Round 14

Brent Guerra, St Kilda and Michael Wilson, Port Adelaide -- Suspended for One match and Cleared Respectively. We will deal with the case of player Wilson first. The tribunal has considered the evidence of both players and all of the video evidence, and suffice to say that the video evidence is somewhat confusing. Player Guerra is unclear as to what caused his eye injury. On the balance of probabilities, we are entitled to draw a reasonable inference from the video evidence that a strike occurred even though we have not seen the blow land, but in this case, we feel that the video evidence is not sufficiently clear as to what contact was made on player Guerra.  Therefore we are not satisfied the strike; and the charge against player Wilson is not sustained.

In relation to player Guerra, we are satisfied that player Guerra certainly approaches player Wilson in the course of the incidents that occurred.  He grabs player Wilson and throws what we would say is reckless and forceful blow to the chin/face area of player Wilson with an open hand and we are satisfied that that constitutes a strike. 

Having regard to the matters we are required to take into account, clearly we have found it's a reckless act and it's forceful but it's not the most serious thing we have see seen. There's clearly no injury to player Wilson and bearing all those things in mind, we have resolved that the player should be suspended for the next match in which his club participates.

Dustin Fletcher, Essendon -- Suspended for One Match. Shannon Grant takes possession of the ball and then handballs to player Stevens who is running past to receive a handball and player Fletcher comes from behind player Grant and lunges towards player Stevens. On the basis those findings, we are satisfied that what occurred was a trip and it was a trip which is a reportable offence under the Laws of the AFL football. It's on the lower scale clearly with the minimal contact. There's no injury to player Stevens although we will say again it has been said before that there is potential for injury in these circumstances that we can't ignore. The player's prior record can't be ignored, and having regard to all of those matters we are of the view that the player ought to be suspended for one match.

Josh Carr, Port Adelaide -- Cleared. The tribunal finds in the circumstances what has occurred is player Hamill takes possession of the ball after a bounce.  He is then tackled by player Brogan.  Player Carr comes from his right-hand side and clearly makes on his own admission, and on Hamill's admission, a forceful tackle upon player Hamill whilst he is in possession of the ball. The reaction of player Hamill is that he certainly acknowledged that he was winded, and from the video it clearly appears to be affected by the forceful tackle. In our view and based upon all of the evidence, we're not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is a strike in this case and the charge is not sustained.

Fraser Gehrig, St Kilda -- Suspended For Two Matches. In this case we find that the umpire had a clear, uninterrupted view of the incident from about 15 metres away and we prefer his evidence to that of the other players where there is any conflict.  We also find that the umpire's evidence is corroborated by the video footage. We say that player Gehrig made forceful contact with his wrist/hand area to the head and neck area of player Bishop, and we are satisfied there was sufficient force to force him to the ground.  We believe that the act of player Gehrig was a reckless act and constitutes striking.

As to the seriousness of this offence, we are satisfied it is a blow to the head region and, as such, has the potential for injury.When the player is marking, he is entitled to be protected by the rules. In this case it was a reckless act, but we do not regard it as a serious offence in the true meaning of that word. We have effectively disregarded the penalties from 1997, but he does have a prior penalty for striking from season 2003.  Weighing all of those matters up, we are of the opinion that the player should be suspended for the next two matches.

Luke Penny, St Kilda -- Suspended for Two Matches. We find the umpire had a clear and uninterrupted view and he observed player Penny falling to the back of player Wanganeen after he had marked the ball.  There is obvious contact by the left knee and shin area of player Penny into the back of player Wanganeen, which contact we deem to be forceful.  Player Wanganeen clearly is affected by the contact to his back. Player's Penny explanation is that he had no other option in the circumstances and he did his best to minimise contact on player Wanganeen.  We have considered the video and don't believe that the condition of the ground contributed in any way to what occurred.Taking into account all of those matters, we do find that in this case the conduct of player Penny was unreasonable in the circumstances, we find it reckless and it constitutes rough play.

We find that the contact in this case was reckless and unreasonable and is the type of contact that could have serious consequences.  In this case it was fortunate there was no ongoing injury to player Wanganeen.  There is always a risk of severe injury in this case, which we have already witnessed in a previous occasion this year which was far more serious than this circumstance.  The player has an unblemished record. Having regard to all of those matters, we believe the player should be suspended for the next two matches.