Essendon veteran Dylan Shiel and Adelaide star Rory Laird are both fronting the AFL Tribunal tonight, contesting rough conduct charges. Live below!
Shiel was handed a one-game ban for rough conduct as the Crows now seek to have Laird’s one-match bump ban thrown out.
Laird is seeking to be available for the Crows’ blockbuster Saturday night clash with Collingwood.
FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer.
Follow David Zita’s live coverage via the blog below!
Shiel case
Shiel was referred directly to the Tribunal for a “dangerous” pushing act that led to a scary collision with teammate Luamon Lual at Kardinia Park.
In a marking contest on the wing, Shiel shoved Geelong’s Mark O’Connor into the pathway of Lual — who was running back with the flight — as the young Bomber was tunneled and flipped backwards.
Renee Enbom KC was Tribunal chair with David Neitz and Darren Gaspar on the panel, with Ben Ihle KC representing Essendon and Nick Pane KC representing the AFL.
The Essendon medical report found Lual was assessed immediately and taken into the rooms for jarring his lower back, before being deemed able to return.
Shiel said he only realised he could be in trouble when he was driving home from the game.
“I just remember tracking the footy, knowing I had O’Connor there in front of me, and what I was trying to achieve was being in the best position to mark the ball against a taller and bigger opponent and at worst case if I could get him under the ball and protect the drop zone, I would then be able to win the footy on the ground,” he said.
“I saw my teammate was getting assessed, and I just asked one of the staff on the bench, how did he get hurt? And he said, in the marking contest with you. I was like, I have no idea about that and how that happened.”
He thought he was going to be in a one-on-one marking contest and didn’t want to allow O’Connor to have a run and jump at the ball, instead making contact to push O’Connor into what he thought was clear space.
Shiel conceded he pushed O’Connor though disputed whether it was in the back, eventually arguing it was in the side.
Pane representing the AFL suggested Shiel would have seen other players approaching the contest at least in his peripheral vision, but Shiel said he had eyes on the ball.
“I thought I was pushing him under the ball,” Shiel said.
The AFL argued the rough conduct rules meant players had a duty of care to all other players, regardless of the team.
They argued Shiel’s actions went beyond that of a reasonable player due to the force of the push, and because the push was in the direction of the path of the ball and oncoming players.
“Shiel should have expected he and O’Connor would not be the only two players in the vicinity of the ball,” Pane said.
“My submission is it was reasonably foreseeable that pushing O’Connor in the manner he did would lead to forceful and dangerous contact between O’Connor and the other players contesting the ball.
“The push of a player into the path of oncoming players is inherently dangerous and brings with it a high potential for injury.”
Pane for Essendon argued there were five reasons the incident wasn’t reportable:
1) Other players had cleared out of the space initially
2) Shiel’s eyes were on the ball until after push
3) Shiel trained to protect the drop zone, football act
4) O’Connor not pushed into contest, he was pushed down the wing
5) There is no high contact to O’Connor
They also argued the “spirit and intention” of the rough conduct rule only involves conduct against an opposition player.
“It is clear the intention is the protection of opposition players, and therefore the invitation the AFL has extended to look beyond O’Connor and look at the incidental consequences of Shiel’s conduct is misconcieved,” Pane said.
“This is a situation the rules do not cover.”
Pane said given all of that, the actual incident with O’Connor was “not sufficient to warrant a charge” and “at worst a fine”.
Shiel Tribunal reasons
We uphold the charge of rough conduct and impose a one-match suspension.
We consider this to be a clear case of rough conduct for the following reasons:
Shiel and O’Connor were grappling with one another as the ball was approaching in the air. As the ball got close, Shiel forcefully pushed O’Connor into the marking contest, causing him to collide heavily with player Lual.
The forceful push on O’Connor was unreasonable in the circumstances. It was not conduct that a reasonable player would consider prudent.
Shiel breached his duty of care by pushing O’Connor in the way he did and in the circumstances.
We do not accept that Shiel had eyes on the ball at all relevant times and did not see other players in position to contest the mark. That evidence is not supported by the vision of the incident. Vision captures Shiel looking in the direction of the oncoming players at the time he pushed O’Connor.
Even if Shiel did not see the other players, it was careless of him to push O’Connor when he should have reasonably expected that other players would likely be positioning to contest the mark given the length of time the ball was in the air.
O’Connor was highly vulnerable. He would not have been expecting to be pushed into the contest. He had no or little control over himself. He catapulted forward and collided heavily with Lual.
Lual’s body was flung into the air, which reveals the force with which they collided.
While O’Connor was not injured, we consider that the circumstances of the push were so dangerous that there was significant potential for injury to O’Connor.
Had Lual’s body position in the marking contest been slightly different at the time of impact, O’Connor’s head or face could have made forceful contact with Lual’s hip or knee, causing O’Connor a serious injury.
The potential for a concussion or facial injury was real.
O’Connor was forcefully pushed into a dynamic situation where he could have sustained a number of serious head and facial injuries.
We consider a one-match suspension to be appropriate in the circumstances.
The contact to O’Connor was to the body, but the impact is high due to the significant potential to cause injury to O’Connor.
While there was also a significant effect on play at Lual as a result of the rough conduct, we have not based our decision on that aspect.
‘The danger of that is extraordinary!’ | 01:08
Laird live updates
Laird was offered a one-game sanction for bumping West Coast’s Jamie Cripps last Sunday; an act graded as careless with medium impact and high contact.
If the Crows do not successfully challenge the ban, he will miss Saturday night’s blockbuster clash with Collingwood.
Sam Bird represented the AFL while Andrew Culshaw represented Adelaide.
Rory Laird did not give evidence.
The Crows disputed whether the incident was a reportable offence at all, trying to get the rough conduct charge thrown out.
The AFL argued Cripps was in a vulnerable position with his eyes on the football, and that Laird tucked his arm and made no attempt to tackle or smother the ball.
“It is a bump,” Bird said.
“Laird was not contesting the ball and at no point was he in a position to take possession of the ball.”
The Crows argued instead it was “an attempt to push his opposing player that has gone wrong”.
“He did not elect to bump and in fact, he did not bump Jaime Cripps at all,” Culshaw said.
Instead they argued Laird was trying to push Cripps off his kick, going frame-by-frame through the incident.
“It’s not Rory Laird that goes upwards, but it’s the contact between the players’ legs which causes him to fall over himself,” Culshaw said.
“What could be more reasonable than bringing up your arms to make sure it’s your hands and arms making contact with your opponent rather than your shoulder or your chest?”
The AFL pointed out the other Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson has previously declared this year that frame-by-frame evidence was not helpful.