Friday's AFL Appeals Board hearing for Richmond player Rhyan Mansell has concluded, with the Tigers' appeal failing.

Richmond decided to contest the AFL Tribunal's verdict from earlier this week where Mansell was handed a three-game suspension after being referred directly to the Tribunal for a rough conduct charge.

That charge came from last Saturday's game between the Tigers and Fremantle, with Mansell's collision with Docker James Aish leading to a charge from the Match Review Officer with a grading of careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.

At Tuesday's Tribunal hearing, Richmond pled not guilty to the charge of rough conduct. A successful case would've seen Mansell cleared to play in Round 14 against St Kilda.

The Tigers utility's ban was upheld at three matches, with Mansell scheduled to miss matches against the Saints, Lions and Swans.

The AFL Tribunal found that Mansell's actions were of a bumping motion and that he was not contesting the ball, leading to his suspension to stand.

Mansell had been named in Richmond's side to face St Kilda this weekend ahead of today's hearing, with forward Maurice Rioli named as his replacement for Saturday's contest.

Young midfielder Tyler Sonsie has joined Hugo Ralphsmith, Sam Banks and Ivan Soldo on standby for selection following Rioli's promotion and the verdict of Mansell's appeal.

Follow how today's Appeals Board hearing took place as it happened below...

Richmond, Mansell unsuccessful at AFL Appeals Board

Rhyan Mansell's three-game ban for rough conduct has been upheld after the AFL Appeals Board supported the Tribunal's decision.

Mansell won't be available for selection until Round 18. 


"Turning first to ground one, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal applied the incorrect test of whether or not the action of the appellant was a bump or not by asking itself whether the contract was simply reflexive or involuntary.

"In our view, the premise on which ground one is based is forward. We consider that it's clear from a reading of the Tribunal's brief reasons that it did not apply any such test.

"The reasons make it clear that the Tribunal relied upon the video footage in coming to the conclusion that a metre or two from impact the appellant turn and bumped his opponent. This was the primary finding of the Tribunal.

"Submitted by the AFL, the finding of this action was not simply reflexive or involuntary, it was a secondary finding, and the Tribunal's reasons make it clear that this finding was not the sole test in the consideration of whether or not there was conduct amounting to a bump.

"There was no error of law on the part of the Tribunal.

"I turn now to ground three. Ground three is that the tribunal erred in resolving the issue that whether the appellant was contesting the ball by considering whether the actions of the appellant involved the bumping of the other player.

"It's argued on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in that it relied upon its finding that there had been a bump in then determining whether the ball was in contest at the time.

"Whilst the reasons of the Tribunal were brief. In our view, it's clear from those reasons that the tribunal did adopt a two-stage process of considering the issue before it. Having determined that the appellant had bumped his opponent, the Tribunal went on to state: "the question then arises as the whether Mansell was contesting the ball."

"It determined that he was not doing so on the basis that from a metre or two prior to the collision had turned and bumped and that his hands were not reaching out for the ball.

"Clearly, the Tribunal found at the time of impact the ball was not in contest.

"Indeed, the appellant conceded as much in his evidence, when he was asked as to whether he was seeking to pick up the ball or knock it out.

"However, the fact that the same findings or at least similar findings of fact, established to the Tribunal's satisfaction that there was a bump and that a bump occurred when the appellant was no longer contesting the ball does not mean that the Tribunal erred as argued by the appellant.

"In our view, there is no error of law as contended by ground three.

"We turn now to grounds two and four.

"First, we observe that the appellant has a heavy onus to discharge in establishing that the findings of the Tribunal refer to, in each of those grounds, was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the decision.

"We observe also that the tribunal included highly experienced members with a long history of involvement in Australian Rules Football at the elite level.

"The Tribunal, as is clear from their reasons, relied upon the video evidence before it in coming to their conclusions. With respect to grounds two and four, we do not consider in either case that the heavy onus carried by the appellant has been satisfied in this application before the board.

