Willie Rioli incident:The moment of impact.Credit:AFL
Tribunal members Shane Wakelin,David Neitz and Jeffery Gleeson were satisfied Rioli had his eyes on the ball as he entered the contest.
“There is no doubt he braced for contest but when doing so he did not cease to contest the ball,” they said.
“The way in which he did so was not unreasonable. We should note we do find the contact was high but nonetheless the charge is not made out because he did not engage in rough conduct.”
In the last case of the evening,the Lions could not convince the tribunal that Robinson’s front-on contact on Duursma was not careless. The Port Adelaide youngster has been cleared of a collarbone fracture but was subbed out of the game and is in doubt this week as a result of the clash.
Robinson said contact was made as he was turning to protect himself from a head-on collision with Duursma,whom his representative Gavin Handran QC claimed had “cannoned” into the Lion after a push by Brisbane’s Daniel McStay.
Pane suggested Robinson should have limited impact by staying upright and corralling Duursma rather than contesting the ball and bumping,an assertion Handran rejected as “nonsense”. Had he stayed upright,the damage to Duursma would have been greater,Handran said.
“Robinson took steps to protect Duursma,only to find himself in front of the tribunal,” Handran said. “There was nothing that occurred that was careless.
“Otherwise,if a player competes for a contested possession,and misses the moment by a split second,the player will take on strict liability.”
The tribunal did not believe Robinson was contesting the ball and if he had the contest would not have been reasonable.
“The risk to Duursma should have been obvious to Robinson,who could and should have voided head and neck impact,” the tribunal said.
Earlier,Adelaide captain Rory Sloane revealed how close he came to losing sight in one eye,in a hearing which clears him to face Collingwood on Saturday.
The Crows drew on Sloane’s extensive history of serious facial injuries and a strong character reference from his former teammate James Podsiadly to have a charge of making intentional contact to Blake Acres’ eye region downgraded to careless.
Sloane,who suffered a detached retina last year,said he was “genuinely shocked” when he learned he had been cited by the match review panel because of his medical history. He missed four games last year with a detached retina which required surgery to repair.
“I’m very aware of what even just a little scratch in the eye can do,even just a poke. There’s no way I’d go after anyone’s eye because I’m very aware of the damage it can cause,” Sloane told the tribunal.
Nick Riewoldt’s classic mark,running back,in 2004. And Willie Rioli’s attempt to mark.Credit:The Age
“I was super close to being finished in football and close to losing my eyesight so there’s no way I’d go near anyone’s eye.”
Tom Duggan QC,for Sloane,argued that the veteran Crow,described as an “exemplary person” by Podisadly for leading with “compassion,honesty,good will and genuine care”,should be given the benefit of any doubt that his conduct was not intentional.
The Crows argued that the “vice-like” grip used by Fremantle’s Andrew Brayshaw to separate Sloane and Acres had caused the motion across Acres’s face
The league,through Nick Pane QC,argued Sloane’s character and injury history should not be taken into account and that the deliberate act of placing his hand on Acres’ head was sufficient to indicate intentional contact to the eye region.
But the tribunal,after hearing Sloane’s “clear” and “forthright” testimony,found contact was careless and not intentional,resulting in a $2000 fine.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country.Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.