Hawthorn forward Mabior Chol will be available for the opening round of the 2026 AFL season after the league tribunal overturned his three-match suspension for rough conduct. The ruling came after a high-profile hearing where the panel determined Chol’s tackle on Geelong’s Tom Stewart — which left the Cats defender concussed and sidelined for the grand final — was the result of a “football accident” rather than unreasonable play.

The case attracted widespread attention across the AFL community given its timing, severity, and the player involved. Stewart’s concussion during Geelong’s preliminary final victory at the MCG not only ended his involvement in the match but also ruled him out of the Cats’ premiership decider under the league’s strict concussion protocols. The initial suspension handed to Chol by the match review officer threatened to see him miss the start of the 2026 season, a penalty Hawthorn vigorously appealed.

The Incident That Sparked Debate

The controversial moment unfolded late in the first quarter. Stewart had collected possession deep in Geelong’s defensive 50 and attempted to break clear with the ball. Hawthorn’s Sam Butler first latched onto Stewart around the legs, slowing his movement. Within a second, Chol arrived from behind, wrapping Stewart up in a tackle that pinned both of his arms. As the players fell forward, Stewart’s head struck the turf, leaving him dazed and later ruled out under the AFL’s head injury assessment (HIA) guidelines.

The aftermath was devastating for Geelong’s preparations. Stewart, a key defensive general and experienced leader, was immediately placed in the concussion protocol, automatically ruling him out of the following week’s grand final. For the Cats, losing such a crucial player cast a shadow over their celebrations, while for the Hawks, it meant their forward Chol faced a disciplinary challenge.

The match review officer assessed the contact and issued a three-match suspension for rough conduct. The AFL’s stance was clear: Chol’s actions were careless, unreasonable, and failed in his duty of care to protect Stewart.

AFL Counsel: Chol “Acted Unreasonably”

At the tribunal hearing, counsel Albert Dinelli KC argued forcefully that Chol’s tackle had exacerbated Stewart’s fall. Dinelli emphasized that while the incident happened quickly, Chol’s decision to tackle from behind, in addition to Butler’s initial contact, had increased Stewart’s momentum toward the ground.

Dinelli contended that Chol “had pinned both arms, meaning that Stewart was unable to do anything to protect himself.” He added that Chol had not disengaged in time: “the Hawks forward had not rolled off Stewart until after the impact, by which time the damage was done.”

According to the AFL’s case, Chol’s choices directly contributed to the dangerous outcome, and this amounted to unreasonable conduct.

Hawthorn’s Response: “A Football Accident”

Representing Chol, Hawthorn’s counsel Myles Tehan framed the tackle differently. He insisted the incident was nothing more than “an unfortunate football accident,” and rejected the assertion that Chol had acted with careless disregard.

Tehan highlighted several factors that, in his view, absolved Chol of blame. Firstly, he noted that Butler’s initial tackle had been obscured from Chol’s view, meaning Chol expected to confront an upright opponent rather than one already dragged downward. The momentum of the players, combined with their tangled legs, left Chol unable to keep his balance.

He argued that Chol “was very sorry for the outcome that saw Stewart concussed and missing this weekend's grand final,” but stressed that “circumstances and factors outside his control had led to the result.”

Tehan also pointed out that Chol attempted to roll off Stewart during the fall and did not employ excessive force in the tackle.

Tribunal Verdict: Ban Overturned

After hearing both sides, tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson KC delivered the panel’s verdict: the three-match ban was overturned. Gleeson accepted Hawthorn’s argument that the speed and complexity of the play made it impossible for Chol to avoid falling on Stewart.

In his reasoning, Gleeson pointed to the “tangle of legs” involving Butler, Stewart, and Chol, which contributed to the fall. Importantly, Gleeson noted evidence that Chol had made an attempt to roll away during the tackle.

He further highlighted that Stewart had managed to handball before hitting the ground, demonstrating he was not entirely incapacitated during the moment of contact. Ultimately, Gleeson concluded that the tribunal was “not satisfied that Chol had acted unreasonably.”

The decision means Chol is now cleared to play in round one of the 2026 AFL season, sparing him and Hawthorn from a rocky start to the year.

Broader Implications for the AFL

The ruling once again reignites debate over the balance between protecting player safety and preserving the physicality of the game. Concussion management has become one of the AFL’s most pressing issues, with strict protocols designed to safeguard players amid growing concerns over long-term brain injuries.

In recent years, the tribunal has taken a hard stance on incidents where players are concussed following tackles or bumps, often punishing even unintentional actions if they carry significant risk. Critics argue this undermines the essence of contested football, while others maintain that such measures are essential in the modern game.

For Stewart, the outcome is bitter. The Geelong star’s absence from the grand final due to concussion protocols has already shaped the narrative of the season, regardless of Chol’s exoneration. For Hawthorn, the verdict provides relief — their key forward remains available and unencumbered heading into 2026.

As AFL continues to grapple with the fine line between fairness, duty of care, and unavoidable accidents, cases like this will remain flashpoints. For now, Mabior Chol’s reprieve underlines the tribunal’s willingness to consider nuance, context, and the unpredictable nature of the game.