If you can\u2019t see the blog, tap here<\/a>.<\/p>\nTribunal updates<\/p>\n
Albert Dinelli represented the AFL with Nicholas Baum representing Collingwood, in front of Tribunal chair Renee Enbom and jurors Darren Gaspar and Scott Stevens.<\/p>\n
The Magpies disputed the conduct was careless (trying to get it thrown out) and said the impact grading should be low, not medium (downgrading it to a fine if upheld as careless).<\/p>\n
The medical report found there were no symptoms nor signs of concussion from Whitlock.<\/p>\n
Frampton argued he had no other option than diving forward to stop Whitlock, given the score of the game and location in front of goal.<\/p>\n
\u201c(With) how his arms were positioned along his body, it didn\u2019t give me much of a choice than to wrap him up that way,\u201d Frampton said.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd then obviously to try and impede him from being able to drop the ball onto his boot.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think I could have maneuvered my hands in there (around his hips) with how his arms were positioned.\u201d<\/p>\n
Frampton said he tried to release his left arm, the one closest to the ground, as he felt Whitlock lose control.<\/p>\n
The AFL made clear it didn\u2019t believe he shouldn\u2019t have tackled Whitlock at all.<\/p>\n
They argued the tackle increased in momentum after the point Frampton felt Whitlock lose his balance as his knees hit the ground, rather than decreased, but Frampton argued his motion didn\u2019t increase the pace.<\/p>\n
Frampton conceded he released Whitlock\u2019s arm \u201ctowards the end\u201d of the tackle, without enough time to protect himself, saying \u201cthe tackle sped up a little bit more than anticipated due to the motion we were both in\u201d.<\/p>\n
Could Merrett be off to the Cats | 02:46<\/p>\n
Frampton also said he felt the tackle was completed whenever he knew his opponent couldn\u2019t kick the ball, which would be the moment his legs were on the ground, given the ability he had to scrounge a kick while falling.<\/p>\n
The Magpies submitted several previous tackles as comparable incidents including Hough on Butters.<\/p>\n
They also submitted an article saying umpire Jacob Mollison recently had his 400th game, but the AFL said he wasn\u2019t the umpire in proximity and didn\u2019t understand its relevance.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr Mollison had a clear view of the incident, unobstructed. He assessed the tackle to be holding the ball and not a dangerous tackle, and it\u2019s a relevant factor in considering the reasonableness that an umpire of his experience and with his unobstruted view assessed the tackle in that matter,\u201d Baum said for the Magpies.<\/p>\n
The AFL said Mollison was 40 metres away and was the non-officiating umpire, whereas the umpire who paid the dangerous tackle was three to four metres away.<\/p>\n
Tribnual chair Enbom said it had \u201cvery limited utility\u201d but accepted it as evidence.<\/p>\n
The AFL said the potential to cause injury must be taken into account, and that while tackling was reasonable, the execution of the tackle itself was unreasonable due to:<\/p>\n
– the pinning of Whitlock\u2019s arms and \u201ctheir release when he couldn\u2019t take any steps to protect himself\u201d, with Frampton\u2019s evidence matching this assessment;<\/p>\n
– there was an increase in the momentum midway through the tackle, not a decrease;<\/p>\n
– Whitlock\u2019s head hitting the ground.<\/p>\n
The AFL argued said it was open to Frampton to execute the tackle more safely, by not pinning the arms or by releasing them earlier, and by not increasing the momentum of the tackle using his right arm.<\/p>\n
They said Whitlock\u2019s head making forceful contact with the ground meant it was medium impact and not low, with Whitlock remaining on the ground for some time and looking visibly impacted after it.<\/p>\n
Hardwick addresses season gone comments | 01:40<\/p>\n
Collingwood argued a player didn\u2019t need to perfectly protect his opponent to act reasonably, and the real test was whether a player \u201cdoes what he can, and what a reasonable player would regard prudent\u201d in the situation.<\/p>\n
They also argued even if there was some force being applied on Whitlock during the tackle, it needed to be proven there was excessive force.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere was no rotation, slinging or driving into the ground at all,\u201d Baum said for the Magpies.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhitlock stumbled or tripped over his own legs to a small degree, which caused him to be off-balance and caused his momentum to be travelling forward with his head first. And that\u2019s a very difficult position for Frampton to lay a tackle\u201d.<\/p>\n
Collingwood conceded Frampton released Whitlock\u2019s arms late in the tackle, \u201cbut he has released them\u201d and \u201cwithin a frame or two of Whitlock\u2019s knee hitting the ground\u201d.<\/p>\n
They argued Frampton did what he has been coached to do, including trying to rotate Whitlock towards him and trying to get under him in order to cushion Whitlock\u2019s fall.<\/p>\n
Tribunal chair Enbom asked if Frampton could\u2019ve lowered his arms to around Whitlock\u2019s waist while laying the tackle.<\/p>\n
The Pies said Frampton\u2019s evidence was he couldn\u2019t have done that, and even if he could have, it would\u2019ve allowed Whitlock to get a shot on goal – making it was reasonable to tackle the way he did.<\/p>\n
They also argued Frampton rotating Whitlock meant his knee hit the ground, then his elbow and shoulder took the brunt of the impact, making it safer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Collingwood\u2019s Billy Frampton is defending a dangerous tackle at the AFL Tribunal for the second time this year,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":799406,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[560],"tags":[638,64,63,55,639,85],"class_list":["post-799405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-afl","tag-afl","tag-au","tag-australia","tag-australian-football-league","tag-australianfootballleague","tag-sports"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799405","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=799405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799405\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/799406"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=799405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=799405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=799405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/poster-fallback.png\"\/)
<\/p>\n