Welcome toย Zero Hanger'sย live blog of Thursday's AFL Tribunal hearing, where Hawthorn will attempt to reduce youngster Will Day's two-game suspension for Rough Conduct.

The AFL's Match Review Officer handed down the charge after viewing Day's third-quarter tackle on Geelong forward Brad Close from Monday's clash as Careless Conduct, High Impact and High Contact.

Hawthorn are scheduled to play GWS this Sunday in Gather Round before hosting Adelaide at UTAS Stadium in Round 6. Should Day's suspension be upheld, he won't be available for selection until Round 7 when the Hawks play the Western Bulldogs at Marvel Stadium.

Day's case is set to commence at 3:30pm (AEST).

AFL Counsel: Sam Bird

Will Day's Counsel: Myles Tehan

BAN UPHELD!

Verdict: Will Day's two-game suspension has been upheld. He will be available for selection come Round 7 against West Coast.

Summation:

Mr. Day accepts that it was a dangerous tackle, accepts that he was careless and accepts that the contact was high.

He says, however, that the impact should not be classified as high but as no more than medium and he's pleaded guilty to medium impact. In our view, the impact was high.

The player's arms were pinned and the extent of force was considerable.

We do not accept that the impact came solely from the momentum of the players. The vision shows that Day's left arm applies additional downward force to Close, with the result of driving his head into the ground more forcefully than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Close suffered no injury but we note that the guidelines provide that potential for injury must be factored in.

And that the absence of injury does not include classification of impact as severe.

There was significant potential for a concussive injury. It was also significant potential for facial injury, because Close was essentially tackled face first into the ground.

The other examples we were shown were not sufficiently comparable to significantly inform the appropriate impact assessment. In none of the examples was the impact essentially face first.

The force in the Heeney example was noticeably lower than here. And in the De Goey example Dangerfield has an arm partly free. And while it is true that in the Burton example Elliott was brought down from a greater height, he was face first and the force involved and potential for injury were not materially different to the present case.

We fully accept that Mr. Day did not intend to execute a dangerous tackle with high impact. But this was the consequence of his careless conduct. We uphold the high impact classification.

- Jeff Gleeson

4:31:ย The jury is now deliberating. Verdict soon!

4:30: Bird: my ultimate submission is the distinguishing feature between the three examples that have been played to the Tribunal and the present case is that there is significance in the way in which Close lands and the way in which player Close lands on the neck and head region and that that brings into play in a very real way.

4:25:ย Tehan: Ultimately, whether it's his neck, his head, his face, or some combination of them, we still say thatย adding a potential to cause injury to the face is insufficient to move this from a medium impact (grading), up to a high impact.

Bird's response: The potential to cause injury must be factored into the determination of impact.

4:19:ย The third piece of evidence being used is Ryan Burton's tackle on Magpie Jamie Elliott from earlier this year. That tackle was given an impact grading level of high.

Tehan: We say that that incident is aย far, far worse example than Mr. Day's tackle, yet the (impact) classification is the same.ย 

4:13:ย Tehan is using footage of an incident from Round 16, 2022 involving Sydney's Isaac Heeney on Essendon's Jye Caldwell.

Jordan De Goey's tackle on Patrick Dangerfield from Round 3 last year is the next piece of evidence used. That tackle was graded as medium impact, with Tehan arguing it was worse than Day's. Tehan remains satisfied with medium grading for Day.

4:12: Tehan: It's a negligible or low tackle that at most goes to medium, and that's reflected in the guilty plea offered by Mr. Day to that charge.ย 

4:09: Tehan: Day does his best to cushion the impact, but bares some responsibility for what has occurred given halting Close's momentum was difficult. Hence why Day is accepting of "careless" grading.

4:06:ย Day's tackle is single-motion, not a "dual-motion tackle," says Tehan.

"There's not a separate decision made by Mr. Day to bring the player to theย ground. It all happens in one single motion."

4:04:ย Tehan notes to the Tribunal that Close "isn't standing upright at the time the tackle".

"He's crouching over getting the ball and that's important in the Tribunal's assessment of force."

4:00: Tehan: "As the Tribunal has seen from the medical evidence, Mr. Close suffered no injury.

"When the Tribunal comes back to watch the video for itself in its deliberations, it will see he immediately jumps to his feet. He dishes off a handball."

There is some confusion around whether Close booted a goal at the end of the play between Tehan and the Tribunal. Tehan admits mistake in thinking Close booted the goal, but noted he was part of the celebrations.

3:54:ย Bird: "The appropriate rating for this particular incident is high impact, not medium impact."

3:50: Bird: "The tackle was inherently a dangerous action and had the potential to cause serious or significant injury to the player that was being tackled. That's something that is front and centre in my respectful submission of this particular matter.

"Close is in a vulnerable position."

3:44:ย Day denies attempting to, or even, driving Close into the ground.

3:43:ย Both players spoke after the game but did not speak on the tackle.

3:42: Day said he was knocked off balance during the contest and that Close's momentum brought him back against the tackle. Day attempted to roll Close over, intending to bring the Geelong player towards himself, taking on the force.

Day admitted he was not able to achieve this. Day admits Close's head did hit the ground.

3:38pm:ย Day is being questioned on how he is educated by coaches on how to approach a tackle.

3:35pm: A Geelong medical report from April 11 confirmed Close did not require further treatment or assessment on concerns around concussion days following the incident. Close did not miss any days of training.

3:31pm: Day is challenging the grading of high impact, and is seeking a grading of medium instead.