Hawthorn forward Mabior Chol has been cleared of rough conduct by the AFL tribunal after a high-profile case stemming from his tackle on Geelong’s Tom Stewart, which left the star defender concussed. The ruling ends days of heated debate over player safety, duty of care, and the fine margins that exist in modern AFL tackling.

The tribunal’s decision came after a 100-minute hearing on Tuesday night, where Chol’s three-game suspension was officially dismissed. The ruling means Chol will avoid missing games at the start of next season, but the fallout is far more significant for Geelong. Stewart, a five-time All Australian, has been ruled out of Saturday’s AFL grand final against Brisbane after being placed in the league’s mandatory 12-day concussion protocols.

For Geelong, the absence of their defensive linchpin in the biggest game of the year is a crushing blow. For Hawthorn and Chol, the case has reaffirmed that not every on-field injury is the result of unreasonable conduct.

The Charge and the Arguments

Match review officer Michael Christian had initially graded Chol’s tackle as high contact, severe impact, and careless conduct — a combination that ordinarily guarantees a heavy suspension. The AFL argued that Chol failed in his duty of care when executing the tackle, and that his actions directly caused Stewart’s concussion.

AFL counsel Albert Dinelli KC described the incident in detail during the hearing.

“Chol falls on the player and his (Stewart’s) arms are pinned … and it’s only once his head hits the ground that player Chol rolls off,” Dinelli argued.

He continued: “And indeed player Chol’s actions in propelling him forward is such that there was considerable force with the ground which obviously results in the concussion. The ball is released as player Stewart was falling to the ground but his arms remained pinned to him in such a way that he’s not able to break his fall. And it’s that vulnerability caused by the tackle upon which we focus.”

According to Dinelli, Chol had alternatives that could have mitigated the risk of injury, including releasing one or both of Stewart’s arms or adjusting the angle of the tackle to roll him sideways.

The Defence of Chol

Myles Tehan, representing Chol, offered a robust defence that framed the incident as an unfortunate outcome of football, rather than reckless conduct.

“He (Chol) feels sorry for what happened to Stewart as a result of this footballing accident,” Tehan told the tribunal. “We all know what the consequence is, by reason of the concussion protocols, and of course the significance of the game this weekend. … But it was a football accident. That tackle was not unreasonable.”

Tehan also directly challenged the AFL’s description of the tackle. He pointed to the involvement of another Hawthorn player, Sam Butler, whose simultaneous tackle on Stewart created a tangle of legs that left the Geelong defender vulnerable.

The defence counsel highlighted that Stewart managed to release a handball during the tackle and that his left arm began to move forward, suggesting he had at least some opportunity to protect himself.

“Of course we’re not at all victim blaming in this … but it was reasonable for Chol to expect that Stewart would be able to move his arm to protect himself,” Tehan said.

Tribunal’s Reasoning

The three-member tribunal panel — chaired by Jeff Gleeson KC alongside former players Paul Williams and Shane Wakelin — deliberated for nearly 50 minutes before delivering their decision.

“An important factor in our consideration was the involvement of the Butler tackle, in the way that it affected the Chol tackle,” Gleeson said in the judgment. “Butler’s tackle caused Stewart to lose his feet and by the time Chol commenced his tackle, it was inevitable that Stewart was going to ground.”

Gleeson added that Stewart’s ability to get a handball away was a crucial indicator that his arms were not completely pinned. “The limitation on the movement of his (Stewart’s) arms was not absolute,” Gleeson said. “The question is, however, whether what Chol did was unreasonable in the circumstances. We are not clearly satisfied that it was.”

With that reasoning, the tribunal dismissed the charge and cleared Chol of wrongdoing.

Fallout for the Grand Final

While Hawthorn will feel a sense of relief at seeing Chol cleared, the Geelong Cats now face a daunting task heading into Saturday’s grand final against the Brisbane Lions without their defensive leader. Stewart’s exclusion not only robs Geelong of one of the competition’s most accomplished intercept defenders but also forces coach Chris Scott into a late reshuffle of his backline.

For Stewart himself, the ruling highlights the brutal irony of AFL’s concussion protocols. He was found to be the victim of an accident that did not warrant suspension, yet the protocols leave no room for exceptions — his season ends here, just days before the biggest game of the year.

For the AFL more broadly, the case underscores the constant tension between protecting players and preserving the fabric of the game. Tackles will always be central to Australian rules football, and as this ruling shows, not every unfortunate outcome can be punished without risking the erosion of the game’s physical contest.

Looking Ahead

The decision will inevitably spark debate among fans, commentators, and the AFL community. Some will argue that Stewart’s concussion should have automatically triggered harsher consequences for Chol, while others will applaud the tribunal for resisting what they see as an over-regulation of the sport.

For now, Mabior Chol walks away without suspension but with sympathy for Stewart’s plight. Geelong, meanwhile, must summon all their depth and resilience to face Brisbane in the grand final without one of their most decorated and influential players.