Collingwood's appeal of Billy Frampton has successfully appealed his three match ban at the AFL tribunal.

He will be free to play against Port Adelaide after Collingwood's bye after the tribunal dismissed the charge of careless conduct for his tackle on Brody Mihocek. 

The tribunal disputed the AFL's submission that a reasonable player would have released the tackle earlier, and indicated it was unreasonable for Frampton to know with precision where Mihocek's head was during the incident.

The tribunal also pointed to the lack of remonstration from Melbourne players towards Frampton despite having a clear view of the incident, and a dangerous tackle not being awarded as supporting factors towards the charge being dismissed.

The incident resulted in a fracture in his neck, and was initially graded as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.

The ban was handed down on Monday, with the Magpies moving quickly to appeal the sanction.

Zero Hanger managing editor Mark Stevens implored the tribunal to free Frampton ahead of the hearing.

Loading matchup…

Richard Gleeson (tribunal chair):

"The issue for determination is whether Frampton's tackle was unreasonable in the circumstances. We have carefully considered the vision which gives an uninterrupted view 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, namely: a) Frampton approached Mihocek with caution and corralled him. B) he saw Mihocek slip and that Mihocek's head was down. C) He made sure 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 Mihocek was in a vulnerable position and that a reasonable player in those circumstances would have released the tackle.

"While we accept that Frampton could have been expected to know there was vulnerability associated with the position Mihocek was in, we do not accept a reasonable player in the circumstances would have released the tackle. While Frampton knew Mihocek had chosen to drop his head and drive into Frampton, he could not reasonably have known with any sort of precision what Mihocek was 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 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 was 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 the majority of momentum and force in the tackle was provided by Mihocek who was trying to drive through Frampton, who was virtually stationary.

"We accept Frampton may have contributed to some of the downward or rotational momentum but this was a far smaller contribution than that of Mihocek driving through the tackle. Frampton was largely successful in his attempt to have Mihocek land on him. He's seen from the video to be genuinely surprised that Mihocek was hurt.

"Two field umpires had a clear view of the tackle and neither rewarded a free kick for a dangerous tackle. No Melbourne player remonstrated with Frampton. These latter matters are often of no great moment.

"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 this was a tackle a reasonable player would have applied or continued to apply, the lack of response from 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."

LIVE BLOG

The Tribunal will begin at 5:30pm (AEST).

5.31pm: Collingwood is challenging careless conduct. It accepts high contact and severe impact for Billy Frampton's tackle.

5.33pm: Melbourne expects Brody Mihocek to miss the rest of the season.

5.34pm: Giving evidence, Billy Frampton indicates he took measures to prevent contact to the head. Frampton says after he grabbed Mihocek, he felt he had Mihocek pinned and he felt the 33-year-old try to drive through the tackle before it 'fell apart from there'. "His momentum collapses my way through my fault of my own, I feel," Frampton says. "I felt like he was in a position to use his hands and arms to protect himself. Because of our momentum, I thought I could pull him onto me and I would take the brunt (of the impact)...but with the driving momentum, it spiralled a little bit into an out-of-control landing...I don't feel like I contributed in any way to the force." Frampton adds that he feels Mihocek's force lifted him off the ground. 

5.39pm: Billy Frampton confirms that he messaged Mihocek twice and Mihocek responded to the second message, sent after Melbourne's statement yesterday.

5.44pm: Frampton disputes that there was downward pressure on Mihocek's back from his left arm during the tackle, instead indicating he wanted to keep them connected, rather than pushing him downward. It was put to Frampton that he knew Mihocek's head was significantly lower than his hip, which Frampton said was too much information to process in such a frame of time. It was put to Mihocek he could have released his right arm and perhaps his left arm. Frampton: I don't think so, at the time, I'm thinking I'm within my rights to make a tackle, he's voided his prior opportunity...so I had no reason to let go."

5.49pm: Frampton: "I feel like it's incredibly unlucky how it's all played out, I don't think I can be able to see that (coming)."

5.52pm: Nick Pane (KC), representing the AFL, indicates it is rough conduct because the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, considering the position of Mihocek's head at the beginning of the tackle and he was rotated into the ground with excessive force.

5.56pm: Nick Pane (KC) argues Mihocek was in a vulnerable position and Frampton should have been aware of that. A reasonable player would have realised that holding Frampton's right arm over Mihocek's shoulder and neck would have realised it could have resulted in his head making forceful contact with the ground. Therefore, Frampton should have done more, such as releasing the tackle earlier, and by not doing so, he breached his duty of care.

5.59pm: Nick Pane (KC) submits that even though Mihocek had an arm free, Frampton should have known he could not have used it to meaningfully brace for impact. 

6.03pm: Nick Pane (KC) submits that once Frampton was aware of where Mihocek's head and body was, he should have released to minimise impact. He argues the footage does not support Frampton's evidence that he did not contribute to the force, arguing both players contributed to the force.

6.04pm: Myles Tehan, representing Collingwood begins his submission by highlighting that the decision to challenge was not made lightly given Mihocek's status as a former Collingwood champion, and his injury. He adds the challenge does not reflect any denial of the seriousness of the injury.

6.14pm: Myles Tehan, representing Collingwood, submits the tackle started as one thing but turned into another because of Mihocek's actions, which Frampton could not have foreseen. 

6.18pm: Myles Tehan, representing Collingwood, submits that what has caused the terrible result in this tackle was the awkward position of Mihocek's head and neck, not the level of force. The manner in which Mihocek acted in the tackle by seeking to drive through the tackle, changed the tackle in a way Frampton could not foresee. 

6.21pm:
Richard Gleeson (chair): "Anything you want to highlight in response, Mr Pane?
*Awkward silence*
Gleeson: "Probably better if you aren't on mute.
Nick Pane (AFL): "You'd think I would have figured it out by now!"

6.22pm: Nick Pane submits that while he approached the tackle appropriately, as submitted by Collingwood, once circumstances changed, he should have done more. 

6.23pm: The tribunal is now deliberating.

7.08pm: The challenge is successful and Frampton is free to play. The charge is dismissed.

 

JOIN THE DISCUSSION