Tex rubbed out for a push

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Mitch Owens push identical to Tex.

A Sydney did the same thing as well in the 3rd .

We should take both of these clips to the hearing .

I doubt either get cited by the MRO

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Another one who does it so he can take the mark. I’m not saying it matters, but they are contesting the mark when executing the dangerous act. Would be nice if the AGL could provide a clear and concise explanation if those 2 aren’t at least looked at.

I don’t why that should make a difference?

It’s clear that Tex is trying to push O’Sullivan out of Dawson’s way.

That would make it a block even if it was in the back, but I don’t know why should make it more worthy of a suspension

 

[1970crow]

I'd definitely like to see us bring up those other two incidents in Tex's defence. If nothing else, it would be nice to force the AFL to set a clear standard, rather than their usual practice of ruling on vibes and/or how pissed off the commentators seem.

I think it’s more the look, which doesn’t help because they have to manufacture something else. In Shane McAdam’s case they introduced ‘potential to cause damage’ purely because all that sweat was seen flying off his opponent’s head. What Tex did was definitely reportable, but so were the other 2, unless there’s an exemption if you’re actually in the marking contest. Which is unlikely. The reason will purely be that there was no footage of players on the deck for any time after the other 2. And even though no actual injury, it’ll be the ‘look’ that ultimately makes his reportable whilst the others play on.

 

[1970crow]

I don’t why that should make a difference?

It’s clear that Tex is trying to push O’Sullivan out of Dawson’s way.

That would make it a block even if it was in the back, but I don’t know why should make it more worthy of a suspension

It’s a textbook case of pushing someone into a marking contest, not sure how you can claim he tried to push him out of the way. His intent is irrelevant, it’s only his action and the outcome that matters, so somehow believing he was trying to push him ‘away’ has zero bearing. At least you admit he pushed him, which is a fair bit more rational than a couple of other views.

Anyway, I agree marking contest or not probably shouldn’t matter, which is why I’m keen for a clear explanation if the other 2 aren’t cited. Anyway, I do think it might be seen differently if you’re actually part of the contest and your overall goal is to mark the ball. Surely we’ll see reporting around the different treatment if they’re not cited, forcing the AFL to explain the different why.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

It’s a textbook case of pushing someone into a marking contest, not sure how you can claim he tried to push him out of the way. His intent is irrelevant, it’s only his action and the outcome that matters, so somehow believing he was trying to push him ‘away’ has zero bearing. At least you admit he pushed him, which is a fair bit more rational than a couple of other views.

Anyway, I agree marking contest or not probably shouldn’t matter, which is why I’m keen for a clear explanation if the other 2 aren’t cited. Anyway, I do think it might be seen differently if you’re actually part of the contest and your overall goal is to mark the ball. Surely we’ll see reporting around the different treatment if they’re not cited, forcing the AFL to explain the different why.

Well what does the actual rule say?

That’s what should be the determining factor? Does the rule have different paragraphs for whether the player is competing for the ball or not?

Either way there have been other examples of pushes being dangerous this weekend. Some where the player was contesting the mark, others not.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2026/02/13/31631886-f326-4fed-a5e3-b6bc4182b913/2026-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

See extract at the bottom of this post.

So the only possible rationale I can see the tribunal arguing versus other examples we’ve seen is that it wasn’t “reasonable”for Tex to push in the back given he wasn’t in the marking contest.

Otherwise there are no other carve outs I can see as to why Tex’ situation is differentiated from all other examples people have stated in the past few days. If the tribunal does try this argument then our counsel can have a field day seeking clarity from the tribunal on why it is reasonable to push players in the back in any circumstance.

Section 4.3(E)(6) reads:
“6. Rough Conduct (Pushing Opponent into Contest)
A Player may be found guilty of Rough Conduct where they forcefully push an opponent into another player, or players, from either team in circumstances that are unreasonable.”

 

[baldandbroke]

His hands were on his back and they moved forward, he clearly pushed him and I can’t see how it could be in any direction other than toward the marking contest. So no, I can’t see the difference in this scenario.

Re the rules, the AFL made very specific rule regarding pushing players into marking contests. Like they had previously with tunnelling. Every push or impact isn’t being made illegal, but some actions in specific circumstances have or otherwise legal actions that cause certain damage. This rule has been a thing since at least last year, the game is still going.

If you think Tex pushed him into the contest that’s fine. I don’t - I think he has contact with him, so he has influenced his opponent in some way … but if you see a push in there, a force applied that redirects his opponent into the contest - that’s something I don’t see. Having his hand in contact with his back does not equal “a push into the marking contest“.

Put that aside … Have you seen anyone “since last year” be suspended for the potential to cause damage because of an incident like this?

