- Apr 23, 2016
- AFL Club
You need to read the guidelines by the sounds of it.So you're saying it was an accidental bump?
Careless v Intentional comes down to whether there was the intention to commit the reportable offence, not simply whether the act of bumping was intentional or not.
That is, did Williams intend to hit Clark in the head? A punch to the head is clearly intended to strike a target, for example, and is not considered a football act. A late bump, however, is not inherently intended to take the target player high, and is considered a football act.
The below is quoted from http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf
Specifically, look at the last example under careless conduct.
The question doesn't need to be whether the bump itself was accidental, it is "Did Zac Williams bump the player with the intention of hitting Clark in the head?"
All evidence, including the tribunal verdict, points to no, he was careless in his execution, but did not intend to hit Clark high.
A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the Player engaged in the conduct.
Whether or not a Player intentionally commits a Reportable Offence depends upon the state of mind of the Player when he does the act with which he is charged. What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequence.
For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him.
The state of a Player’s mind is an objective fact and has to be proved in the same way as other objective facts. The whole of the relevant evidence has to be considered. If the matter is heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal Jury will weigh the evidence of the Player as to what his intentions were along with whatever inference as to his intentions can be drawn from his conduct or other relevant facts. The Player may or may not be believed by the Tribunal Jury. Notwithstanding what the Player says, the Tribunal Jury may be able to conclude from the whole of the evidence that he intentionally committed the act constituting the Reportable Offence.
A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person (as applicable). In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach of their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.
An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness.