Rhyan Mansell cops 3 weeks from the Tribunal [updated]

[WilliamPowell]

There's immense frustration at Punt Road tonight after Tiger forward Rhyan Mansell was offered a three match ban for a push. #9News @tommorris32

VIDEO: https://x.com/9NewsMelb/status/1906282152720834955

---------------

"I think if that Ginbey one happened now, he would still get off." - Tom Morris
"No way." - Hird and Bartel.

The panel couldn't see eye-to-eye as they discussed Rhyan Mansell's 'landmark case' following his three-game ban.

#9FootyFurnace | Watch on Nine & 9Now 🖥️

VIDEO: https://x.com/FootyonNine/status/1901236301170409927

Before I begin want to go on record and state: I cannot stand Tom Morris, misogynist pig, and I can't stand James Hird and that goes back further than his non preparedness to take any responsibility for what happened to the players he coached on his watch

But here's my take. I watched the majority of the discussion on this

Morris implied that the Gibney incident was actually assessed and he had no case to answer because he had his eyes on the ball. If it was assessed and that what Morris said is correct why didn't the AFL come out and say that?

Morris then went onto say Mansell was cited because he didn't have his eyes on the ball. Watching the vision have to agree. He then used this eyes on the ball nonsense as a reason as the reason why Ginbey would still not got cited

I'd argue that whether he had his eyes on the ball is irrelevant as has been proven when blokes have been rubbed out with all forms of bumps. If the rule is it is deemed rough conduct when you push someone into a contest putting them in harms way then whether you're watching the ball or the player is not relevant you have still have a duty of care. It is the AFL who have made the outlier "duty of care" in nearly every case they supposedly assess not the players, coaches or media but the AFL

They cannot just pick and choose when you apply it.

The Mansell decision is the correct one although I don't agree with the penalty. The issue I have is what about the others? Why wasn't Weitering cited? What he did impacted directly on what Lynch did but only Lynch got punished. Ginbey had a duty of care he refused to act on it and pushed a bloke and that player's ended up with concussion and a broken jaw. It doesn't matter if it was in the pre-season. His actions caused a serious injury he failed in his duty of care.

Hird and Bartel are 100% correct if what Ginbey did happened in a H&A game he'd get cited as he should. And it would only be because the AFL are so reactionary to wanting protect their brand

People use what Hawkins did to Soldo and ask what about that? That and it was a dog act was something that happened 5 seasons ago and how they adjudicated things now to back them is totally different. Biggest case in point Dangerfield's hit on Vlastuin...

The AFL have yet again failed in their duty of care of the competition. They failed it miserably in the Ginbey case and are now trying to show they are on top of these types of incidents. The only thing they seem to be able to get right is hypocrisy

[WilliamPowell]

Club is appealing the suspension

https://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/1743367/mansell-charged-by-mro-round-3-richmond-st-kilda

[Andyy]

What the heck was the Miller incident?

Don't think it will be successfully thrown out but I'd like to see it reduced to 2 games max. There's worse ones.

[Wazza]

We really are more lucky that they didn't suspend lynch as well for causing the concussion??!!

[wayne]

That St Kilda peanut was running back with the flight to take a mark, push or not.

He didn't stumble, he ran back, arms out to try and mark the ball.

Also WP, Jay Clark said the exact same thing as Tom Morris, that Ginbey had eyes on the ball and would have been ok. Montagna nearly choked when he heard that. AFL directive for the journos to spin the same story? 

[one-eyed]

Can Mansell overturn three-match ban at Tribunal?

By Andrew Slevison
SEN
31 March 2025

Kane Cornes and David King have debated at length the three-match suspension handed down to Richmond’s Rhyan Mansell which the club is set to appeal.

The Tigers small forward copped the sanction for pushing St Kilda defender Liam O’Connell who was concussed after colliding with Mansell’s teammate Tom Lynch.

The suspension comes after similar incidents in previous weeks went unsanctioned, highlighted by the broken jaw Sam Lalor suffered when West Coast’s Reuben Ginbey shoved him in the pre-season.

Mansell will face the Tribunal on Tuesday night to fight the suspension.

King has been all for protecting the head by any means necessary and has been calling for penalties for players who cause chaos by pushing their opponents into oncoming traffic.

But Cornes believes sometimes there are accidents through football acts.

They debated the outcome of the incident on SEN’s Fireball.

Cornes: “You’ve wanted this outcome, you’ve got it.

“Are you proud of yourself?”

King: “It’s a great outcome for the safety of the game.

“We have to look after the players. You’ve got to take a stand on things that are just not required in our game.

“We’ve had about six in three weeks, you’ve got to do something about it.

“I don’t necessarily want guys suspended, but we have to change behaviour.

“You have to take action to make behavioural change.”

Cornes: “You’re not suspending the action, you’re suspending what happens after the action.

