'We hi-fived after': Eagles' use of 'good bloke' clause fails as star fails ...

Turns out not every player can ue the ‘good bloke’ clause.

Star West Coast defender Tom Barrass will miss Round 7’s clash with Gold Coast after failing to downgrade his one-match ban for rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal.

Barrass was cited for a dangerous tackle on Docker Michael Walters in last week’s western derby, with the incident graded as careless with medium impact and high contact.

Watch every game of every round this Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >

The Eagles attempted to have the impact downgraded to low, which would result in a fine, while also arguing “exceptional and compelling circumstances” - the ‘good bloke’ clause used successfully by Charlie Cameron - would warrant the downgrade.

“We ran past each other on the ground and hi-fived and sort of touched each other (afterwards),” Barrass said of his interactions with Walters.

“The second was after the game shaking hands and he said ‘I’m good, you’ll be fine, no worries.’”

The Eagles cited Barrass being engaged with two kids, haveing a “few philanthropic interests“ plus character references from Jeremy McGovern and former Eagles Chair Russell Gibbs.

David Grace, for the Eagles, said Walters was unencumbered after the incident, which he said should play a role in downgrading impact.

Andrew Woods for the AFL said while Walters had his left arm free, it wasn’t enough to prevent a forceful hit. Woods added if Walters’ right arm was free or less force was used, there would’ve been a very different outcome.

“The head comes down past the ball and into the ground. Ultimately, that’s a matter for you to decide,” he said.

Woods argued these were not exceptional circumstances because Barrass has played 138 games - not the 200-plus of Cameron - while Cameron’s was on the “lower end of careless” and this wasn’t, plus it’s not unusual for players to do community work.

But Grace for the Eagles said: “If the Tribunal wants to compare the vision to what Cameron did to Lever, that was far more serious.”

Barrass will miss West Coast’s clash with the Suns at People First Stadium this Sunday.

It comes after a busy Tuesday night at the tribunal, which saw Jesse Hogan get off his ban, while Toby Greene’s suspension was upheld.

TRIBUNAL REASONING

We deal first with the impact.

We are satisfied that the impact has been correctly classified as medium for the following reasons.

First, the vision captures Walters’ head hitting the ground with force. That is so even if his head did first land on the ball. The vision captures his head bounce off the ground. Walters grabbed his head and took a moment before getting to his feet.

Second, whilst Walters received no medical treatment, was uninjured and went on to play without being impeded, it is plain from the vision that Barrass’ dangerous tackle had the potential to cause a serious head or neck injury. This is because of the nature of the tackle. Barrass conceded that he used excessive force. He conceded Walters’ right arm was pinned. The pinning of the right arm made Walters more vulnerable to injury because he could not use his arm to try to protect himself. Walters was also rotated by Barrass with such force that, even if Walters’ arm was free, he would have had little opportunity to try to use it to protect himself.

The combination of the excessive force used, pinning of the arm and forceful rotation movement used in Barrass’ dangerous tackle created significant potential for a head or neck injury.

This is also so given that Barrass appears in the vision to be a bigger and heavier player than Walters.

We now move to the second issue.

We do not consider that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply a sanction of one match.

AFL regulations expressly state that exceptional and compelling circumstances may include the fact that a player has an exemplary record. Where a player has an exemplary record, and the Tribunal decides that the player’s exemplary record makes it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply the standard sanction, then the Tribunal may impose a different sanction.

Barrass has a commendable record. His record is an indicator that he is a player who typically exercises reasonable care and good judgement in the way he plays the game.

However, we do not consider that Barrass’ record, as good as it is and even if regarded as exemplary, makes it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply a one-match suspension.

We consider a one-match sanction to be proportionate in all the circumstances.

Whilst Barrass has shown himself to be a player of the kind we have described, on this occasion, he was careless in at least three respects in the way in which he tackled Walters. He used excessive force. He pinned his arm. He rotated him with significant force to the ground.

His tackle had consequences for Walters. His head hit and bounced off the ground. The outcome could have been worse, there was significant potential for a concussion or other serious head or neck injury.

Whilst there may be less need for specific deterrence in this case, that is less need for the imposition of a sanction to deter Barrass from reoffending, sanctions also serve the purpose of general deterrence.

We do not consider that a sanction other than a suspension would provide sufficient disincentive for other players contemplating a dangerous tackle of the kind we have described.

Barrass also relied upon good character evidence and his guilty plea in support of his submission that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances in this case.

Those matters, when combined with the matters we’ve already addressed, do not cause us to conclude that it would be inappropriate or unreasonable to apply a one- match sanction. They do not make the sanction disproportionate or change our view in relation to general deterrence.

Council referred to the Tribunal’s recent decision in the matter of Charlie Cameron. That decision turned on its own facts. The facts here are different.

A key difference is the nature of the dangerous tackle which constitutes that reportable offence. As we’ve said, excessive force was used, one arm was pinned, Walters was rotated with significant force into the ground by a bigger player, Walters’s head hit and bounced off the ground and there was significant potential for a concussion.

Even if there is little need for specific deterrence, it is important that the sanction provides a disincentive to other players contemplating such a dangerous tackle.

The circumstances when considered as a whole did not make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply a one-match sanction.