"It was opened on evidence for the Tribunal to find that the applicant engaged in bumping his opponent, and it was open to the Tribunal to conclude on the evidence that the appellant was not contesting the ball at the time of impact to the other player.

"Those findings in our view were well within the range of possible outcomes of the evidence before the Tribunal.

"The above reasons we dismiss the appeal and we confirm the findings of the Tribunal."

- Appeals Board Chair Murray Kellam

10:47: The Appeals Board is now deliberating. Verdict incoming.

Chair Murray Kellam: "I'm sure you'll have time for a coffee and a sandwich if you feel like it."

10:45: Dann: "We say for (Mansell) to be found to be involved in or guilty of rough conduct is highly troubling."

10:44: Hannon: "The question of whether there has been an error (by the Tribunal) should be resoundingly answered by the board as 'no'."

10:36: Hannon: "The meaning of a bump or bumping shouldn't be viewed narrowly, but broadly with the remedial purpose of affording the protection of players in their on-field workplace."

10:32: Hannon: "The Tribunal was well placed to decide" whether this was a bump. "Two very experienced former players (Talia Radan and David Neitz) who delivered and received countless bumps over their careers were part of the Jury."

10:29: We're back. Lisa Hannon (AFL) has begun her arguments.

10:28: Chair Murray Kellam has requested a two-minute break: "There's something I have to attend to."

10:25: Dann: "The Tribunal's decision places a highly unrealistic expectation on players contesting for the ball with a split second before the contest.

"This case, given how quickly it eventuates, it's totally unfair to draw a line where that contest for the ball magically comes to an end."

10:21: In submission, Dann has noted no reasonable Tribunal could have found that Mansell was not contesting for the ball.

"At some point did it stop being a contest for the ball?... He does all that he can, essentially in a foot race, to get to the ball first."

10:18: Dann and Tribunal Chair Murray Kellam are currently back and forth on the Tribunal's findings that concluded Mansell's actions were of a bump.

10:11: Dann: "This definition of bumping is so important, because of this direct pathway to guilt.

"...What is bumping? What is bracing for contact, and what is not?"

10:08: Dann: The Tribunal's verdict and un upheld charge would "promote the risk of injury and concussion and deny the fundamental entitlement to protect himself."

10:00: Dann: "'Unreasonable', what is that on a proper approach to the bumping issue? The question had to be answered and be considered; whether Rhayn Mansell doing no more than protecting himself and no more than bracing for contact."

Dann said the incident came in "extremely difficult circumstances, at high speed, at high momentum, with a lack of time, a lack of space, with no ability to avoid contact and no reasonable alternative."

9:55: Dann: "The Tribunal failed to consider the question of whether the player who does no more than take reasonable action to protect themselves and brace for an unavoidable collision can have been involved in the bumping of another player.

"That's the very question we're being asked to decide and consider."

9:53: Dann has questioned the Tribunal's assessment of Mansell's "split second" actions.

"The Tribunal misdirected themselves in focusing on the question of whether the contact between the two players came about some sort of 'reflexive' or 'involuntary' contact."

9:50: Dann: Mansell made a reasonable and understanding response to the pending collision. The conduct of the player was completely reasonable in all of the circumstances he faced.

9:47: Dann: "What is meant by bumping? There is no definition under the rules of the Tribunal."

9:44: Richmond Counsel Dermot Dann has commenced the hearing, highlighting the key arguments on behalf of Richmond from Tuesday's hearing. Those points include:

- The conditions of the match
- The unpredictable bounce of the ball
- Mansell contesting for the ball in a straight line
- Mansell thinking he would be first to the ball
- The small timeframe for Mansell to adjust his actions

9:38am: After some delay, we are underway.

Appeals Board: Murray Kellam (Chair), Richard Loveridge, Wayne Henwood

Richmond Counsel: Dermot Dann

AFL Counsel: Lisa Hannon