Thread by @AFL_LOTG

AFL Tribunal - Jackson Archer

The AFL 2025 Tribunal guidelines lists the reportable offences as follows:
(A) STRIKING, KICKING
(B) CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN STRIKES
(C) MISCONDUCT
(D) FORCEFUL FRONT-ON CONTACT
(E) ROUGH CONDUCT
(F) CONTACT WITH AN UMPIRE
(H) STAGING

(1/10)

(I) TRIPPING

Archer was charged with Rough conduct.

From the guidlines:
"Rough Conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances...

(2/10)

...It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally or carelessly engage in Rough Conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.

Without limiting the wide interpretation of Rough Conduct, particular regard shall be had to the following officially...

(3/10)

...recognised forms of Rough Conduct."

These are:
1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
2. Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body)
3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
4. Rough Conduct (Contact Below the Knees)
5. Rough Conduct (Smothers)

(4/10)

Given Archer's action is not one of the above, there are no additional guidelines provided to the tribunal as to what they should consider in relation to the incident.

(5/10)

The only consideration required of the tribunal, is whether Archer's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.

Ultimately, North Melbourne must argue that Archer's actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

(6/10)

Archer is entitled to move towards the football, when it it not in the position of another player. He is entitled to continue to move towards the ball-carrier (even at speed) once the ball-carrier collects the ball. It is unreasonable for Archer to expect Cleary to go...

(7/10)

...to ground (whether intentionally or accidently) once Cleary collects the ball, as this would constitute a free kick against Cleary under 18.7.2(b). It also, under certain circumstances, is a reportable offence. It is unreasonable for Archer to presume that Cleary...

(8/10)

...would do something that would be penalised, and something that could be a classifiable offence.

Once Cleary goes to ground, Archer does in fact attempt to slow down.

(9/10)

Given the above, my conclusion is that Archer's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances, and if appropriately argued by North Melbourne, he should be found not guilty of Rough Conduct at the tribunal.

(10/10)

@threadreaderapp unroll