Carlton’s Adam Cerra has successfully contested his one-match ban for striking Jack Bowes last Sunday, becoming the first player in the league this season to successfully get off at the Tribunal.
His to-be opponent this weekend from Adelaide Mitchell Hinge wasn’t as lucky though, with his suspension for the same charge upheld just 90 minutes later. It means the Tribunal still saw his contact with Fremantle’s Andrew Brayshaw last Friday night as intentional, low impact and high contact.
Cerra’s incident was graded as intentional with low impact and high contact, but was able to successfully argue his ‘strike’ of Bowes was a “complete accident”, among other things.
FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer.
Review the AFL Tribunal hearings with David Zita in our blog below! If you can’t see the blog, tap here.
The Blues have been ultra successful at the tribunal in the last 30 months, with lawyer Peter O’Farrell successfully fighting bans for Nic Newman (striking), Harry McKay (striking), Adam Cerra (rough conduct), Jack Martin (striking, downgraded rather than overturned), Jordan Boyd (rough conduct) and most notably Patrick Cripps (rough conduct) in late 2022, allowing the Carlton captain to win the Brownlow Medal.
Before Cerra’s appeal, clubs this year were now 0-6 at the Tribunal overall. The last team to win an appeal was Gold Coast with Bodhi Uwland in Round 20 last year, two weeks after Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford overturned three-game rough conduct charges at the Appeals Board on technicalities. That record now sits at 1-7 after Cerra and Hinge’s hearings.
On Tuesday night, North Melbourne young gun Paul Curtis failed to overturn or downgrade his dangerous tackle ban at the AFL Tribunal in the the first of three hearings this week.
Curtis will miss three matches, against Essendon, Brisbane and Richmond, after his rough conduct charge for a tackle on Port Adelaide’s Josh Sinn was upheld.
The Kangaroos argued it was not unreasonable conduct, fighting against the rough conduct charge overall and the grading of careless, and also the impact grading of severe but the Tribunal backed all elements.
Crows set to appeal Hinge’s ban for hit | 00:24
Tribunal reasons for Mitch Hinge’s ban being upheld
We find that this was an intentional strike.
The Tribunal guidelines provide that where a player intends to forcefully push or fend an opposition player off the ball, including to gain separation for the purpose of contesting the ball, and the effect is that the player commits the reportable offence of striking, the strike will usually be graded as intentional.
Despite Hinge’s evidence that he did not intend to strike Brayshaw, we find that the video evidence is quite inconsistent with this. It shows a forceful movement of his arm in an upward motion. It was a striking or jabbing movement, rather than a push that had no intention to strike.
We do not find that the fact the blow landed on Brayshaw’s face was caused by Brayshaw having lowered his body position. There was some lowering, but Hinge was looking at Brayshaw and the lowering was not significant.
Hinge’s arm and hand did not slide upwards or glance off another part of Brayshaw’s body. It was a blow to the face that was always likely to land on the face.
Hinge did not form a fist, but the upward and forceful motion of his hand was consistent with him having formed an intention to strike.
The guidelines note that “what the player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind.”
In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he might say about it afterwards.
If the immediate consequence of an act is so obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequences.
Tribunal reasons for Adam Cerra’s ban being downgraded
We are comfortably satisfied that this was a strike. It was a forceful blow delivered with an open hand to the face of Bowes. We reject the characterisation of it as a brushing impact. It was forceful and knocked Bowes off his feet in what was obviously a spontaneous, genuine and immediate response to the blow.
Cerra’s equally spontaneous gesture of surprise and apparent contrition by holding out his left hand as Bowes fell to the ground, is consistent with him having realised that he delivered a blow of some force.
The question is whether this was an intentional strike. We find that it was not.
We note that the Tribunal guidelines provide that ‘where a player intends to forcefully push or fend an opposition player off the ball, including to gain separation for the purpose of contesting the ball, and the effect is that the player commits the reportable offence of striking, the strike will usually be graded as intentional.’
Neither side contended on behalf of Cerra that this guideline had no relevance … but did submit that the guideline could not itself convert a lack of intention to intention.
We find that despite the fact that forceful pushes or fends that result in a strike usually be graded as intentional, it is not appropriate here for the following reasons.
It’s clear from the video and as a matter of fact Cerra did not intend to strike Bowes, he intended to push him.
Bowes was attempting to push Cerra off his position, Cerra was attempting to push back to hold his position.
We accept Cerra’s evidence to this effect.
It is also consistent with, as we previously mentioned, Cerra’s spontaneous raising of his arm in surprise and contrition.
There is force in Carlton’s submission. Cerra pushed or fended with equal force with his left and right hands and it is illogical to conclude that he intended to push with one but strike with the other.
