“Whilst there may be legitimate grounds for criticism for part of the jury directions,we considered there’s no basis to say any such error justifies the reversal or modification of the tribunal decision,” Mr Kellam said.
The match review officer initially deemed Plowman’s bump to be careless conduct,high impact,and high contact andsuspended him for two matches on Sunday,while the tribunal found him guilty of rough conduct when he challenged on Tuesday.
Carlton’s lawyer Peter O’Farrell was appealing on behalf of Plowman on Thursday on the basis that an error of law had occurred in the previous hearing.
Loading
In that hearing,tribunal chair Ross Howie directed the jury to not consider the Plowman-O’Meara collision as a marking contest,but as a bump. Mr O’Farrell said this had “infected” the jury’s verdict and that Plowman’s conduct was “reasonable” in the circumstances.
That ruling stunted Carlton’s argument on Tuesday,given they believed it was not a reportable offence because the collision happened in an action that was incidental in a marking contest (where the ball was within five metres) as stated in the tribunal guidelines (as permitted contact).
So on Thursday,Mr O’Farrell began his argument quoting the laws of Australian Rules football where,he said,it described a marking contest. He called this “the spirit and intention of a marking contest”.