The AFL Tribunal have suspended Hawthorn's Conor Nash for four weeks following his high strike on Geelong forward Gryan Miers, following an unsuccessful attempt to limit the charge to a three-match ban.
The AFL's Match Review Officer directly referred Nash to the Tribunal following his third-term strike on Miers from Round 6, with the Irishman's actions graded as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.
Miers suffered a concussion as a result of the incident and has entered the AFL's mandatory protocols period.
The MRO could've offered Nash a three-game suspension but have instead taken the matter to the Tribunal, where Hawthorn and the league will plead their cases.
Hawthorn are scheduled to face West Coast, Richmond, Melbourne and Gold Coast in their next four games.
Verdict: The AFL Tribunal has decided on a four-match suspension for Conor Nash for striking Gryan Miers.
Summation: Paul Gleeson, AFL Tribunal Chariman:
"Mr. Nash accepts all elements of the charge. He submits that the sanctions should be three matches. The AFL submits the sanctions should be four matches. We've taken into account all matters, but in particular the vision of the incident, Mr. Nash's evidence, the very helpful submissions from both parties and the vision of other incidents.
"Nash's evidence included reference to his immediate expression of remorse, followed up by an apology to Miers after the game. We accept that Nash immediately realized he'd done the wrong thing and that he was, and is, remorseful. He's not attempted to argue that this was anything other than a careless act with severe impact, and we factor this into our consideration.
"We also factor in his very good record. He has not been reported before, and it is clear that this act was not typical of the way in which Nash plays football. We find, however, that the degree of carelessness here was significant.
"The ball was in contest among a relatively tight cluster of players. Nash was to the side of and slightly behind Miers, and Miers had no view of Nash as he attempted to collect the ball. The ball was at approximately head height, and while Nash had eyes for the football, he had his arm on Miers' back prior to impact, and must be taken to have been aware of the approximate position of Miers' body and head.
"Nash gave evidence that he was attempting to knock the ball forward, but the angle with which he swung his arm, the elevation at which he swung his arm, and the force with which he swung his arm, meant that it was all but inevitable that he was going to make forceful contact with Miers' head.
"In any event, the force of impact was considerable. It involved a full and fast swing of Nash's arm and a direct impact via his head. Although the contact was made with Nash's arm and not his hand, noting that the hand was open, Miers was knocked off his feet and stayed down for an extended period.
"He suffered a concussion, and there was the potential for a facial injury, given the nature and force of the impact.
"We were taken to two other relatively recent striking incidents where the impact was classified as severe and the reported players were suspended for three matches. The first was the Scrimshaw strike on Ridley. The force there was less severe, as Mr. Tehan fairly conceded on behalf of Mr. Nash, but we do not accept his submission that the carelessness in that matter was greater to any significant degree. For the reasons we referred to earlier, the carelessness here was quite marked.
"The second example was the Voss strike on Vlaustin. A point of difference there was that Vlaustin suffered no concussion, but he did suffer a facial fracture, which, on any view, is a significant injury. That incident did, however, involve two players moving at some speed, and the potential for careless execution was perhaps somewhat more explicable.
"We have some difficulty in understanding how Mr. Nash got it so wrong here. We accept that he was not intending to strike Miers to the head, but he should have known that his forceful swing of an arm at head height may well result in such a strike.
"We find that the appropriate sanction is four matches suspension."
5:40: The Tribunal is now deliberating.
5:38: Hawthorn argue Conor Nash's strike is not as severe as Scrimshaw's carelessness-wise, as Nash's was a play on the ball while Scrimshaw's could have only been to attempt physicality on the player.
They do accept the strike itself was more severe, given the immediate loss of consciousness; however maintain that the act itself was less careless.
Similarly, they refer that Patrick Voss was attempting to make physical contact with Nick Vlaustin, which would again suggest that that incident was more careless than Nash's.
"If the Tribunal seek to balance these matters, we say the Voss incident was more careless than this and about the same (severity), and if it got three weeks, we say equally it should be three weeks in our case". - Myles Tehan (Hawthorn)
5:32: Hawthorn wish the Tribunal take into account Nash's good record with no fines or suspensions across 139 AFL and VFL games, as well as no suspensions in his previous sports back in Ireland, rugby union and Gaelic football.
5:30: "Mr. Nash's eyes are only on the ball... the level of the arm and the ball are the same. What occurs is Mr Miers lowers the ball from the level of Mr. Nash's arm. Mr Nash's arm continues to come across horizontally, consistent with tapping or seeking to tap the ball.
"The ball gets lowered out of that range, and the consequence is that the strike occurs on the inside of the bicep." - Myles Tehan (Hawthorn) in response to a question posed by AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson, explaining the vision of the incident.
5:26: Hawthorn argue that this is not worse than those two incidents, stating it "was not a dirty act."
"It was an obvious football act attempting to impact the play by tapping the ball away." - Myles Tehan (Hawthorn)
5:21: Woods has also drawn on Fremantle's Patrick Voss' three-match ban for a strike, referring to how the player he hit, Nick Vlaustin, had a lack of concussion, and it suggests it is less severe than Nash's immediate knockout blow to Gryan Miers.
5:18: Woods is drawing on Hawthorn's Jack Scrimshaw's striking suspension against Essendon in Round 1.
"You immediately see in my submission less of an immediate shock... you see a more significant swing of the arm by player Nash than you see with Scrimshaw."
This is to present that Nash's strike was more severe and thus deserves a more severe punishment than Scrimshaw's three weeks.
5:13: "High level of carelessness - there was no prospect of gaining possession or really spoiling the ball in any meaningful way." - Andrew Woods (AFL)
5:10: "I'm very remorseful... I was simply trying to make a play on the ball and just got it badly wrong." - Conor Nash
5:09: "I saw a player, I didn't know who it was, coming through to grab the footy and I simply tried to tap the ball, knock it free with my arm." - Conor Nash
5:02: The AFL want a ban of four weeks.
5:01pm: Hawthorn have confirmed they will not dispute the charge, but will seek a three-game suspension.
