Tribunal Reasons:
We do not accept Mansell's evidence that he did not see that two players were running in to attempt to mark the ball. Vision is not consistent with this evidence.
If, as Mansell said, he did not know that other players were running forward to contest the mark, it's highly unlikely that he would have pushed O'Connell away from himself and into the path of what would be on his evidence an uncontested mark.
Mansell's movements are only consistent with him knowing or assuming that other players were running in to contest the mark.
Even if Mansell did not see or see sufficiently clearly that other players were running to contest the mark, he would, or should have, assumed that the ball hung in the air for long enough for the reasonable player to expect that players who had set up at about the 30 meter mark would run in and try to contest the ball.
Mansell said that the team instruction was that the tall forwards would remain deep, but we do not understand this to mean if there is a high ball that they could reach, they would not try to mark it.
If Mansell did not know what was coming, it was careless of him to forcefully push a player with the path of the ball when he does not know, but should reasonably expect there would likely be players running in the opposite direction attempting to mark.
We also reject the submission that O'Connell was going to attempt to mark the ball in any event, and that the push did not cause or contribute to the impact.
It is clear that the push is forceful and affecting the speed at which and the angle at which O'Connell suffered impact.
The force of the push is a significant factor here. It went well beyond what a reasonable player would consider prudent in the circumstances, particularly the circumstances that the push was in the direction of the path of the ball.
Mansell breached his duty of care by pushing O'Connell with such force, with the path of the ball directly in the direction of oncoming players.
Mansell’s eyes were not on the ball. He was not attempting to mark the ball, and he did not push O'Connell to immediately gather the ball.
His evidence that he hoped O'Connell might drop the mark is not a satisfactory explanation or justification for his conduct.
We do not find that the Ginbey example is sufficiently comparable to change our view that this incident constituted rough conduct.
Lalor was not running with the flight of the ball, and Ginbey had not turned away from the flight of the ball.
We need not express an opinion as to whether Ginbey’s conduct also amounted to rough conduct. It is sufficient in the present circumstances to say Mansell's conduct did.
It is worth noting that Mansell acknowledged that he was aware of the contents of a memo from the AFL in which it was stated that pushing an opponent in a mark in a marking contest may result in rough conduct.
As noted, Mansell gave evidence that he hoped O'Connell would drop the mark - that is, he pushed him in a marking contest.
Issues of impact and contact are not in dispute, and we find this was rough conduct, careless, high contact and severe impact.
https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1906985670373200160
