Craig O’Donoghue: The lack of Willie Rioli appeal from AFL comes down to the evidence that was presented

Having sat through the AFL Tribunal hearing that cleared West Coast star Willie Rioli of engaging in rough conduct, I’m not shocked by the AFL’s decision not to appeal against the verdict. While many were horrified by the decision and considered West Coast no chance of having the one-week suspension overturned, the moment evidence started being presented, both the Eagles and AFL had a duty to convince the tribunal that their arguments stacked up. Quite simply, West Coast presented a stronger case and that’s why the league hasn’t been able to find grounds to appeal. AFL legal counsel Nick Pane spent about one minute speaking during his initial presentation. He explained the charges and said the league would rely on the medical report and vision. The medical report said Matt Rowell wasn’t hurt and he didn’t speak while the vision was being played. The AFL had completed its evidence less than five minutes into the hearing. West Coast’s lawyer David Grace then spent more than 20 minutes mounting his defence. He supplied photos showing Rioli didn’t make contact with Rowell’s head. There are also photos that show head contact was made, but the tribunal never saw those. The tribunal saw vision of Rowell continuing to play with Grace pointing out all the key moments they were seeing. They heard that contact was unavoidable and that Rioli turned his body to protect his opponent. Grace even referenced the law that says flexing, turning or positioning the body to increase or reduce contact, should be taken into account. When giving evidence, Rioli was adamant he never saw Rowell until just before contact because his eyes were on the ball. He repeated that. Then the Eagles made a horrible admission. Rioli said: “My duty was to commit to the contest and help my team at any cost.” The AFL had the opportunity to cross examine Rioli. He was asked five questions about when he first saw Rowell. He was never challenged on the comment about helping his team at any cost. Pane mentioned it briefly during his final submission, but it was an opportunity lost during Rioli’s testimony. While summing up, Pane used the term “football act” when describing the contest. But he then read the rules to the tribunal and stressed that “the time has come for a player to adjust his behaviour when entering a contest to reduce injury to opponent”. It’s fair to say most of the football world agreed with this sentiment but he needed to give the tribunal a stronger reason to also agree. That didn’t happen. The league relied on vision and a medical report. West Coast planted seeds of doubt and that’s why Rioli will play this week. It’s also why AFL HQ don’t have strong enough reasons to be confident that an appeal over what occurred during the hearing would succeed. “While the AFL does not agree with the outcome of the hearing, it accepts the decision and confirms it will not appeal,” the league said in a statement.