Richmond’s Rhyan Mansell will miss the Tigers’ next three matches, after his controversial suspension for pushing St Kilda’s Liam O’Connell into an oncoming Tom Lynch, resulting in a concussion, was upheld by the AFL Tribunal.
Mansell’s much-discussed suspension came after Match Review Officer Michael Christian deemed the incident careless conduct with high contact and severe impact, triggering a hefty three-game ban that the Tigers quickly sought to challenge.
Pending a potential challenge via the AFL Appeals Board, Mansell will miss matches against Brisbane, Fremantle and Gold Coast.
The Tigers argued that Mansell’s push on O’Connell was of lesser severity than that from West Coast’s Reuben Ginbey on Tigers No.1 draft pick Sam Lalor in the pre-season, which saw him sustain a broken jaw.
When questioned by the Tribunal, Mansell described the incident as ‘small forward craft’ in which he was trying to get separation from O’Connell to compete for the ball.
He said that it was only after he had pushed the young Saint that he saw the oncoming Lynch and Anthony Caminiti, disputing the AFL’s counter-argument that he could have push O’Connell ‘in another direction’.
“No reasonable player is going to take the view it is unreasonable for a forward who is being held to try and get sepatation from the opponent holding him,” Richmond counsel Sam Tovey summed up.
In response, AFL counsel Sally Flynn argued Mansell failed in his duty of care for O’Connell, saying the incident was ‘well below the standard of what a reasonable player would consider prudent in the circumstances’.
Flynn listed five reasons why the suspension was warranted – that the Tiger wasn’t contesting the ball, that Mansell made the choice to push O’Connell, that it was an unnecessarily forceful push, that it was directed into oncoming traffic, and that Mansell should have seen Lynch and Caminiti approaching.
“Players need to be aware of the position of other players when they are choosing to push an opponent into an area, particularly where the ball is about to fall,” Flynn said.
“A reasonable player would be aware of those players in these circumstances.”
Flynn also made the distinction between Ginbey’s push and Mansell’s, saying the Eagle had eyes on the ball and couldn’t have known Lalor would make contact with another player running back with the flight.
According to Fox Footy Tribunal expert David Zita, Mansell was shocked by the verdict.
“Mansell shakes his head in disbelief,” Zita wrote on X.
In explaining the verdict, the Tribunal disputed Mansell’s claim that he didn’t see Lynch and Caminiti coming.
“We do not accept Mansell’s evidence that he did not see that two players were running in to attempt to mark the ball. Vision is not consistent with this evidence,” chairman Jeff Gleeson said.
“If, as Mansell said, he did not know that other players were running forward to contest the mark, it’s highly unlikely that he would have pushed O’Connell away from himself and into the path of what would be on his evidence an uncontested mark.
“Mansell’s movements are only consistent with him knowing or assuming that other players were running in to contest the mark.
“Even if Mansell did not see or see sufficiently clearly that other players were running to contest the mark, he would, or should have, assumed that the ball hung in the air for long enough for the reasonable player to expect that players who had set up at about the 30 meter mark would run in and try to contest the ball.”
Gleeson added that whether he had seen them coming or not, he acted carelessly in pushing O’Connell anyway, and should have known there was a possibility the act would put him in danger.
The Tribunal also disputed Mansell’s claim that the push was of minimal force, describing it as ‘forceful’.
“It is clear that the push is forceful and affecting the speed at which and the angle at which O’Connell suffered impact,” Gleeson said.
“The force of the push is a significant factor here. It went well beyond what a reasonable player would consider prudent in the circumstances, particularly the circumstances that the push was in the direction of the path of the ball.
“Mansell breached his duty of care by pushing O’Connell with such force, with the path of the ball directly in the direction of oncoming players.”
The Tribunal also agreed with the AFL’s claim that the Ginbey incident on Lalor was different enough to not be ‘sufficiently comparable’.
“Lalor was not running with the flight of the ball, and Ginbey had not turned away from the flight of the ball,” Gleeson said.
“We need not express an opinion as to whether Ginbey’s conduct also amounted to rough conduct. It is sufficient in the present circumstances to say Mansell’s conduct did.”