Windsock 2000

In lieu of Essendon membership fees I’ve renewed my Adobe subscription. See you on the other side 🫡

This charge of rough conduct arises in the context of a marking contest. Alex Pearce has been charged with rough conduct as a result of a collateral with Darcy Byrne-Jones at Port Adelaide. The circumstances were as follows. Byrne-Jones was loose on the forward flank and leading towards the boundary. It was raining at the time, and the kick was misdirected. Byrne-Jones had to change course and head back inwards and towards the goal with the flight of the ball. Pearce, whose evidence was given thoughtfully and with an obvious endeavour to answer truthfully, said that he was aware that Byrne-Jones was loose, and that when he saw the kick, he thought he was a reasonable chance to mark the ball. He headed off at full pace. Byrne-Jones ran back with the flight of the ball. The kick was fairly high, and the players arrived at the ball in roughly opposite directions at almost precisely the same time. That last point is critical. Pearce’s attempt to mark was entirely realistic. He had his arms out to attempt to take a chest mark, and if not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, would likely have taken the mark. Pearce said that he didn't deviate from his line to the ball and the vision supports that evidence. Pearce said that his eyes never left the ball until the last split second when he glanced down to Byrne-Jones and it was too late to pull out of the contest. The vision supports that evidence. Pearce said that he dropped his arms further at the last moment so as to attempt to minimise the harm to Byrne-Jones. The vision supports that evidence. It follows that we do not find that this was rough conduct. It’s important to highlight two matters. First, the AFL quite properly conceded that if, contrary to their submissions, Pearce had a realistic chance of marking the ball until the last moment, this was not rough conduct. This concession was made in circumstances where it was not suggested that Pearce’s method of attempting the mark was itself inherently dangerous, and where it was not suggested that Pearce’s eyes had left the ball until the last split second. Secondly, it it is not and never has been the position of the tribunal, or as far as we can ascertain, the MRO that an outcome of concussion inevitably results in a finding of at least careless conduct. Every incident must be and is examined and determined on its own facts. If a collision results in a concussion to a player, but that collision was not caused or contributed to by a failure by the reported player to take reasonable care, there is no reportable offense Here, from numerous angles, it appeared that this incident might have involved a bump that constituted rough conduct. However, when all of the vision was closely examined and the evidence of Pearce was taken into account, it was clear that: A) he intended to mark the ball. B) He was a realistic chance to mark the ball C) His eyes never left the ball until it was too late D) He did what he could at the last minute to minimise impact to the oncoming player E) This was not in fact a bump The AFL properly and expressly stated that it did not rely on the rough conduct high bump provision, but only the rough conduct general provision. Evidence showed that what Pearce did was not to bump Byrne-Jones, rather, to move in a way to attempt not to bump him. The charge is dismissed.