Essendon’s counsel Ben Ihle said the penalty for Shiel’s actions should be, at worst, a fine. They then proceed to drill down into the semantics and meanings of rough conduct.
He present a very legal-heavy argument. In short, he argued at the focus should be on O’Connor, not Luamon Lual.
“It is clear in our submission that the evinced intention is the protection of opposition players, and therefore the invitation that the AFL has extended to the tribunal to look beyond O’Connor and look at the incidental consequences by Shiel’s conduct to another player is misconceived,” he said.
“This a situation that the rules do not cover,” he continued.
“What does that mean in the consequences of this case? It means that when one comes to consider rough conduct, Shiel’s conduct as against O’Connor. And when one comes to consider – if the tribunal is of the view that that is unreasonable in the circumstances – what flows from it as a result of an appropriate classification according to a focus on O’Connor, not Lual.”
Phew.