Adelaide has failed in their appeal of Darcy Fogarty’s three-match ban at the Tribunal on Monday.
The Crows star was handed the suspension for a wild swinging arm tackle that made contact with the head of Sydney’s Harry Cunningham.
With the ban upheld, Fogarty will now miss Adelaide’s next three games against Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond.
Cunningham was left unconscious on the floor and later revealed to have suffered a concussion as a result of the out-of-control tackle.
The incident was graded as careless conduct with severe impact and high contact.
Andrew Woods KC, counsel for the AFL described the swinging arm as a ’roundhouse style’ move.
Darcy Fogarty has had his three-match ban upheld after what was described as a ’roundhouse style’ strike to Sydney’s Harry Cunningham
The wild tackle knocked Cunnigham unconscious and left him with a concussion
Fogarty was handed an initial three-match ban for careless conduct with severe impact and high contact
The Crows on the other hand argued that it was not a strike, or careless and the impact should have been high not severe.
Speaking at the Tribunal Woods said, ‘As he comes down you see Mr Fogarty coming from that side and you see a forceful swinging arm that is really in that roundhouse style and it makes contact with Mr Cunningham.
‘As to whether it was careless it is the AFL’s position that it was careless because in a context like this with a player going for the ball, going up and coming down with the ball, drawing the arm back a considerable way is a careless thing to do.
‘A reasonable player would have known that.’
Nicholas Baum, counsel for the Crows argued that it was not a strike claiming it was instead a ‘wrapping motion.’
Not every tackle where there is contact above the shoulders constitutes a strike,’ he said.
‘What the footage shows is a wrapping motion with an open palm, which is consistent with what you would do when trying to tackle someone.’
Baum also claimed that Fogarty was ‘conscious of trying not to get him high’ and Fogarty actually leant into the contact.
Cunningham had to be helped off the field by medical staff following the tackle
Fogarty echoed that sentiment, by claiming his opponent ‘dove into him’ as he attempted to make the tackle.
‘Initially I thought he was going to stand up a little bit taller and raise his arms to release the footy,’ he said.
‘I was just trying to wrap him up and execute the tackle.
‘I think I adjusted as much as I could to get low while he went low.
‘I just tried to get my arms as low as I could.’
But the Tribunal rejected both Adelaide’s and Fogarty’s argument as chair Jeff Gleeson told the club they were satisfied with the classification of striking.
‘He saw Harry Cunningham jump and reach for a loose ball. He had time to assess the situation and knew that by the time he made contact with Cunningham, the player would have descended from his jump to a level or height that Fogarty could, of course, not precisely determined,’ he said.
‘Fogarty had time to consider how he would tackle Cunningham in those circumstances. He chose to do so by swinging his right arm forcibly in the direction of Cunningham’s upper body and head.
‘While Cunningham may have been in a slightly lower position at the moment of impact than Fogarty hoped, he did not move in an unnatural or unexpected manner.
‘Fogarty’s technique of forcefully swinging his arm in the likely direction of his opponent’s head and neck was, in those circumstances, careless.
‘Fogarty’s evidence was he intended to do no more than wrap Cunningham up in a tackle. He could have done so without the unreasonable forceful swing of the right arm.
‘The impact was severe. The force of the blow was considerable and Cunningham was concussed and took no further part in the match.
‘The three-match suspension is appropriate.’
