Collingwood has successfully overturned Billy Frampton’s three-game ban for the dangerous tackle which broke the neck of ex-teammate Brody Mihocek.
The King’s Birthday incident was graded as careless, severe impact and high contact but the Tribunal found Frampton was not primarily to blame for the incident.
Watch every match of every round of the AFL Premiership Season LIVE and ad-break free during play on FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
Mihocek suffered a fractured neck in the incident and needed to be stretchered off the MCG. He is now up and walking, after initial fears the injury could’ve been even more severe.
The Magpies argued it was not a careless act by Frampton, and instead was an unfortunate football accident – which the Tribunal agreed with.
The Tribunal did not agree with the AFL’s case a reasonable player would have released Mihocek when the tackle began to go poorly.
TRIBUNAL REASONS (Jeff Gleeson statement)
The issue for determination is whether Frampton’s tackle was unreasonable in circumstances.
We have carefully considered the vision, which gives an uninterrupted view from a number of angles of the two players and what unfolded.
We have also taken into account Frampton’s evidence, which was clear and balanced.
We find that Frampton’s evidence is consistent with what is shown on the video.
Mainly:
A) Frampton approached Mihocek with caution and corralled him,
B) He saw Mihocek slip and that Mihocek’s head was down,
C) He took care not to make forceful contact with Mihocek’s head, and so he put arms around and over Mihocek’s body,
D) Mihocek drove into him,
E) Frampton knew that he did not have either of Mihocek’s arms pinned,
F) He pulled Mihocek towards him with his left arm,
G) Frampton’s feet were off the ground prior to and at the moment of Mihocek’s head striking the ground.
It is the AFL’s case that Frampton knew that Mihocek was in a vulnerable position, and that a reasonable player in those circumstances would have released the tackle.
While we accept that Frampton knew, or could be expected to have known, that there was vulnerability associated with the position that Mihocek was in, we do not accept that a reasonable player in the circumstances would have released the tackle.
The tackle from Billy Frampton that forced Brody Mihocek to be stretchered off the MCG.Source: Fox Sports
While Frampton knew that Mihocek had chosen to drop his head and drive into Frampton, he could not reasonably have known with any sort of precision what Mihocek would be doing to position his head, or what he would be doing with either of his free arms.
Frampton knew Mihocek had the ball and was attempting to drive through the tackle.
He knew that Mihocek’s head was low, but did not know that it was at risk of being driven straight into the ground.
As he said in his evidence, he could not foresee that Mihocek’s head is bent in a certain direction.
A reasonable player in Frampton’s position would not have released the tackle.
Frampton gave evidence that he didn’t think Mihocek was in a position to get hurt. We accept that evidence.
We find that the majority of the force and momentum in the tackle was provided by Mihocek who was trying to drive through Frampton, who was virtually stationary.
We accept that Frampton may have contributed to some of the downward or rotational momentum, but this was a far smaller contribution than that provided by Mihocek driving through the tackle.
Frampton was largely successful in his attempt to have Mihocek land on him.
He seemed, from the video, to be genuinely surprised to discover that Mihocek was hurt.
Two field umpires had a clear view of the tackle, and neither awarded a free kick for a dangerous tackle.
No Melbourne player remonstrated with Frampton.
These latter matters are often of no great moment.
Umpires and teammates may not have seen what the vision reveals has occurred, but this tackle did not happen in a pack or in any congestion.
It was just the two players, and when considering whether this was a tackle that a reasonable player would have applied, or more particularly continued to apply, the response or lack of response of the umpires and other players to what they saw in real time is of some significance.
The game of football typically involves accidental contact and impact.
Some accidents are avoidable if reasonable care had been taken. Some are not.
Most accidental impact on the football field results in no injury.
This accidental impact resulted in a dreadful injury to Brody Mihocek. It was, however, not reasonably avoidable.
Billy Frampton did not engage in conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The charge is dismissed.
Swann: “You have to grade it severe” | 02:23
TRIBUNAL HEARING
Nick Pane represented the AFL with Myles Tehan representing Collingwood in front of Jeff Gleeson (Tribunal chair), Scott Stevens and Jordan Bannister.
“He (Mihocek) had a little stumble and I realised he was pretty low to the ground. So I sort of slowed my approach, trying to get him safely avoiding his head, and it just played out from there,” Frampton explained.
“He curled up and sort of drove into me … immediately I just wanted to make sure I didn’t his head, so reaching over the top of him, coming from the side, trying to get him safely.
“He was low, hunched over so I didn’t want to come over with a swinging, overarm tackle, so sort of went over the top of his head to miss his head and then sort of grabbed the ball to make sure that was pinned.
“I thought I had him pinned and I felt him drive through, as players we learn to drive through tackles, sort of push through into me and come through the other side of the tackle.
