precedent where it could become very messy if someone does it during the finals.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
It was in retaliation to Ryan holding on after the whistle, def intentional, high, med impact, that's probably three weeks I like Ice hockey agro, gloves down, square up, no king hits, no grubby stuff, I don't like the elbow in the head when he's not looking.
Clear as mud
Guest
the issue is the grading. Christian had it: - careless - medium impact - high contact and thus 1 week So the Swans argued it was low impact not medium - and I think that was a pretty easy case to make at which point the AFL should have found a way to regrade the offence: - INTENTIONAL - low impact - high contact which would bring it back to a week again. Surely pretty easy to argue there was intent. Houli's was held to be intentional. Many on here talking about this being "intentional".
Clear as mud
Guest
4 weeks. Houli...
Kevo
Roar Rookie
Yeah he was lucky to get off but it probably is consistent with other results this year. I like a bit of mongrel and aggro too but not keen on the pointy elbow thing. Was it intentional or reactionary? Or both? Do you take into consideration he's been swung around outside the field of play, presumably with a dead ball in his arm, falling as he hits Ryan?
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Dermie? He was on the high horse yet he had no problems stepping on a player's head.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
That's the point. Darcy played 85% game time and racks up stats non-stop. Hardly unfit.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Yeah, agreed, cheap shot, he never knew it was coming
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Nic Nat is a fatty though, plays about 60% game time :laughing:
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
I'm happy to go back to the old biffo, as long as someone doesn't then get rubbed out for bee-lining the ball. I've personally got no problem with a bit of agro, loved it when I was playing, it's the hypocrisy that gets me annoyed.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Total accident
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Nah, I love a bit of biff, but an intentional elbow to the head needs a week, unless were going back to the 80's. Which I'm ok with btw, as long as it's consistent and they know what they're getting into, kinda like UFC fighters, let em do it if they want to.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Cotch is the captain of the protected species brigade, I'm still not over him getting off so he could pay the grand final after he nearly killed the other bloke in the prelim.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
It's like me an my old man in here, arguing Bout something we agree on
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Bwah ha ha ha ha, predictable Protect the head they say, make it a safer sport they say.
Macca
Roar Rookie
If the decision is wrong in round 1 it remains wrong in round 19 - you don't keep making wrong decisions because you made a mistake.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
MRP doesn't look at precedent. But there is a Framework that is applied for each incident. All of these incident would of gone through that same appropriate process and only one that has come back a "Suspension". So it's current format which is the mistake?
Cloak
Roar Rookie
The MRP/Tribunal isn't supposed to look at precedent. Even if it is, you don't let a mistake fester because of prior mistakes, you fix it. If Buddy genuinely thought "hey, Astbury and Shiel and Daniher got away with this, so I can too", then (a) he shouldn't have done that because elbowing someone is still rubbish, and (b) the Tribunal should say "enough is enough, regardless of those previous decisions, this is not on". By the same logic, if a player were to tackle a defender stone cold holding the ball in the forward 50 like Bailey did to Blicavs in Round 2, it should be called should play on, even though that decision was blatantly wrong. But we expect the AFL to admit to umpiring mistakes after games, and look to fix it for the future, so we should expect the AFL to admit to MRP/Tribunal mistakes, and fix it for the future.