MELBOURNE will consider appealing against the controversial decision to uphold Jacob van Rooyen's two-match ban, while a bemused Lachie Neale has helped Carlton's Nic Newman escape suspension during a marathon night at the AFL Tribunal.

Van Rooyen will miss games against Hawthorn and Port Adelaide after his two-match ban for a dangerous spoil was upheld on Tuesday night. 

MEDICAL ROOM Check out the full injury list

The Demons say they will "consider all its options before accepting the AFL Tribunal's decision", opening the door for an appeal.

Geelong forward Brad Close failed to overturn his one-match ban for a dangerous tackle on Adelaide's Jordan Dawson and will miss Friday night's clash with Richmond at the MCG.

But the most interesting aspect of the marathon five-and-a-half-hour night at the Tribunal was the case involving Newman, whose strike on Neale was classified as intentional conduct, low impact and high contact.

Neale submitted a letter saying his attempt to push Newman away was effectively the main reason why Newman's left elbow made contact with his chin.

"I think I lifted his left arm upwards and it had the effect of his left arm clipping me on the chin," Neale wrote.

Neale was then video called to give further evidence with AFL counsel Andrew Woods arguing it was actually Newman's second push - with his right arm - that was the issue.

That surprised Neale, given it was Newman's left elbow to his chin that was the talking point when Match Review Officer Michael Christian handed down his initial findings.

Neale said he didn't think Newman's push with his right arm was high.

"Because I copped that initial hit, I'm off balance which makes any sort of push easier to get me to ground," Neale replied when asked about Newman's second shove that resulted in the Lions star falling to the ground.

The jury, led by chairman Jeff Gleeson, cleared Newman of the charge.

"The vision is not sufficiently clear to enable us to determine whether the right arm contacted Neale just below or above his shoulders," Gleeson said.

The decision to uphold van Rooyen's ban is set to stir further debate with many of the game's greats already expressing disbelief the young Demons forward had been cited.

Van Rooyen's attempted spoil in a marking contest led to Gold Coast's Charlie Ballard being taken off the field on a stretcher on Saturday night.

The 20-year-old's action, in which his bicep ended up making contact with Ballard's head, was considered careless conduct, high contact and high impact.

Ballard was hurt but not concussed in the final-quarter incident and is expected to play against West Coast on Friday.

TRADE HUB All the latest player movement news

Adrian Anderson, representing van Rooyen, argued the action wasn't careless given it was a legitimate attempt to spoil.

Van Rooyen twice looked up at the ball on his way to making the spoil and he knocked back the suggestion from AFL counsel Woods he should have slowed up to protect his opponent.

"I don't think I would have been near the spoil if I had slowed up," van Rooyen said during his evidence.

"I didn't think I was going to make contact with Ballard's head.

"I was just trying to go for the ball and I think I did a good job at that.

"I'm either touching the ball, or within millimetres of it. It wasn't my intention to hurt anyone."

Woods argued van Rooyen's decision to not look at the ball for the crucial final few metres had led to the dangerous situation.

The jury said the force of the blow was considerable and van Rooyen's actions were careless.

"We find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling in the way he did, it would almost inevitably have resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head," Gleeson said.

"He launched and extended his arm out and across Ballard's head. This was not permitted incidental contact."

Earlier, Close fronted the AFL Tribunal to contest the rough conduct charge for his pin-the-arms tackle that resulted in Dawson striking his head on the turf.

Dawson wasn't concussed in the incident.

Close's lawyer Ben Ihle argued it was Dawson's bid to break the tackle that forced both players to topple forward.

The jury upheld the original charge of careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.

"We accept that players tackle by grabbing an arm," Gleeson said.

"But if the tackler realises or should realise that the tackled player is coming to ground with momentum - and does not release the tackled player's arm that he might have used to protect himself - he is likely to have breached his duty of care to the player."

Port Adelaide forward Junior Rioli will face the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for his strike on Essendon's Jordan Ridley.