Do you agree that if every action that has potential to cause injury ended up with weeks off… every team would run out of players pretty quickly?

Every tackle, every contested mark, every ruck contest, every bump … they all have the potential to cause injury.

Was it pushing a player into others in a marking contest?

Yeah - the one I originally mentioned:

“Check out Darcy Fort pushing Humphries in the dying stages of the game last night…. Much worse.

Bailey in hospital.

Not one mention of the push.”

 

[CrowToon]

I could see this being another one of those ones where the AFL don't actually care whether he gets suspended or not. If its upheld great, if its not I don't think they will care and can just say 'we tried but the tribunal let us down and so now we will need to change the rules' etc.

Can you not challenge a fine? Why aren't we challenging Peatling? How do you engage in a melee with yourself? Smith literally gave away a free (albeit a dodgy one) so you can hardly claim he wasn't involved.

I would pay the money to challenge just to force the AFL to be explicit on how one can have a melee with someone else but not actually?

 

[Ham]

Mitch Owens push identical to Tex.

You should share that around twitter with the journos if he's not reported, they are very damn similar

 

[1990crow]

I could see this being another one of those ones where the AFL don't actually care whether he gets suspended or not. If its upheld great, if its not I don't think they will care and can just say 'we tried but the tribunal let us down and so now we will need to change the rules' etc.

Can you not challenge a fine? Why aren't we challenging Peatling? How do you engage in a melee with yourself? Smith literally gave away a free (albeit a dodgy one) so you can hardly claim he wasn't involved.

I would pay the money to challenge just to force the AFL to be explicit on how one can have a melee with someone else but not actually?

The AFL tribunal clearly has a bias against the crows.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

When is the tribunal held?

 

[BRL121]

If you think Tex pushed him into the contest that’s fine. I don’t - I think he has contact with him, so he has influenced his opponent in some way … but if you see a push in there, a force applied that redirects his opponent into the contest - that’s something I don’t see. Having his hand in contact with his back does not equal “a push into the marking contest“.

Put that aside … Have you seen anyone “since last year” be suspended for the potential to cause damage because of an incident like this?

Do you agree that if every action that has potential to cause injury ended up with weeks off… every team would run out of players pretty quickly?

Every tackle, every contested mark, every ruck contest, every bump … they all have the potential to cause injury.


Yeah - the one I originally mentioned:

“Check out Darcy Fort pushing Humphries in the dying stages of the game last night…. Much worse.

Bailey in hospital.

Not one mention of the push.”

It was Gardner, not Fort, but yes.

 

[BRL121]

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2026/02/13/31631886-f326-4fed-a5e3-b6bc4182b913/2026-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

See extract at the bottom of this post.

So the only possible rationale I can see the tribunal arguing versus other examples we’ve seen is that it wasn’t “reasonable”for Tex to push in the back given he wasn’t in the marking contest.

Otherwise there are no other carve outs I can see as to why Tex’ situation is differentiated from all other examples people have stated in the past few days. If the tribunal does try this argument then our counsel can have a field day seeking clarity from the tribunal on why it is reasonable to push players in the back in any circumstance.

Section 4.3(E)(6) reads:
“6. Rough Conduct (Pushing Opponent into Contest)
A Player may be found guilty of Rough Conduct where they forcefully push an opponent into another player, or players, from either team in circumstances that are unreasonable.”

Unreasonable is a typical weasel-word get-out for the AFL: how can you argue against that?

However, it seems to me that our avenue should be the "forcefully". Tex's push was clearly not forceful, and neither was Gardner's.

 

[CrowMania1990]

I'm more bemused by the fact that Peatling was fined for "wrestling" or "fighting", while the player who appeared to do most of that and even gave a free away in that event isn't being penalised at all.

Anyone reviewing the footage can see there were two players involved in the same conduct, yet only one has been fined. The AFL should explain how it reached that conclusion, because it's difficult to see the consistency in the decision.

 

[1990crow]

I'm more bemused by the fact that Peatling was fined for "wrestling" or "fighting", while the player who appeared to do most of the that and even gave a free away in that event isn't being penalised at all.

Anyone reviewing the footage can see there were two players involved in the same conduct, yet only one has been fined. The AFL should explain how it reached that conclusion, because it's difficult to see the consistency in the decision.

That decision alone shows there's a problem.

 

[CrowMania1990]

Yeah, in the scheme of things it's not a huge issue, but I think it perfectly highlights the AFL's "rules for some, rules for others" approach. How two players can be involved in the same fight, yet only one receives a fine, is quite bizarre.

What the AFL has done there would suggest that Peatling was the only one engaging in the fight while Smith was simply running from it, which clearly wasn't the case.

