AFL Now: Ryhan Mansell’s three-game ban upheld by tribunal

In what was deemed to be football’s first test case on players being pushed into dangerous contests following Mansell’s clash with St Kilda’s Liam O’Connell, the tribunal ultimately found there was a breach of duty of care.

The incident, which left O’Connell concussed, was initially assessed as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.

Richmond attempted to argue that it was not rough conduct nor careless. But the tribunal ultimately found that Mansell was guilty of the former.

In his evidence, Mansell told the tribunal that he was not able to see Tom Lynch or Anthony Caminiti arriving for a marking contest because his view was blocked by O’Connell.

He denied his intention was to push O’Connell into the two players or into their paths. Mansell thought at the time he was set to receive a free kick for holding.

When asked whether his actions contributed to O’Connell’s injury, Mansell told the tribunal “no, absolutely not.”

Richmond counsel Sam Tovey argued that Mansell is entitled to try and gain separation from his opponent and that no reasonable player is going to take the view it is unreasonable.

It was put to the tribunal that Lynch and Caminiti make up “20 or 30 metres” towards Mansell while he’s not looking at the ball.

Tovey also argues that O’Connell went to mark the ball with two outstretched arms, albeit bravely, and he would’ve attempted to mark the ball whether Mansell pushed him or not.

After 40 minutes of deliberation, the tribunal did not accept Mansell’s evidence that he didn’t see the two players running in to mark the ball and the video evidence supports that conclusion.

It found it was highly unlikely that Mansell would push O’Connell into a position to take an uncontested mark and his actions were consistent with an assumption that other players would be at the fall of the ball.

The decision to uphold the suspension will change forward craft, according to Giants skipper Toby Greene.

“There’s skill in enticing your opponent to join in on the market contest then pushing him out late, trying to get front and centre,” he said.

“I can understand why the AFL is taking that stance, it potentially does cause injury, but there still is an element of forward craft involved in that situation.”

Part of Mansell’s defence was the precedent set by Reuben Ginbey’s push on Sam Lalor in the pre-season, with the young Eagle avoiding suspension.

Greene said on Fox Footy that the push on the No.1 pick was the one that needed to be stamped out.

“I think the one in the pre-season is the one that’s really dangerous and that’s the one they are probably trying to get rid of, whereas this one is maybe a little bit more 50-50,” he said on AFL 360.

“I understand still there’s an element of danger in what he does, but the one’s where they’re in close and they push off late, I still think that’s reasonable and fair.

“I’m not sure where it goes or what it looks like going forward, but it’s one to be mindful of for sure.”

Former AFL umpire Ray Chamberlain said he believed it was rough conduct and worthy of a suspension, but said he would not pay it a free kick as a push in the back.

“I think he got one hand in the side and one hand on the back,” he said on AFL 360.

“As a result of that I think you probably going to err more towards play on.

“But do I believe this is rough conduct? I do.

“For in the back I wouldn’t (pay a free kick), but it’s rough conduct.

“Ball going towards the boundary line, give a guy a shove and he runs into the fence. You pay a free kick for that, it’s a similar bucket.”

AFL Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said the force of the push was a significant factor and went beyond what a reasonable player would consider sensible in the circumstances.

“It is clear that the push is forceful and affecting the speed at which and the angle at which O’Connell suffered impact,” he said.

A crucial factor was also that Mansell told the tribunal that he hoped O’Connell would drop the mark. The tribunal found this was evidence of him knowing he pushed O’Connell into a marking contest.

Richmond concluded its case by submitting vision of Reuben Ginbey’s pre-season push on Richmond No.1 draft pick Sam Lalor into evidence.

Tovey argued that it would be inconsistent for Mansell to be dealt with differently to Ginbey when the two examples are presented side-by-side.

“The incident that is currently before the tribunal compares much more favourably in terms of the conduct of Mr Mansell that the AFL has determined not to charge,” he said.

But the tribunal found that the Ginbey example is not “sufficiently comparable” to change their view that the Mansell incident constituted rough conduct.

Mansell also told the tribunal that he was aware of a memo sent to AFL clubs in early March, warning players of their duty of care to their opposition.

AFL legal counsel Sally Flynn successfully argued that Mansell’s conduct was reportable because Mansell was not contesting the ball, he chose to push his opponent, the force used was unreasonable, the direction of the shove was unreasonable and he could see Lynch and Caminiti at the fall of the ball or he should’ve at least been aware of the pair.