At tonight's AFL Tribunal, West Coast midfielder Tim Kelly and Carlton captain Patrick Cripps will both be challenging respective charges from the Match Review Officer.
Kelly's case of a one-game suspension for rough conduct (dangerous tackle) will be held first.
Cripps' challenge will follow, with the Blues skipper looking to contest his two-game suspension for rough conduct.
Follow each case live here...
Blue Patrick Cripps challenges two-game rough conduct charge
Carlton captain Patrick Cripps is challenging his two-game rough conduct (dangerous tackle) charge for an incident in Sunday's match that included Brisbane player Callum Ah Chee.
The charge was graded as careless conduct, high impact and high contact, resulting in the two-game sanction.
Cartlton are scheduled to face Melbourne and Collingwood in their final two matches of the 2022 AFL season.
VERDICT: Cripps' suspension is upheld! His two-game suspension will stand.
The jury saw that Cripps elected to bump Ah Chee instead of reaching out for the ball.
His two-game ban will stand, meaning Cripps will miss be unavailable to face Melbourne and Collingwood for the remaining rounds of the home and away season.
"Mr Cripps turned his body into a classic bumping position when seeking to take possession. The question is therefore whether it was reasonable to contest the ball in that way," AFL chairman Jeff Gleeson said.
"And our view was not.
"He entered the contest at speed. He saw a player at least in his peripheral vision, and he leapt into the contest.
"With both feet off the ground he bumped Mr. Ah Chee at high speed.
"Would a reasonable player find that this was prudent? We find that they would not.
"Mr Cripps could and should have contested the ball differently, and in a way that did not present such a high and serious risk of head injury to his fellow players.
"He could have taken the ball with arms outstretched which would have meant that there was no act of bumping at all.
"Mr Cripps was running towards the ball and conceded he saw a player in his peripheral vision. the vision confirms in any event, the likelihood that he must have done so.
"Mr Cripps changed his shape prior to impact from simply attempting to gather the ball to a bumping position in which he was airborne. That would very likely cause high contact to an opponent.
"We uphold the charge."
Cripps' Counsel's rebuttal
Cripps' representative is arguing the conduct was not careless.
"There was no bump," O'Farrell said. "Cripps was at all times contesting the ball.
"This was a collision of two tall players in an aerial contest."
O'Farrell is now going over the footage of the reverse angle shown to the panel earlier.
"You can see the ball is still in dispute, no one has possession. That's significant.
"Cripps' actions are entirely consistent with Cripps contesting the ball at all times."
AFL chairman Jeff Gleeson has questioned whether the duty of care is different whether the incident takes place in a marking contest or a loose aerial ball.
O'Farrell: "It's only those players at this level that can make these judgement calls.
"If the ball is in front of you, and you can get it in a contest, you go for it."
O'Farrell has echoed Cripps' prior statements in regards to the 'drop zone'.
O'Farrell is questioning Pane's query whether Cripps could have approached the incident a different way.
Gleeson: " I think it's legitimate to look at what are the other ways."
O'Farrell: "There are many different reasonable responses. This response was reasonable."
"Both [players] have acted reasonably, but there was a collision.
"There can be no doubt that this was an aerial contest and both players were able to get to the contest. It wasn't a situation where Ah Chee was there first and Cripps second to the contest. This was a very even contest, one with milliseconds in it."
"Players do and can get hurt, not just concussion, but it includes concussion. That can occur in circumstances where they did not commit a reportable offence.
"This is a football act."
O'Farrell also stressed the significance of Cripps not moving his line on the ball.
AFL Counsel's arguments
AFL Counsel Nicholas Pane's submission is that the focus is not the collision itself, but the actions leading to the collision and the fallout of the collision.
"The question turns to whether player Cripps was contesting the ball, and whether in doing so his actions were reasonable in the circumstances," Pane said.
"It's his primary intention at and immediately prior to the point of contact was to forcefully bump player Ah Chee.
"These are matters of degree."
Pane raised to the panel that whether this is a case of a player bracing for inevitable contact.
"The contact with player Ah Chee was late."
"He could have tackled player Ah Chee, instead of bumping player Ah Chee."
It was also noted that Cripps could have considered approaching the ball 'like a ruck contest'.
Cripps speaks...
Explaing to the jury...
"[My] eyes are purely fixated on the ball when I jump," Cripps said.
"There's a clear look where the ball is above eye level. I attempted to take the ball on my chest."
Cripps spoke on the 'drop zone' of the ball in his actions.
"You talk about protecting the drop zone as a player. So that's where the fall of the ball comes, you know where the ball is going to drop," he said.
"When the ball is in dispute I am trying to protect the drop zone of the ball.
