​​​​​​​Tessa Lee, Sports journalist reporting on global leagues since 2021.​

Jy Simpkin slams AFL match review process after North Melbourne forward Paul Curtis failed to overturn a three match suspension at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night. Curtis was banned following a tackle that left West Coast youngster Hamish Davis concussed during last weekend’s clash, with the tribunal upholding the original charge of rough conduct. The ruling has sparked renewed debate about tackling interpretations, player accountability and consistency within the AFL’s disciplinary system.

Curtis entered the tribunal seeking to challenge both the rough conduct charge and the severe impact grading attached to the incident.

Represented by counsel Justin Graham KC, North Melbourne argued that a lower impact assessment was more appropriate and that Davis’s momentum contributed significantly to the outcome of the tackle.

The tribunal ultimately rejected those submissions and confirmed the three match suspension.

Simpkin Voices Frustration

Shortly after the decision was handed down, North Melbourne veteran Jy Simpkin publicly criticised the AFL’s disciplinary process.

The former Kangaroos captain took to Instagram and compared Curtis’s incident with a tackle involving Hawthorn forward Mabior Chol and Geelong defender Tom Stewart during last year’s preliminary final.

Chol initially received a three match suspension for that tackle before successfully overturning the ban at the tribunal.

Using the comparison, Simpkin questioned the consistency of tribunal outcomes and Match Review Officer decisions.

He described the AFL’s ongoing rule adjustments and disciplinary interpretations as confusing for players.

According to Simpkin, many footballers are uncertain about what constitutes a legal tackle under the current framework.

AFL Defends Original Charge

During the hearing, AFL lawyer Sam Bird argued that the original charge was appropriate and should stand.

Bird disputed North Melbourne’s claim that Davis retained sufficient freedom of movement in his arms during the tackle.

The AFL maintained that Davis could not effectively use his hands to protect himself when he hit the ground.

Bird also argued that Curtis actively rotated and dropped the West Coast player rather than attempting to hold him upright or release an arm.

The AFL position was that the tackle met the threshold for dangerous conduct and warranted the minimum three match sanction available for the offence.

Tribunal Details Dangerous Tackle Findings

The tribunal panel consisted of chair Jeff Gleeson KC and former AFL players Paul Williams and Scott Stevens.

After hearing approximately 50 minutes of evidence and submissions, the panel spent close to an hour deliberating before delivering its verdict.

In explaining the decision, Gleeson said the tribunal was comfortably satisfied the tackle was dangerous.

According to the panel’s findings, Curtis approached from the side, wrapped both of Davis’s arms and rotated him into the ground.

The tribunal noted that Curtis did not make a sufficient attempt to remain on his feet, release an arm or minimise the risk associated with the tackle.

Gleeson also rejected North Melbourne’s argument that momentum alone caused the incident.

The panel determined that Davis still had both feet on the ground after disposing of the ball and that Curtis’s technique was the primary factor leading to the dangerous outcome.

The tribunal concluded that a reasonable player in the same situation would have attempted to stay upright or otherwise reduce the risk of injury.

Curtis Set for Three Match Absence

As a result of the ruling, Curtis will miss upcoming matches against Richmond, Essendon and Port Adelaide.

The suspension continues a frustrating tribunal history for the 23 year old forward.

Last season, Curtis unsuccessfully challenged another three match ban following a tackle involving Port Adelaide player Josh Sinn.

North Melbourne is expected to consider whether an appeal will be lodged, with a final decision anticipated shortly.

The club has not yet confirmed its next course of action.

Supporters can follow the latest North Melbourne and AFL tribunal developments through our coverage. 

Greene Supports Curtis

The decision also attracted comment from rival players.

GWS captain Toby Greene said Curtis was unfortunate to receive a suspension and suggested the forward may have been penalised because of the force generated in the tackle.

Greene noted that while everyone understands what constitutes a dangerous sling tackle, this incident appeared different despite the significant impact involved.

His comments add to a growing discussion across the league about how dangerous tackles should be assessed and whether players have enough clarity regarding tribunal interpretations.

Gold Coast Awaits Tribunal Outcome

Meanwhile, another tribunal matter remains unresolved involving Gold Coast defender Daniel Rioli.

Rioli challenged an umpire contact charge through a written submission.

The outcome carries potential financial consequences for the Suns.

If the charge is upheld, Gold Coast could face an AFL sanction worth up to $50,000 because it would represent the club’s fifth umpire contact offence of the season.

Concerned about a rise in umpire contact incidents, the AFL recently reminded clubs of the penalties that can apply when repeated offences occur.

For official AFL tribunal rulings and disciplinary updates, visit the AFL website. 

Debate Over Consistency Continues

Curtis’s suspension and Simpkin’s public criticism have once again placed the AFL’s disciplinary system under the spotlight.

While the league continues to prioritise player safety and concussion prevention, clubs and players are seeking greater consistency and clarity around tackling interpretations.

With North Melbourne considering its next move and discussion continuing across the competition, the debate surrounding dangerous tackles is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.