Essendon coach Brad Scott has detailed the club's reasoning not to challenge forward Harrison Jones' one-game suspension for a dangerous tackle, stating clubs are left with "having both arms tied behind our back" given the current state of the Match Review and Tribunal system.
On Monday Jones was charged with rough conduct for a tackle on North Melbourne's Zac Fisher from Round 10, with the tackle graded as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact while Fisher was able to continue in the match and did not seem hindered as a result of the tackle.
After gaining advice from legal representatives and a biomechanist, the Bombers decided on Tuesday that they would not contend the MRO's decision despite believing Jones shouldn't have been suspended for the tackle.
Speaking to media on Wednesday, Scott said the Bombers were told they had "a zero per cent chance" of having Jones available this week through a challenge at the Tribunal.
The Essendon coach revealed the club will seek a review of the system at the end of the year, likely opening discussions with the AFL in regards to the current guidelines and operations in place.
"We're very disappointed. Ultimately, I'm a coach, not a King's Counsel or biomechanist," Scott said of the club's decision.
"The club certainly engaged King's Counsel and a biomechanist to explore every avenue to challenge, but unfortunately the advice from the experts was that under the way the rules are written and the way the Tribunal operates there was a zero per cent chance of getting the charge overturned.
"Philosophically, we think it wasn't something Harry Jones should have been suspended for, but the way the system is in place at the moment, we didn't feel we had any realistic chance of overturning that ban.
"As a club, we'll be seeking a review of the system at the end of the year, because we just feel like we're having both arms tied behind our back. Our fans need to understand the Tribunal isn't an innocent until proven guilty system, it's a guilty unless you can prove your innocence system.
"I haven't consulted other coaches or the (Coaches') Association, it's just our club's view that we've had a couple of occasions this year where we would have liked to have challenged, but there is a strong deterrent in place to challenge MRO decisions.
"The AFL will say you're entitled to challenge, but I have an acute understanding of how the system works and it makes it very difficult the way that it is at the moment."
Clubs are required to pay $10,000 from their soft cap as the cost of an appeal at the Tribunal, with that fee refunded in the event of a successful appeal.
Scott said while he's understanding of the need for a deterrent, the current system is "punitive" for AFL clubs wanting to challenge certain Match Review outcomes.
"It sounds like a criticism, it's not a criticism it's just an understanding of the position clubs are in," Scott added.
"The AFL, a long time ago, wanted to deter clubs from challenging every single MRO decision, which is understandable. You don't want every single case being just challenged on a whim.
"We feel it's too punitive at the moment to challenge, the way the system is and based on all the legal advice it makes it very difficult to overturn.
"We could challenge on principle, but that's all we'd be challenging on, according to the advice we've received."
Jones' suspension is the third for Essendon this season, with forward Peter Wright referred directly to the AFL Tribunal for rough conduct after Round 2, where he was hit with a four-game suspension, while the club did not challenge defender Mason Redman's one-game suspension for striking the week prior.
The Match Review Officer has handed down seven charges this season against Essendon, making up a portion of the league's 120 charges in 2024.
MRO TRACKER: EVERY CHARGE, BAN, FINE AND MORE