Bowes moved lower immediately prior to the moment of contact. The Tribunal has frequently observed that in a fast moving game such as this, players can be taken to know that their opponent may suddenly move in a way that renders a certain act careless.
But here we are addressing whether this act was intentional, and the movement of Bowes at the last second supports the view that Cerra intended to push him in the chest or shoulder, but the strike to the head was not intended.
For these reasons we conclude that while this was a strike, it was careless rather than intentional.
Tribunal reasons for Paul Curtis’ ban being upheld
We find that this was rough conduct and that Curtis was careless for the following main reasons.
First, Curtis wrapped both arms around Sinn and propelled him forward. Curtis did not need to propel Sinn forward with such force. He could have attempted to retain control of control of the tackle.
Secondly, Curtis pinned both of Sinn’s arms and made no attempt to release either arm.
Thirdly, Curtis made no or insufficient attempt to roll Sinn sideways so as to avoid or minimise the risk of Sinn’s head hitting the ground with force. North points to the fact that at the conclusion of the tackle, Curtis is moving to the side of Sinn and ends up beside him. In our view, this occurs too late. Curtis could have but did not make a significant attempt to roll to the side. He had time to sum up the situation before tackling Sinn from behind forcefully.
Fourthly, Curtis made no or insufficient attempt to pull Sinn back so as to minimise the risk or extent of Sinn’s head hitting the ground.
A prudent player would have realised that in executing a tackle in this way carried with it a real likelihood of Sinn’s head making forceful contact with the ground with the potential for a concussion.
Curtis dropped his weight at the commencement of the tackle and to some extent, Sinn’s knees plugging into the ground caused the players to propel forward. That is not an unlikely or unforeseeable consequence of a tackle such as this in these circumstances.
Players are today well aware that tackling a player from behind, where both the tackler and the ball carrier have some momentum, carries a risk of causing a concussion if care is not taken to avoid or minimise that risk. Curtis did not do nearly enough to address that risk. As a result, he engaged in careless, rough conduct.
As for impact, the video shows that the force with which Sinn’s head hit the ground was significant indeed.
He was clearly hurt and visibly distressed. He took a considerable time to get to his feet and left the field looking somewhat unsteady. He has been diagnosed with concussion, will not train for seven to 10 days and will miss one match.
We have no hesitation in classifying the impact as severe. The charge as classified is upheld.
Paul Curtis case arguments
Sally Flynn for the AFL said: “It’s the AFL’s position Curtis has carelessly engaged in rough conduct against Sinn, which in the circumstances is unreasonable.”
She argued the tackle was unreasonable because:
– Curtis pinned both arms and gave Sinn no opportunity to brace or protect himself;
– Curtis did not do enough to exercise a duty of care;
She added Curtis had the reasonable alternative to release one or both of Sinn’s arms, and that he didn’t do enough to prevent Sinn’s head making forceful contact with the ground, either by holding him up or rolling him.
On the impact grading of severe, Flynn argued the concussion suffered was enough to warrant the highest level grading.
“We’re not suggesting Curtis should not have tackled. But when you execute a tackle, it needs to be reasonable and there needs to be due care exercised,” she said.
Justin Graham KC for the Kangaroos argued the tackle had five features:
– It was an incident in-play involving two players who were moving;
– Curtis tackled Sinn from behind, pinning his arms to his sides;
– In the same motion as the tackle, Curtis stops and drops his weight with his knees to the side of Sinn;
– Sinn’s knees hit the turf and coupled with the forward momentum that causes them to lurch forward;
– Curtis is unable to stop their momentum but does end up on the side of Sinn as intended.
Graham argued: “There is care being taken here.
“To pin arms and prevent disposal is permitted and it’s good practice … there was no sling, there was no driving motion. There’s a single motion.”
The Kangaroos compared this incident to Patrick Dangerfield’s tackle on Sam Walsh, which initially saw Dangerfield suspended but then cleared to play by the Tribunal. The AFL countered there was no evidence of Curtis trying to pull Sinn back, as Dangerfield did in his case.
“A reasonable player would tackle in Curtis’ position and do so in a manner that tried to avoid the risk by using the technique Curtis did with his knees to the side and trying to halt momentum by dropping down,” Graham said.
Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson was receptive to arguments about the severe impact grading, arguing “it’s perhaps not as easy to see here potential for other injury”.
The Kangaroos argued medium impact would be a fair grading, which would result in a one-week ban instead.
Separately at the VFL Tribunal, St Kilda unsuccessfully appealed top-10 pick Alix Tauru’s four-match ban for rough conduct while playing for Sandringham, which came just days before he was tipped to make his AFL debut.
