- Updated
- Sport
- AFL
- Match review
Why the AFL cleared Crow, Bombers over head knocks
By Danny Russell
The AFL has gone to extraordinary length in explaining why it cleared three players from Friday night’s Essendon-Adelaide clash for incidents involving head knocks after a week of chaos regarding dangerous tackles.
Match review officer Michael Christian exonerated Essendon pair Matt Guelfi and Nate Caddy as well as Adelaide’s Ben Keays after their actions came under scrutiny following the Crows’ thrilling two-point win over the Bombers at Marvel Stadium.
The contentious Ben Keays tackle on Friday night.Credit: Fox Footy
It follows a week of confusion in which GWS tagger Toby Bedford and Brisbane Lions star Charlie Cameron were handed three-match bans for dangerous tackles but were later cleared by the appeals board due to an error of law.
On Friday night, Adelaide captain Jordan Dawson was concussed after being collected high by Caddy.
But in a statement explaining why Caddy had no case to answer for, the league said: “The ball is loose in play and Dawson is pushed forward and downwards into the path of Caddy as he attempts to kick the ball off the ground.
“High contact is made by Caddy on Dawson. It was the view of the MRO that it was reasonable for Caddy to contest the ball in the way that he did and in the circumstances which included Dawson being pushed forward and downwards into his path.”
Keays was also cleared for a tackle on Jye Caldwell in which the Bomber’s head hit the ground, with the Crow’s actions described as reasonable by the match review officer. Caldwell was assessed and subbed out of the game, but was cleared of concussion.
“Caldwell gathers a loose ball following a boundary throw in and is tackled by Keays with his right arm,” the league said.
“Caldwell is able to get his left arm down to protect his fall and reduce the force of any impact. It is the view of the MRO that Keays exercised his duty of care in executing the tackle.
“Accordingly, in the view of the MRO, Keay’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances.”
In a third case, Guelfi escaped suspension for his tackle on Sam Berry in the third quarter.
“Berry takes possession of the ball before Guelfi lays a tackle, rolling Berry to ground. It was the view of the MRO that Guelfi did not sling, drive or rotate Berry to ground with excessive force,” the league said.
“The MRO did not consider that Guelfi’s actions were unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.”
In his post-match press conference Crows coach Matthew Nicks said it was a tough week when referring to the confusion around dangerous tackles.
“We educate one way and then we have to come back and do a complete flip on that and talk now about how we’re going to go about it,” Nicks said.
“Our focus coming into this was we wanted a contest, we wanted to challenge the Bombers ... our intent was to tackle.”
When asked if Caddy could be in trouble for the incident, Essendon coach Brad Scott exhaustingly replied: “Who knows? Who could tell you at the moment?”
Christian said attitudes towards what constituted a dangerous tackle needed to change in the same manner as community standards have to the bump and the sling tackle.
“There was public outcry about how can a perfect tackle be suspended,” Christian said on SEN in an interview on Friday. “It’s almost deja vu. We have come so far in the last 10 years.
“Before I talk more about that – the evolution of the bump. [It’s] taken 15 years for media and general football public to identify you cannot elect to bump, get shoulder to head, and not be sanctioned.
“Anyone who watches football today, if there’s a bump tonight, shoulder to head, universally people will say you’re in trouble. It wasn’t always like that.”
Christian rejected suggestions the fabric of the game was at risk with the emphasis on player safety at the expense of some of the gladiatorial aspects of the sport.
“Player safety is so critical for the longevity of the game, and longevity of players and health and safety of players when they finishing playing in their later life.
“We need to be strong with these type of incidents to ensure players and media and the football public understand they aren’t acceptable in the game.”
After Bedford and Cameron were cleared, the AFL maintained that both incidents were examples of dangerous tackles.