An absurdly long night at the AFL Tribunal has seen Carlton finally lose an appeal after a remarkable run of success, with Matt Owies and Melbourne’s Kysaiah Pickett both seeing their bans upheld.
Owies’ hearing began at nearly 10pm AEST after an absurdly long and complex challenge of Pickett’s three-week rough conduct ban.
Owies, one of four Blues to have played every game this season, was handed a one-game suspension for the tackle on St Kilda’s Jack Higgins.
Watch the 2024 AFL Awards, with the All-Australian team reveal, Rising Star and more, Thursday 7:30pm AEST exclusively live on Fox Footy and Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >
IMAGINE WHAT YOU COULD BE BUYING INSTEAD. For Free and confidential support call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au.
It was upheld near midnight with the Tribunal finding Owies should have released one or both of Higgins’ arms earlier.
Carlton then argued there were exceptional and compelling circumstances – namely Owies being a former college basketballer and category B rookie – which would allow the Tribunal to not hand down a suspension despite its finding.
Along with character references Peter O’Farrell argued: “As a category B rookie, and he’s come across from the basketball system, and he will lead a lot of other people on that pathway, because of the pathway that he’s forged in our submission (would) be fairly and squarely falling within the category of identifying exceptional and compelling circumstances.”
This was not successful.
Noble requests trade from Pies | 01:36
While Owies was awarded a free kick in the moment it was graded as careless conduct with medium impact and high contact.
Blues fans were up in arms given the Bulldogs’ Liam Jones was only offered a fine for a seemingly more violent incident on the same day.
Owies is hopeful of being free to play in the elimination final against Brisbane on Saturday week.
The Blues, represented by the famed Peter O’Farrell, argued Owies was not guilty on the grounds it was not a reportable incident because there was not rough conduct; if that was rejected, they challenged the medium impact grading. A grading of low would see Owies free to play.
St Kilda’s medical report stated Higgins was assessed but required no further treatment after leaving the playing surface for 10 minutes (though Carlton claimed it was four minutes).
The Blues looked to use Liam Jones’ tackle on Aaron Cadman, which received a fine, as part of their evidence.
Owies gave evidence saying he was trying to bring his body forward of Higgins so he could bring him safely to ground, while also not landing on his back.
“I’m trying to protect his and my fall by staying upright, turning and pulling upwards,” Owies said, using a very similar argument to the successful one used by Patrick Dangerfield earlier this year.
Owies argued at the moment Higgins’ knee hit the turf he was in full control, but Higgins then “went slack”, potentially to try and get an in-the-back free kick. Owies then tried to release Higgins’ arms as they went to ground.
Nick Pane, representing the AFL, asked Owies whether he had Higgins’ arms pinned but Owies refused to say those words and continued to say he “had control”. Owies argued he was letting go of Higgins’ arms as they went to ground, though he still had his arms on Higgins’ as the pair hit the turf.
Pane also argued Owies used his shoulder to push Higgins into the ground which Owies rejected.
Asked if he agreed he failed to stay in his attempts to stay on the side of Higgins, Owies said no.
Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson pointed out the tackle immediately after Owies’ one, which occurred after the whistle had been blown, used the method Owies was attempting but released the opponent’s arms much earlier.
Gleeson asked why Owies couldn’t do the same, Owies saying their tackle was at greater speed and the other tackler wasn’t able to fully get his arms over the opponent.
The AFL argued Owies took Higgins to ground forcefully and it was open to him to release Higgins’ arms once the ball came free.
The Blues argued “the closest eyewitness to this was an independent eye … the umpire didn’t give a free kick for rough conduct, but for holding the ball”.
O’Farrell said Owies executed an almost identical tackle to Patrick Dangerfield’s on Sam Walsh’s, which was cleared at the Tribunal.
Their reasons for the tackle not being likely to cause injury were:
– Hip and leg positions
– Positions body to the side
– Pulls Higgins up and back
– Upright positioning
– Brings Higgins to ground knee first, then left hip, then left torso, then defensive arms
They also argued the extent of the force was no more than Liam Jones’ tackle on Aaron Cadman, which resulted in a fine.
Petracca ‘nuclear option’ for Dees exit | 05:13
Pickett, who has often featured in the Match Review due to his bad on-field behaviour, caught Collingwood’s Darcy Moore high as the Pies skipper went to ground last Friday night.
The incident was graded as careless conduct with severe impact and high contact, after Moore was subbed out of the game with concussion.
Pickett served two bans this year, one for a bump on Patrick Cripps in the 2023 finals and another for collecting Adelaide’s Jake Soligo during Gather Round, plus a two-game ban for a high bump on Bailey Smith served in 2023.
He will again miss the start of next season after the Tribunal found he acted unreasonably.
The Demons, represented by Adrian Anderson, pled not guilty using three grounds:
– At the time Pickett committed to bump Moore, the act was not likely to cause injury;
– Pickett was contesting the ball and it was reasonable to contest the ball in that way, he acknowledges it was a bump;
– The high contact was caused by circumstances outside his control which could not reasonable be foreseen, that of Moore dropping to his knees after Pickett had committed to the bump.
The AFL, represented by Sally Flynn, said the incident is rough conduct by way of a high bump.
The medical report noted Darcy Moore’s estimated games or training sessions missed were TBC, but that’s due to the Magpies’ season being over, and the concussion protocols would have likely applied if they had not missed the finals.
Maynard PIPES UP after Kozzy collision | 00:56
Pickett spoke via a pre-written statement.
“Firstly, I’m sorry to Darcy Moore and his injury and I hope he’s ok… my intention was to protect space by taking Darcy off the line and win the ball in front of me,” it read.
“This is the normal way I’ve contested the ball and made a play on the ball in other games.
“My eyes were tracking the ball, and my intent was to make contact with Darcy from side on, shoulder on shoulder to take him off the line, as I’ve done many times before.
“Darcy went to ground quite quickly in a way I did not expect.”
Anderson argued “he (Pickett) is as low as he could reasonably be in executing the bump”.
For the AFL, Flynn said Pickett’s conduct was “clearly unreasonable”.
She argued Pickett ran past the ball and elected to bump rather than trying to take possession, and that even if the Tribunal finds he was contesting the ball “it was not reasonable to elect to bump at any stage”.
“The fact a concussion was suffered further evidences the likelihood the conduct would cause an injury,” Flynn said.
The Demons argued for evidence from Associate Professor Michael Cole – who helped defend Brayden Maynard last year – in regards to the amount of time Pickett had to react and body position, to be heard. This was rejected.
The Tribunal descended into legalese as chair Jeff Gleeson attempted to give direction as to how the panel should interpret rough conduct and whether the likelihood to cause injury is a required factor.
This also caused a lengthy debate over the specifics of the charge between Adrian Anderson and Jeff Gleeson in one of the most indecipherable sections of a Tribunal hearing in history.
Follow David Zita’s live coverage of the AFL Tribunal below!
