PADDY Ryder's two-week suspension for engaging in rough conduct stands after St Kilda's challenge to downgrade the charge failed at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday evening.
The veteran Saints ruckman had been slapped with a two-game ban by the match review officer after a late bump on Will Day which forced the Hawthorn defender out of Sunday's game with concussion.
The incident was assessed as careless conduct, high impact and high contact, with the Saints challenging the grade of impact which they argued was 'medium', which if successful, would have lessened the suspension to one week.
However, Tribunal Chair Jeff Gleeson and the jury found the impact should remain assessed as high, meaning the two-game suspension was upheld.
Ryder will miss St Kilda's round five and six games against Gold Coast and GWS respectively.
St Kilda representative Jack Rush QC cited the recent example of Tim English's bump on Nick Blakey from round three, which didn’t attract a charge from the match review officer, which described it as "not unreasonable in the circumstances".
The Saints also referred to other bumps as examples including Sam Reid on Nat Fyfe, Jordan De Goey on Clayton Oliver and Levi Casboult on Alex Pearce which displayed different grades of impact.
Rush QC argued that Ryder had minimal momentum in the collision with Day, having braced, stopped and not left the ground.
AFL representative Andrew Woods said the English-Blakey example was not comparable and reiterated that Ryder's act had led to a concussion, with Day to miss a minimum of seven training days and one game, along with being removed from Sunday's game.
Tribunal Chair Jeff Gleeson said: "The jury finds that the impact was high. Having disposed of the ball, Day was entitled to expect and indeed appeared to expect that he would not then receive forceful contact, which was largely front-on.
"As such, he was vulnerable and did not take any steps to minimise the impact. The contact to his head was forceful and resulted in a concussion and laceration.
"We do not find that the other examples are of significant assistance based on what is known about them. The English example appears to have some similarities, but as it was not found to be rough conduct by the MRO there is no clear indication as to the MRO's assessment of impact in that matter.
"Any potential to cause injury is usually deemed as high impact."
