There has been widespread disbelief among AFL fans and commentators after West Coast star Willie Rioli’s rough conduct ban was overturned at the AFL tribunal.
Rioli is free to play against North Melbourne and Rory Sloane will take on Collingwood this weekend, Brisbane’s Mitch Robinson will miss the Lions’ match against Essendon.
Rioli was facing a one-game ban for cannoning into Gold Coast young gun Matt Rowell as they contested a mark.
The AFL has decided against appealing the verdict, even though the league does not agree with the decision to clear the West Coast forward.
“The AFL closely monitored the hearing and scrutinised the reasons of the tribunal in this decision,” the league said in a statement. “While the AFL does not agree with the outcome of the hearing, it accepts the decision and confirms it will not appeal.
“Due to the nature of the relevant appeal grounds available to it, the AFL considers that the prospects of a successful appeal in the circumstances are low.
“The AFL considers that bringing an appeal without reasonable prospects of success is not an appropriate course for it to take.”
The AFL added it remains “strongly committed” to reducing head-high contact in the game.
Rioli’s advocate David Grace QC used the example of Nick Riewoldt’s iconic mark in 2004, who fearlessly ran with the flight of the ball and collided with a group of players when he took his mark against Sydney at the SCG.
He said if Riewoldt had not taken the mark and collided with an opposition player, would that have meant the Saints legend was guilty of rough conduct?
The tribunal deliberated for more than 30 minutes before deciding in Rioli’s favour.
The Eagles successfully argued Rioli was going for the mark before bracing for contact at the last moment and he was cleared even though they didn’t convince the tribunal the contact to Rowell was not high.
“Incidents such as this, where the question revolves whether and how the player is contesting the ball, are not easy,” Gleeson said. “This tribunal will be astute to uphold any charge where a player was initially intending to contest the ball, but changed that intention and in doing so, breached his duty of care.
“That is not this case.”
Herald-Sun chief football writer Mark Robinson urged the AFL on Wednesday night to appeal the tribunal’s decision. “I’m staggered by the decision,” Robinson told Fox Footy’s AFL 360.
Former St Kilda coach Grant Thomas said he was initially “stunned” Rioli was handed a ban earlier in the week and took to Twitter to say the tribunal had made the right decision.
“Correct result. Sanity prevails. Interesting the vastly differing opinions but that’s why we love the game. It’s just a view that’s all.”
Melbourne’s injury-hit back-line in the AFL clash with Gold Coast.
Lever (foot) and Rivers (knee) were among the flag-winning Demons defenders missing from the season-opener last week, with Michael Hibberd (calf) and Harrison Petty (calf) also out of action.
Christian Salem’s knee injury was a further blow during the win over the Western Bulldogs and will keep him sidelined for at least six weeks.
But reinforcements are coming, with coach Simon Goodwin declaring dashing third-year backman Rivers simply had to get through Wednesday’s training session to be given the green light.
“He’s done a power of work in terms of his rehabilitation,” Goodwin said ahead of Saturday night’s meeting with the Suns at Metricon Stadium.
“He missed the one game of footy and we’re really hopeful that he’ll come back in and perform really strongly for us. We know what he’s capable of and he fits that need for us across the half-back line.”
Essendon’s opening-round thumping has been compounded by confirmation utility Kyle Langford will miss between eight and 10 weeks with a hamstring injury.
Langford suffered the injury when leading for a mark in the first quarter of Saturday’s 66-point loss to Geelong.
The versatile forward/midfielder has become a key player over 99 games but an injury to the same hamstring that saw him miss Essendon’s 2021 finals tilt could potentially require surgery.
“Unfortunately for Kyle, the strain is on the same side as his previous injury and therefore we will take a conservative approach with his rehabilitation,” Essendon football boss Josh Mahoney said.
“Kyle is likely to be sidelined for approximately eight to 10 weeks, but we will consult with a surgeon in the coming week to assess all options for recovery.
“We’re disappointed for Kyle who had completed a strong pre-season but we look forward to welcoming him back to the fold mid-season.”
Meanwhile Essendon said small forward Will Snelling would be sidelined for “a few” weeks with a calf strain suffered in the lead-up to round one.
Harrison Jones is still sidelined but Essendon expect to get much-needed reinforcements in attack against Brisbane on Sunday.
The Bombers should welcome back star forward Jake Stringer, who missed round one but is no longer on the club’s injury list. Aaron Francis (knee) is also in contention after getting through a VFL practice match.
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open('POST', '/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php', true); request.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded;'); request.onload = function () { if (this.status >= 200 && this.status
MarkD
Guest
All we want is for some sort of consistency from the tribunal but alas the only consistency in the inconsistent rulings. Deadset, Gleeson is a mup pet of the highest order . On Mitch Robinson's bump according to Gleeson “The risk to Duursma should have been obvious to Robinson, who could and should have avoided head and neck contact … he breached his duty of care,” . Why he didn't apply this to the Rioli hit who actually jumped making sure that the contact could only be high on Rowell is a perfect case of the inconsistent application s/rulings handed down by the tribunal and in my imo seriously brings Gleeson's credibility into question!
