Tessa Lee, Sports journalist reporting on global leagues since 2021.
North Melbourne veteran Jy Simpkin has criticised the AFL match review process after teammate Paul Curtis failed to overturn a three match suspension at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night. The hearing followed Curtis’s tackle on West Coast youngster Hamish Davis during last Saturday’s AFL match, an incident that resulted in Davis suffering concussion. The decision is significant because it keeps Curtis sidelined for three upcoming games and has reignited debate about tackling interpretations across the competition.
Curtis was charged with rough conduct following the tackle, with the Match Review Officer grading the incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact. North Melbourne challenged both the rough conduct classification and the severe impact grading during the tribunal hearing.
The club argued that a lower impact assessment was more appropriate and suggested Davis’s momentum played a significant role in the outcome of the tackle. However, after reviewing the evidence, the tribunal upheld the original suspension.
Simpkin Voices Frustration
Following the verdict, Simpkin expressed his frustration on social media. The North Melbourne midfielder questioned the consistency of the AFL’s disciplinary process and suggested players are struggling to understand what actions are permissible on the field.
Simpkin compared the Curtis incident with a tackle involving Hawthorn forward Mabior Chol during last year’s preliminary final. Chol originally received a three match suspension, but that ban was later overturned by the tribunal.
In his social media post, Simpkin described the AFL’s constant rule changes and the Match Review Officer process as “laughable”. He also argued that players often enter matches uncertain about how tackles will be interpreted by officials.
The comments quickly drew attention across the football community, with many supporters and analysts continuing to debate the balance between player safety and consistency in disciplinary rulings.
Tribunal Rejects North Melbourne Arguments
During the hearing, AFL lawyer Sam Bird argued that Curtis’s tackle met the threshold for a dangerous action and warranted the minimum three match suspension attached to the charge.
Bird disputed North Melbourne’s suggestion that Davis retained sufficient freedom of movement in his arms during the tackle. According to the AFL’s case, Davis was unable to effectively use his hands to protect himself from the impact.
The AFL also maintained that Curtis actively rotated and dropped Davis rather than attempting to hold him upright or release an arm before both players hit the ground.
After approximately 50 minutes of evidence and submissions, the tribunal panel spent close to an hour deliberating before delivering its decision.
The panel consisted of former AFL players Paul Williams and Scott Stevens, alongside tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson KC.
Tribunal Explains Decision
In delivering the verdict, Gleeson said the panel was comfortably satisfied that Curtis’s tackle was dangerous.
According to the tribunal, Curtis approached from the side, wrapped Davis’s arms and used a technique that rotated the West Coast player into the ground.
Gleeson stated that Curtis made no meaningful effort to keep his feet, release an arm or rotate Davis in a way that would reduce the risk of injury.
The tribunal also rejected the defence argument that the players’ momentum alone caused the tackle to end in a dangerous position.
Instead, the panel found that Davis had both feet on the ground when he disposed of the ball and that Curtis’s tackling technique was the primary reason he was driven into the turf.
Gleeson said a reasonable player in the same circumstances would have either remained on their feet or attempted to do so during the tackle.
The full AFL Tribunal process and related disciplinary decisions can be followed through the league’s official channels.
Curtis Set for Three Match Absence
As a result of the ruling, Curtis will miss North Melbourne’s upcoming fixtures against Richmond, Essendon and Port Adelaide.
The suspension is another setback for the 23 year old forward, who also unsuccessfully challenged a three match ban last season after a tackle involving Port Adelaide player Josh Sinn.
North Melbourne officials are expected to determine whether they will lodge an appeal against the tribunal decision. Any appeal would likely focus on legal or procedural grounds rather than a complete rehearing of the evidence.
The club has not yet confirmed its final position.
Supporters can follow North Melbourne updates and team news through the club’s latest coverage.
AFL Debate Continues
The decision has generated strong reactions from players and commentators across the league.
GWS captain Toby Greene publicly supported Curtis, describing the North Melbourne player as “extremely unlucky” to receive a suspension.
Greene suggested Curtis may have become a victim of his own strength, noting that the tackle involved significant force but did not resemble a traditional sling tackle.
His comments reflect a broader discussion within the AFL about how dangerous tackles should be assessed and whether current interpretations provide enough clarity for players.
Player safety remains a central priority for the AFL, particularly in relation to concussion prevention. At the same time, clubs continue to seek greater consistency in how incidents are graded and punished.
Separate Tribunal Matter for Gold Coast
In another tribunal development, Gold Coast defender Daniel Rioli is awaiting the outcome of his challenge to an umpire contact charge.
Rioli contested the charge through a written submission to the tribunal.
The case carries additional significance because Gold Coast could face a substantial financial penalty if the charge is upheld. The Suns are already approaching the AFL’s threshold for umpire contact offences this season.
Concerned by an increase in such incidents, the AFL recently reminded clubs about potential sanctions linked to repeated umpire contact breaches.