"My arms are out trying to take the ball on my chest."
"I don't think my line changed. If anything it went towards the boundary line. That's where the ball was heading."
Cripps said he was unaware if a collision would ensue given his eyes were on the ball. Cripps did not see Ah Chee launch for the ball.
He added that leaving the ground was the most secure way of winning the ball.
"You do anything you can to protect yourself and the drop zone of the ball."
"There was no way I could contest that ball without a collision."
New vision of incident, Rioli incident shown
Cripps' representative Peter O'Farrell has requested footage not accessible to the MRO from Fox Footy to be played to the panel.
The angle directly faces Cripps approaching Ah Chee.
O'Farrell also requested footage of Willie Rioli's bump on Suns player Matt Rowell from Round 1 this season be shown.
Rioli's suspension was downgraded from one game to none after the charge of impact was lowered.
We're underway...
A written submission was lodged by Patrick Cripps' counsel to aid the hearing.
The panel are being shown several angles of the incident.
AFL Counsel Nicholas Pane notes the medical report for Callum Ah Chee, who did not return to play and under further investigation is requiring ongoing treatment.
Ah Chee is listed to miss one to two games.
Eagle Tim Kelly fails in challenge of one-game rough conduct charge
West Coast Eagle Tim Kelly is challenging his rough conduct (dangerous tackle) charge on Adelaide's Sam Berry in the third quarter of Sunday's match at Optus Stadium.
Kelly was handed a one-game suspension for the incident, which was graded by the MRO as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact and High Contact.
An upheld suspension would see Kelly miss this Saturday's matchup with arch-rivals Fremantle.
Kelly is arguing that the 'medium' grade of impact should be decreased to a 'low' grading.
The charge has been upheld! Kelly's one-game ban stands!
The jury saw that the potential to cause injury was significant, seeing the grading of medium impact as upheld.
"Mr. Berry was swung a full 360 degrees which forced his feet off the ground, and the arm that might have protected him was pinned, his head hit the ground with considerable force," chairman Jeff Gleeson disclosed in his summation.
"In the absence of injury, the key issue is of potential to cause injury. We consider that here the potential was significant."
Gleeson stated Kelly's tackle was more similar to that of the example shown earlier including Hawk James Worpel on Swan Harry Cunningham, rather than the example including Robbie Tarrant and Sam Wicks.
Jury are deliberating
The jury has returned! A decision is set to be announced...
After hearing from both parties, the jury are deliberating and will return shortly with a verdict.
Example footage
AFL counsel Woods has addressed the AFL's guidelines on classifiable offences and concerns of what actions could potentially cause injury.
Woods used a tackle from North Melbourne's Robie Tarrant on Sydney's Sam Wicks, a charge that garnered a 'low impact' grading.
Woods stated the difference from Kelly's tackle was clear, with Tarrant grabbing Wicks in a single movement, with Wicks barely turning.
The agreement suggested force from Kelly was applied in a swinging motion.
"Considerable amount of force exerted by Kelly from that 180 degrees to 360 degrees."
Grace's rebuttal suggested Tarrant was not only a much bigger player than his opponent, but also landed on Wicks in the tackle to add force to the incident.
Kelly's counsel also argued that Tarrant had pinned Wicks' arm, while Kelly had allowed Berry time to brace for contact.
Another submission from Woods is a tackle from Hawthorn's James Worpel on Sydney's Harry Cunningham, which shows similar force to that of Kelly's on Berry.
Worpel was charged with a medium impact grading.
Initial arguments
A medical report from Marc Cesana revealed no "immediate treatment" or "ongoing treatment" was required for Berry.
Kelly's representative David Grace is arguing that the impact of the tackle should be graded as low as opposed to the initial grading of 'medium impact'.
Grace raised the incident to the panel, halting each frame of the footage to question Kelly on what was going through his mind at the time of each action.
Kelly has argued his intention was to hold on to Berry as best he could, stressing both players' weight shifted, with Berry forcing Kelly to the side.
"I don't ever remember seeing any signs of him being affected," Kelly said.
"I'm trying my best to make sure he doesn't get that kick."
Kelly denied any intention to cause Berry any harm, instead intending to deny him disposal of the ball.
AFL representative Andrew Woods raised multiple questions to Kelly in regards to the MRO's grading and his argument.
"Mr. Kelly, you understand the charge against you is one of carelessness, not intention?" Woods asked, to which Kelly agreed.
"Do you accept that you were in fact careless in the action?" Woods asked, to which Kelly agreed as well."
Woods suggested a 180-degree turn was made and that Kelly had a "firm hold" of Berry, with force applied from Kelly from that turn.