“He doesn’t know (what he’s doing), you’re giving him way too much credit. He’s focused on the ball.

“He’s thinking I want to make position so that I’m in a good spot when the ball lands, like all good small forwards do.

“You can’t shepherd, you can’t bump, you can’t tackle, now you can’t push.”

King: “It’s an epidemic.”

Cornes: “It wasn’t even a free kick, this is how bizarre it is.

“It’s crazy. This is not a fine, it’s a three-match suspension that two weeks ago was nothing.”

King: “It’s player safety, it’s a duty of care

“You can jostle, you just can’t get rid of your man into an oncoming bus.

“They know. He pushed him into traffic, they’ve been doing it for years the small forwards.

“The game is now at a standard in terms of protecting the head where you can’t do it. Times have changed.”

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2025/03/30/cornes-and-king-vigorously-debate-rhyan-mansell-suspension

[Simonator]

Times have changed…. From 3 weeks ago. Give me a break

[Andyy]

Cornes defending a tiger.

Someone build me a wall to hold onto.

Admittedly his best chance is to say the other dude was already running that way and the push was pissant but I still think he'll end up with 1-2 weeks regardless.

[one-eyed]

"It takes too long for the AFL then to make a decision."

Lloydy on how the league should have taken a stronger stance on pushing players into marking contests after Reuben Ginbey's pre-season effort.

#9FootyClassified – Watch on Nine & 9Now 🖥️

VIDEO: https://x.com/FootyonNine/status/1906665252571267573

[one-eyed]

"It shouldn't go unpunished."

Was the three-game suspension to Rhyan Mansell fair?

#AFL360

VIDEO: https://x.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1906618363893182467

---------------------------------------------------

Why debate on Tiger’s act is ‘madness’

Ben Cotton
Fox Sports
March 31st, 2025 11:12 pm

Former Demons skipper Garry Lyon expects Rhyan Mansell’s three-match ban to be upheld, describing some of the debate around the Tiger’s case as “madness.”

Mansell will challenge his three-match ban at the tribunal for pushing St Kilda’s Liam O’Connell into oncoming traffic in an act that left the Saints defender concussed.

It comes after the AFL sent a memo to clubs on the eve of the season cautioning them against pushing players into contests in the newest act the game is trying to stamp out.

Lyon thinks Mansell needs to be suspended despite “staggering” calls otherwise.

“Gut feel is it shouldn’t happen and it shouldn’t go unpunished. It’s about a one to two weeker for mine and it won’t go that away because of the matrix,” he said on AFL 360.

“But sometimes we tie ourselves in knots around this. He hasn’t got eyes on the ball at all, he’s not playing the ball.

“He knows where the traffic is because he has his back to the ball facing the traffic – and he showed him into the traffic.

“I’ve heard some staggering defences of this … every time I look at this I think: ‘What do you think is going to happen?’

“You are putting yourself at the mercy of a system, that sometimes confuses everyone ... but do we want that in our game? Do we want blokes turning their back on the footy and giving a hard shove into oncoming traffic? No, and I’ll argue that forever in a day.

“That’s not footy. Turning your back on the footy and shoving a bloke into two monsters coming my way. Someone even suggested Tom Lynch should’ve been more careful – this is the madness that consumes us around here.

“Tom Lynch is trying to mark the footy! Let’s put that one to bed as well. This is why we lose our mind.”

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl360/afl-2025-garry-lyon-on-rhyan-mansell-for-pushing-liam-oconnell-michael-voss-on-harry-mckay-ken-hinkley-on-port-adelaide-succession-plan/news-story/69e37faaf48df31dc42dc311125ae5b9

[one-eyed]

League boss says Mansell case differs from pre-season incidents

As Richmond heads to the tribunal Andrew Dillon says there are 'key differentiators' with similar cases

By AAP
afl.com.au
1 April 2025

THE TRIBUNAL case of Richmond's Rhyan Mansell has key differences from similar incidents in pre-season games, the AFL's chief says.

Mansell will contest a three-game suspension offered by the Match Review Officer at a tribunal hearing on Tuesday night.

The Tigers forward was offered the ban after pushing St Kilda defender Liam O'Connell into a marking contest during Saturday's game in Melbourne.

O'Connell was shoved into the path of Richmond forward Tom Lynch and St Kilda's Anthony Caminiti.

Lynch collided with O'Connell, leaving the Irish-born player concussed and unable to continue playing.

Match Review Officer Michael Christian graded Mansell's incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.

The AFL recently issued a memo to clubs, warning of the dangers of players recklessly pushing other players after a spate of similar incidents in pre-season matches.

But AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon said Mansell's case differed from others incidents which weren't sanctioned by the league.

"The one that's in front of the tribunal today has got a number of key differentiators to the other ones ... and that will play out tonight," Dillon told reporters in Adelaide on Tuesday.