Milo
Roar Rookie
WC didnt win the appeal by comparing the Reiwoldt mark, they won it by saying Rioli's eyes stayed on the ball in the contest. Cant believe even that worked but then again seeing Draper get zero weeks for a full swinging punch to the guts against a defenceless player with the ball nowhere near impact probably says everything about the judicial ability of the people involved in the process.
Jim Prideaux
Roar Rookie
Surely Grant Thomas supporting a decision is grounds enough to appeal it?! The bloke is a deadset lunatic. Should’ve been a week, reckon they review panel will regret this one.
Nick
Roar Guru
He didn't mark the ball did he? Didn't come close to it in fact.
Nick
Roar Guru
Oh, so the secret angles you have access to show him with him hands positioned ready to catch the ball? We'll have to agree to disagree
TheCunningLinguistic
Roar Rookie
Again, wrong on all counts. Maybe watch some more footage from different angles- I have, and I couldn’t disagree more.
TheCunningLinguistic
Roar Rookie
That’s a pretty naive call.
TheCunningLinguistic
Roar Rookie
Why? The decision is correct, and they know they wouldn’t win.
TheCunningLinguistic
Roar Rookie
Clutched at straws, did they? That explains their successful appeal then…
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
That must of taken ages to write. I still disagree lol I’m just working on the AFL guidelines, I’ve been under the impression that if you leave the ground and brace, regardless of intent its a week, which is what he probably should have got. If he had his hands up reaching for the ball, rather than by his side, than I’d say move on
Scott
Guest
Regardless of my bias this is one of those optical illusion things where 2 people can look at the exact same picture and have 2 different opinions depending on the way the picture was shown. Have you seen the old woman young woman optical illusion pic? Rewatch the film again and please try and take any pre-perceived opinion you have out of it. The camera angle of this makes it look like Rowell was going for an easy chest mark and Rioli took him out. Now look at it again and picture that the ball is in fact coming from directly behind Rowell and onto the chest of Willie Rioli. Rowell is running backwards with the flight of the ball. Rioli is running towards the ball and preparing for a chest mark. It was just a brilliant effort by Rowell to get back and get his hands on it before Rioli without flinching. That repeat highlight that’s getting everyone worked up looks terrible for Rioli. It looks like Rowell is walking into a simple chest mark when in fact he is running on the exact same line as the ball and is travelling and heading straight into oncoming traffic. The umpire saw this and didn’t pay a free kick, the tribunal heard the case and said he didn’t even have anything to answer for. No doubt they had a map of where they were on the field in relation to where the ball was kicked. Stewart Dew even replayed the clip for the team after the game to show how courageous Rowell was. It’s just like those old woman young woman pics. The exact same thing looks different to 2 different people depending on their perspective, in this case, the perspective is the direction of the ball. Most people will watch that clip and it looks very bad for rioli. Show someone else the clip and show them where the ball is coming from and they will see it completely differently. Was just a very brave effort by Rowell, but we can’t just reward every player that runs backwards into a pack. Forwards will just start leading from the centre square towards goal
Johnno
Roar Rookie
The problem with the decision on Rioli is that conflicts with what the AFL is trying to do with head injuries.
Mat P
Guest
Just a reminder that Mark Robinson hung Will Schofield out to dry when he air swung at Clayton Oliver and Oliver put some mayo on it. Full fist banging diatribe on AFL 360. Schofield was cleared. But time and time again he's leapt to the defence of serial jumper puncher Tom Hawkins. So of course there's outrage. Its West Coast after all. Story's different when its one of the usual "champions" or "good blokes"
Gary
Roar Rookie
Split second decisions are difficult, especially when considering 'can i mark this', 'what will hurt me less', 'how do i avoid hurting you', 'is this legal'? 1 week, given no 'serious' injury, seemed an ok outcome, and should have taken it imo. Lobb 'pulled out' of a reasonably similar scenario, the game preceding this one, and was slagged off for it. Again, the player makes a split second decision, and slammed for it. For the record, Lobb's one split second decision would not have cost us, freo, the game as claimed by Lloyd on footyclassified... it was the many poor set shots that would have done it.
dab
Roar Rookie
"widespread dismay" and "outcry" means a few journalists and their dogs. Who knew?
XI
Roar Guru
He didn't jump until the ball was touching Rowell's hands. Pretty shocking marking attempt.
Nick
Roar Guru
There are many differences 1. Riewoldt marked (as you say) 2. Riewoldt never took his eyes off the ball (which is why he marked it!)...Rioli stopped looking at the ball. Can't even argue he was trying to spoil as a result. 3. Riewoldt collided with his own teammate. You can't get in ANY trouble when you smash into your own teammate. As you say, he can jump, not bump. Rioli took his eyes off the ball. All bets are off when you stop looking at the ball.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
We were watching a different game I think, also, you should have a look at the rules, because leaving the ground, bracing for impact and hitting high is weeks as far as I can tell, regardless of his intention. Take your WC glasses off, no one's out to get Rioli, this is 100% about the tribunal and its lack of clarity and consistency
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Unfortunately it doesn't set a precedent, it will be different next week
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Yeah it's pretty ridiculous