The Roar
The Roar

AFL

'Always likely to land on the face': Hinge fails to beat striking charge at tribunal but Cerra cleared for only 'intending to push'

Autoplay in... 6 (Cancel)
Up Next No more videos! Playlist is empty -
Replay
Cancel
Next
30th April, 2025
6
1040 Reads

Carlton midfielder Adam Cerra has won his case at the AFL Tribunal, after being charged with striking in Sunday’s win over Geelong, meaning he can play this weekend’s game against Adelaide.

But the news wasn’t so good for Crows defender Mitch Hinge, who had his one-game ban for a striking charge on Fremantle’s Andrew Brayshaw upheld, ruling him out of the same game.

Adelaide argued this is incident was careless rather than intentional, stating that the real force is the palm to the chest, with the fingers only just catching the chin.

Hinge told the tribunal that he didn’t think high contact was even made.

“He’s quite a strong person … I would be pushing probably around the chest to get him off balance a little bit so he couldn’t block me,” Hinge said.

“I didn’t feel like I actually hit him in the face.”

Hinge was left shaking his head as the Tribunal did not accept the Crows argument, ruling it was an was an intentional strike.

“Despite Hinge’s evidence that he did not intend to strike Brayshaw, we find that the video evidence is quite inconsistent with this. It shows a forceful movement of his arm in an upward motion,” the Tribunal statement read.

“It was a striking or jabbing movement, rather than a push that had no intention to strike.

“We do not find that the fact the blow landed on Brayshaw’s face was caused by Brayshaw having lowered his body position.

“Hinge’s arm and hand did not slide upwards or glance off another part of Brayshaw’s body. It was a blow to the face that was always likely to land on the face.”

Earlier, Cerra was offered a one-week suspension by the Match Review Officer for the incident in the third quarter involving the Cats’ Jack Bowes. It was graded as intentional conduct, low impact and high contact.

The Tribunal heard evidence for nearly an hour, then, after more than 30 minutes of deliberation, found in the Blues’ favour, downgrading the suspension to just a fine.

Carlton fought the ban, saying it was not a strike and if it was, it should be classified as careless rather than intentional.

Carlton’s lawyer, Chris Townshend, told the hearing that the two-handed push was instigated by Bowes and that Cerra was expecting it, so he put a two-handed push back to the Geelong player.

He added that it was a typical grapple between players at stoppages.

Cerra gave evidence at the hearing, explaining that it was a complete accident.

“Bowes comes to me and goes to engage through a push, my reaction was to push him back to protect my space, as we do 100 times a game,” Cerra said.

“I put my arm out (after), I was surprised to get him high. It was an accident … as the ball went away and we were running off, I checked on him and apologised, he said he was all good, he was well aware it was an accident.”

In response, the AFL argued that, among the reasons for it being an intentional strike, was that Cerra was looking at Bowes, it was in response to a ‘jostle’, and it was a forceful blow.

The tribunal took the rare step of comparing the two cases, given the similarity in charge and the timeframe of the two hearings right after one another.

“We were comfortably satisfied, and the video evidence clearly showed Cerra intended only to push his opponent,” the tribunal statement read.

“There’s not a striking motion, and his arm and hand were not moving upwards towards the face of his opponent.

“The downward movement of Cerra’s opponent before impact contributed much more significantly that here to the blow landing on the face.

“Cerra’s immediate and spontaneous movement of his arm expressed surprising and contrition consistent with not having intended what had occurred.”