The AFL Tribunal will hear two cases following the cessation of Round 17 of the 2023 season, with Richmond's Toby Nankervis and Fremantle's Caleb Serong both to plead their cases on Tuesday evening.
Nankervis was referred directly to the Tribunal after being charged with rough conduct, with the league's Match Review Officer assessing the incident on Sydney's Jake Lloyd as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact - equating to a minimum three-game ban.
Serong and the Dockers have decided to challenge the midfielder's one-game rough conduct dangerous tackler charge, which stemmed from Sunday's game between Fremantle and Carlton. The incident in question involved Serong and Blues player Adam Cerra. It was assessed as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.
Nankervis' case will be the first heard on Tuesday, with Serong's to follow.
The AFL Tribunal found Caleb Serong guilty of rough conduct. He will be unavailable to face Collingwood this weekend.
Here's how the case unfolded:
Fremantle are pleading not guilty to the charge of rough conduct. If that stands, the Dockers argue that the impact should be reduced to 'low' instead of 'medium'. A grading of medium impact would result in a fine instead of a suspension.
A medical report on Adam Cerra indicates that Cerra was not treated following the incident and that no ongoing treatment was required. No days or missed matches are expected.
Serong: We do plenty of training on tackling techniques to protect the player with the ball and to execute a successful tackle. I understand there's an inherent risk when tackling.
Serong: The purpose of the tackle was to bring the game to a stoppage, as Cerra did not have prior opportunity.
Serong: My balance at the time of the tackle was backward, with my right foot slipping and Cerra pushed up against and back into me
Serong highlighted his intention was to also avoid falling straight back, as a clash of heads or Serong's head hitting the ground could have ensured.
Serong: I tried to slow down and stop the momentum to minimise the risk of Cerra suffering an injury
Serong: I would not have been able to execute a successful tackle if I released (Cerra)
Serong: I don't agree that I drove (Cerra) into the ground, I looked to slow the momentum
Serong: I didn't add any force with the rotation
An example from this year of a tackle from GWS' Lachie Ash on Essendon's Kyle Langford is being shown. That incident was graded as 'low' impact. The example sees both of Langford's arms pinned before the end of the tackle
A second example of West Coast player Liam Duggan's tackle on Gold Coast's Alex Davies is shown. Rafferty highlight's the 'bounce' of Davies' head when making contact with the ground. That example was also classified as 'low' impact.
A third example is of Giant Callan Ward's tackle on Brisbane's Lachie Neale from this year. It was graded as 'medium' impact, with Rafferty suggesting the example is not similar to that of Serong's tackle given how Ward pins the lower end of Neale's arm.
A fourth example is Giant Tom Green's tackle on Hawthorn's Josh Ward from this year. That too was graded as 'medium' impact.
The fifth and final example is Rory Laird's tackle on Lachie Neale. That example was lowered to 'low' impact from 'medium' impact.
AFL Counsel Flynn: This tackle was an inherently dangerous tackle because Serong came from behind Mr Cerra, his arm was pinned, rotated Mr Cerra and Mr Cerra was driven into the ground with some force, ultimately causing Adam Cerra's head to hit the ground with some force. There was sufficient balance/planting of the feet that could have prevented the motion of the driving action.
Flynn: In summary, Serong's actions did not show a duty of care and were not prudent
Flynn: There is no apparent evidence to suggest Serong looked to slow the momentum of the tackle
Rafferty: There is no more than one action, it was one continuous movement. There was no distinguishable movements in the tackle
Rafferty: This player recognised a level of vulnerability and did something about it. His body is almost entirely underneath player Cerra, and to some degree reduced the rotation... Everything he did was a recognition of vulnerability, steps were taken, some subtle some obvious, to reduce the vulnerability of Mr. Cerra.
The Jury is off to deliberate. Verdict soon.
Fremantle Counsel: Seamus Rafferty
AFL Counsel: Sally Flynn
Tribunal Jury: Renee Enbom (Chair), David Neitz, Jason Johnson
The AFL Tribunal has handed down a three-game suspension to Richmond's Toby Nankervis.
He will now miss matches against West Coast, Hawthorn and Melbourne.
Here's how the hearing unfolded:
Richmond are not contesting the charge. The club is seeking a ban of no longer than three games. Nankervis has taken "full responsibility".
The hearing is off to a delayed start, with AFL Counsel needing to adjust their connection.
A medical report for Jake Lloyd has provided that Lloyd suffered a concussion from the incident. Lloyd is requiring ongoing treatment and will continue to be monitored. Lloyd is expected to miss three days of training and one game.
Nankervis: "I'm extremely sorry for the position I put Jake in."
Nankervis confirmed he spoke to Lloyd in person after the game, and followed up two days later with another apology and to check in on his ex-teammate.
Tovey has raised two prior incidents that were categorised as severe impact and high contact 'bumps'. Those being an incident between Jordan De Goey and Elijah Hewett from earlier this year, and one from 2021 between Patrick Dangerfield and Jake Kelly.
The AFL's position is that the charge should be worth four weeks, factoring in Nankervis' plea of guilty and his "genuine expression of remorse".
Flynn: Nankervis made no apparent effort to minimise "significant" contact with Lloyd. In doing so, Nankervis failed to exercise a duty of care for his fellow player. This falls far below what a reasonable player would see as prudent.
Flynn: This 'bump' had the potential to cause further injuries, like a broken jaw.
Tovey: This wasn't a situation where Nankervis could've avoided all contact. Nankervis was on a path to either tackle or contest Lloyd. At the last moment, Nankervis' actions fall below the duty of care between players, resulting in the high contact.
Tovey: Rather than driving through the opposition, Nankervis curves around toward the centre of the ground.
Tovey: There is a genuine intent to contest the ball in a legitimate way, shown in the 'stutter step' by Nankervis. That position doesn't change until the last moment prior to impact, not in a fashion designed to inflict maximum damage.
Tovey: Nankervis' actions are a breach of the duty of care, but are not egregious.
The aforementioned Dangerfield incident is being shown to the Tribunal.
Tovey: There was a lunching/leaving of the ground, bump from Dangerfield. While both (Dangeferfield and Nankervis) are seen as severe, Dangerfield's is far more serious in the matter of carelessness and impact.
Tovey: The two examples (Dangerfield and De Goey) sit well above Nankervis' among gradings of severe impact.
The Jury has moved to deliberate. Verdict soon.
Richmond Counsel: Sam Tovey
AFL Counsel: Sally Flynn
Tribunal Jury: Renee Enbom (Chair), Jason Johnson, Shane Wakelin