“I felt him sort of driving and it all sort of fell apart from there, I guess.
“It felt like I had him in a pretty stable spot and then with him driving and trying to press his way out of the tackle, I felt like it sort of raised me up and lifted me up, and then at that point I’m suspended in the air just holding onto him. And with his momentum I think it sort of collapses, through no fault of my own.
“I thought it would be a quick holding the ball and didn’t expect to get lifted and definitely not to fall over.”
Frampton continued: “I didn’t think it would be a high impact landing at all but with the driving, it sort of spiralled a bit into a bit more of an out-of-control landing.
“I don’t know what else I could’ve done. I approached cautiously with his care front of mind, I didn’t want to hit him in the head, I didn’t want to go front on – that was genuinely what I was thinking at the time.
“He said he needed help, he couldn’t move, which was quite a distressing thing to hear – he said that a few times straight away, which is why I reacted the way I did to call some people over.
“I felt horrific, obviously, he’s a good friend of mine … I would never in a million years want to hurt another player, especially not Brody. It was a pretty stressful couple of days for me but now that I’ve heard he’s trending in the right direction, it’s sort of taken a bit of the load off.”
The AFL argued Frampton was pushing downward pressure on Mihocek’s back but he says it was more of a pulling motion and “latching onto his hip”, though concedes he had “marginal” pressure on Mihocek’s back.
The AFL suggested Frampton could’ve stopped pulling Mihocek to the ground with his left arm, but Frampton said his left arm couldn’t have been contributing to the downward pull as they began to go to ground because of its positioning.
He was asked if he thought he could’ve released his right arm he says “if I knew exactly where his head was, potentially, but I can’t see where his head is and I know that his hands are free. I didn’t think this was a high-risk position and I’m not pinning him. I thought he would’ve been able to protect himself.”
Frampton said he couldn’t have “processed the information” that Mihocek’s head was well below the rest of his body.
“I was thinking I’m well within my rights to make the tackle. He has voided prior opportunity by ducking his head, so I’m within my rights to make my tackle. The whole time I thought it was a legal tackle,” he said.
“I didn’t think at the time he was in a position to get hurt.
“It’s incredibly unlucky how it’s all played out. I don’t think I can be able to foresee any of that.”
He clarified he knew Mihocek’s head was low at the start of the tackle but when Mihocek drove into him, Frampton said: “I think I approached it the right away and avoided it and then the way he’s pressed up to me, in a sense I couldn’t really change anything.”
AFL community gather for Daniher tribute | 03:50
The AFL argued this tackle was inherently dangerous, that Mihocek was vulnerable and he was rotated into the ground with excessive force.
Pane said a “reasonable player” could’ve released the tackle to not pull Mihocek down with him, and while Mihocek’s arms were free he could not have braced to avoid the impact with the ground.
He also argued Frampton ought to have known from the angle of Mihocek’s body “he was going to be coming towards the ground at quite a significant angle, and therefore having an arm free was going to be of little benefit to Mihocek”.
“I’m not suggesting he shouldn’t have instigated a tackle … once the tackle had begun and he was aware of where Mihocek’s head was and the angle of the rest of his body, he should’ve then released his arms so he wasn’t contributing to the impact,” Pane said.
Pane conceded each player was contributing to the force but said “I don’t think the footage supports Frampton’s evidence that he didn’t contribute in any way to the force”.
Collingwood made the point the challenge was made “after very careful thought and deliberation, not least because of Mihocek’s status as a former Collingwood champion and the very serious injuries suffered”. They shared their deep concern for Mihocek’s health.
They point to the rules around prior opportunity which now include players driving their head in an attempt to discourage incidents like this – and the fact a free kick was paid against Mihocek.
The Magpies say Frampton’s actions entering the tackle are consistent with him seeking to exercise his duty of care, and that he was “very careful with where he put his arms in order to avoid Mihocek’s head” as Mihocek “initiates contact and applies forward momentum”.
“The tackle started as one thing but turned into another because of Mihocek’s actions in driving through in the way he did and in a way that was not expected or reasonably foreseeable to Frampton,” Tehan said for the Magpies.
“That spiralling out of control is not something that ought reasonably be the responsibility of born by Frampton. What occurred in our submission was not foreseeable and incapable of being anticipated.”
The Magpies accept it’s open to the Tribunal to find Mihocek was in a vulnerable position because his head was down, but “he did not have limited opportunity to protect himself” given his arms were free.
“Any force was not in fact excessive,” Tehan said.
He added: “The way Mihocek acted changed the tackle in a way Frampton couldn’t control.”
Pane argued for the AFL that Frampton “was in a position to see that the tackle had changed and was in a position to modulate and moderate the force that he was applying.
“Once it changed, he should have done more.”
Follow Billy Frampton’s Tribunal appeal live below! If you can’t see the blog, tap here.