If there was a genuinely accountable media, this would be called out pretty quickly because it's quite clearly a strange decision. When two players are involved in the same incident, it's fair to question how only one ends up being sanctioned.

 

[cmndstab]

Presumably, the AFL thinks that Peatling's actions during the melee were untoward, while Smith's weren't. I can't really say given that we only got to see part of it.

Unfortunately, there is no way to challenge Smith not being cited.

 

[CrowMania1990]

Presumably, the AFL thinks that Peatling's actions during the melee were untoward, while Smith's weren't. I can't really say given that we only got to see part of it.

Unfortunately, there is no way to challenge Smith not being cited.

Presumably that's the AFL's view, but that's also the problem. From what was shown, both players were involved in the incident, yet only one ends up with a fine. If the AFL believes Peatling's actions crossed the line while Bailey Smith's didn't, then it should be able to clearly explain what the distinction was.

The AFL may have a perfectly reasonable explanation, but if it doesn't provide one, it leaves its credibility open to scrutiny. This is the sort of issue that an independent media should be questioning, because if nobody asks the question, those inconsistencies are simply accepted and forgotten. But who am I kidding?

 

[adelaidecrows]

I'm more bemused by the fact that Peatling was fined for "wrestling" or "fighting", while the player who appeared to do most of the that and even gave a free away in that event isn't being penalised at all.

Anyone reviewing the footage can see there were two players involved in the same conduct, yet only one has been fined. The AFL should explain how it reached that conclusion, because it's difficult to see the consistency in the decision.

My guess is the argument Peatling was the instigator and Bailey was reacting to the hard tag.

You are right, its a pathetic conclusion from the AFL and id take it straight to the tribunal and argue exactly that and how daft it is Peatling is the only one fined and the MRO has to justify itself. Watch them cower and dismiss it. They wont double down because this tribunal is scared of the media.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Presumably that's the AFL's view, but that's also the problem. From what was shown, both players were involved in the incident, yet only one ends up with a fine. If the AFL believes Peatling's actions crossed the line while Bailey Smith's didn't, then it should be able to clearly explain what the distinction was.

The AFL may have a perfectly reasonable explanation, but if it doesn't provide one, it leaves its credibility open to scrutiny. This is the sort of issue that an independent media should be questioning, because if nobody asks the question, those inconsistencies are simply accepted and forgotten. But who am I kidding?

We both know it falls under the two exemption categories..star of the game and plays for Geelong.

 

[CrowMania1990]

My guess is the argument Peatling was the instigator and Bailey was reacting to the hard tag.

You are right, its a pathetic conclusion from the AFL and id take it straight to the tribunal and argue exactly that and how daft it is Peatling is the only one fined and the MRO has to justify itself. Watch them cower and dismiss it. They wont double down because this tribunal is scared of the media.

I'd absolutely challenge it at the Tribunal just to force the MRO to justify the decision. The fine itself is almost beside the point, it's the logic behind it that doesn't seem to stack up.

Of course, the day Adelaide has a midfielder of Bailey Smith's quality, maybe we'll find out whether our players get the same benefit of the doubt. Somehow I suspect that's a test the AFL would prefer not to run.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I'd absolutely challenge it at the Tribunal just to force the MRO to justify the decision. The fine itself is almost beside the point, it's the logic behind it that doesn't seem to stack up.

Of course, the day Adelaide has a midfielder of Bailey Smith's quality, maybe we'll find out whether our players get the same benefit of the doubt. Somehow I suspect that's a test the AFL would prefer not to run.

Butters gets the same run. At this stage the only way Butters could get suspended is he dropps a dookie in the centre square, rips off an umpires shirt and proceeds to wipe his ass with it. Maybe then...he might get a week.

 

[CrowMania1990]

We both know it falls under the two exemption categories..star of the game and plays for Geelong.

There are clearly rules for some and rules for others. The media spends years building narratives around certain players, and those narratives inevitably influence how umpires and officials view incidents on match day.

 

[adelaidecrows]

There are clearly rules for some and rules for others. The media spends years building narratives around certain players, and those narratives inevitably influence how umpires and officials view incidents on match day.

Bailey has a shit for brains narrative, he isnt liked or admired at all. Most are just amazed he can play that well despite how stupid he is. The game however protects him for some unknown reason.

 

[CrowMania1990]

Butters gets the same run. At this stage the only way Butters could get suspended is he dropps a dookie in the centre square, rips off an umpires shirt and proceeds to wipe his ass with it. Maybe then...he might get a week.

You wait until Butters is playing interstate. It'll be just like when Patrick Dangerfield left Adelaide. His free kicks for increased by more than 30% during his first four years at Geelong compared to his last four years at Adelaide. Butters will be a similar situation I feel.