Dillon refused to label Mansell's tribunal as a test case, saying he was reluctant to comment on individual hearings.

"We don't want to necessarily talk here about that individual incident as it's before the tribunal and through the MRO," he said.

"What I will say is that the whole MRO and tribunal process is about protecting the health and safety of our players.

"That has always been the forefront of what we're trying to do.

"So whether it's a test case or not, I think that it now gives the opportunity for Rhyan to put his case forward and we await the outcome."

Richmond will reference pre-season push incidents in defending the 24-year-old in what Geelong captain and former AFL Players' Association president Patrick Dangerfield labelled a test case.

"We've got to be mindful as players, and there's a duty of care there, and you don't want it (pushing) creeping in too much," Dangerfield said on Monday.

"But there is a balance, clearly, as everyone wants to compete, that's what we love about the game, the combative nature. But there's a fine balance with player safety around that.

"So I dare say that's sort of the test case."

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1291143/league-boss-says-mansell-case-differs-from-pre-season-incidents

[one-eyed]

Tribunal Case:

The Tigers disagree that this was rough conduct and disagree that this was careless.

The Tigers will use Reuben Ginbey's push on Sam Lalor as part of their argument.

Jeff Gleeson (chair), Jordan Bannister and Talia Radan are the jury members for this Tribunal.

The AFL says MRO Michael Christian's interview with Gerard Whateley on SEN is a reason why it's comfortable with the Ginbey / Lalor incident being allowed into evidence, which goes against usual regulations.

Source: David Zita (Foxsports)

[one-eyed]

Rhyan Mansell will now give evidence.

Mansell: O'Connell has got one hand around my back and one around my front, so I'm struggling to move ... my focus is to compete for the ball, try and get some separation off my defender and try and win the footy.

Mansell: It's small forward craft.

Q: It's small forward craft. How tall are you?

Mansell: 180 centimetres. I don't know what that is.

Mansell says O'Connell is starting to release from him as he pushes.

Mansell says that as he is trying to get separation from O'Connell he is not sure where Lynch and Caminiti are.

Mansell: O'Connell is right in my eyesight.

Q: Were you trying to push him into those two players?

Mansell: No.

Q: Are you trying to push him into their path?

Mansell: No.

Q: Was there much force in your push?

Mansell: I don't think so.

Mansell: After there was separation, that was the first time I saw them (Lynch and Caminiti).

Q: Did you think that your actions might lead to O'Connell being injured?

Mansell: No, absolutely not.

Sally Flynn (AFL): You knew forceful contact might happen with those other players.

Mansell: No, don't agree.

Sally Flynn (AFL): Did the memo in any way change the way you play the game?

Mansell: No it didn't.

Sally Flynn (AFL): You could've released earlier

Mansell: Too hard, his arms were around me

Flynn: You could've chosen not to push at all?

Mansell: Don't think so.

Flynn: Could've pushed him in another direction to avoid collision?

Mansell: I didn't know they were there.

Mansell notes under Richmond's game plan, Lynch was meant to hold further back inside the forward 50.

Jeff Gleeson: Was it your expectation one of the talls might also try compete?

Mansell: No. It was hard to read the flight of the ball exactly ... I wasn't really thinking that at the time.

Gleeson: If you didn't think other players were coming forward, then you were pushing O'Connell into an uncontested mark?

Mansell: I heard the whistle.

Source: David Zita (Foxsports)

[one-eyed]

AFL's reasons why this is reportable:

1. Mansell was not contesting the ball

2. Mansell chose to push his opponent

3. The force of push was unreasonable in circumstances

4. The direction of push (towards marking contest)

5. Mansell could / should have seen Lynch and Caminiti.


Flynn (AFL): Players need to be aware of the position of other players when they are choosing to push an opponent into an area, particularly where the ball is about to fall ... a reasonable player would be aware of those players in these circumstances.

Flynn (AFL): He didn't take reasonable care to avoid an act which could be reasonably forseen to result in the reportable offence.


Source: David Zita (Foxsports)

[one-eyed]

Richmond's defence:

Sam Tovey (Richmond): Lynch and Caminiti make up 20 or 30 metres towards Mansell while his back is turned on the ball.

Tovey (Richmond): No reasonable player is going to take the view it is unreasonable for a forward who is being held to try and get sepatation from the opponent holding him.

Tovey (Richmond) says this was not a push of as much force as Ginbey's on Lalor.

Tovey (Richmond): O'Connell was going to attempt to go for the mark whether Mansell pushed him or not ... what eventuated was not caused by Mansell.

Tovey (Richmond): There is less than a second between when Mansell's head begins to turn and when him and O'Connell become completely separated.

Tovey (Richmond) says this incident compares much more favourably for Mansell than it does for Ginbey on Lalor.

Tovey (Richmond): The memo didn't change anything. Players were under the same obligation before the memo as they were after.


Source: David Zita (Foxsports)