Rhyan Mansell's three-match ban for rough conduct has been upheld on appeal, leaving the young Richmond forward sidelined for matches against St Kilda, Brisbane and Sydney.

Mansell took his case to the AFL Appeals Board after he was originally hit with the ban for making high contact with Fremantle's James Aish during their round 13 clash.

The incident was originally graded by the match review officer as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.

Mansell was sent straight to the Tribunal and was banned for three matches, before opting to appeal the suspension.

The Appeal Board deliberated for 40 minutes before upholding the charge with the following reasoning...

It is submitted on behalf of Mansell that the Tribunal applied the incorrect test of whether or not the action of Mansell was a bump or not by asking itself whether the contact was simply reflexive or involuntary. In our view, the premise on which ground one is based is flawed. We consider that it‘s clear from a reading of the Tribunal’s brief reasons that it did not apply any such test. The reasons make it clear that the Tribunal relied upon video footage in coming to the conclusion that a meter or two from impact, Mansell turned and bumped his opponent. This was the primary finding of the Tribunal.

It was submitted by the AFL that finding this action was not simply reflexive or involuntary was a secondary finding. The Tribunal’s reasons make it clear that this finding was not the sole test in the consideration of whether or not there was conduct amounting to a bump.

There was no error of law on the part of the Tribunal.

The other argument is that the Tribunal erred in resolving the issue of whether Mansell was contesting the ball, by considering whether the actions of Mansell involve the bumping of the other player. It was argued on behalf of Mansell that the Tribunal erred in that it relied upon its finding that there had been a bump in then determining whether the ball was in contest at the time.

Whilst the reasons of the Tribunal are brief, in our view it’s clear from those reasons that the Tribunal did adopt a two-stage process of considering the issue before it.

It determined that Mansell had bumped his opponent, the Tribunal went on to state, ‘The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball.’ It determined that he was not doing so on the basis that, from a meter or two prior to the collision, he had turned and bumped and that his hands were not reaching out for the ball.

Similarly, the Tribunal found that at the time of impact the ball was not in contest. Mansell conceded as much in his evidence. When he was asked as to whether he was seeking to pick up the ball or knock it out, he said ‘No, I was just trying to protect myself and I mentioned that before and I thought I couldn‘t impact the ball, so I protected myself.’

Over the fact that the same findings or at least similar findings of fact establish to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that there was a bump and that the bump occurred when there was no longer when Mansell was no longer contesting the ball does not mean that the Tribunal erred as argued by Mansell. In our view, there is no error of law.

We observe Mansell has a heavy onus to discharge in establishing that the findings of the Tribunal were so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the decision.

We observe also that the Tribunal included highly experienced members with a long history of involvement in Australian rules football at the elite level.

The Tribunal, as is clear from the reasons, relied upon the video evidence before it in coming to their conclusions. With respect to grounds two and four, we do not consider in either case the heavy onus carried by the appellant has been satisfied in this application before the Board.

It was open on the evidence for the Tribunal to find that Mansell engaged in bumping his opponent, and it was open to the Tribunal to conclude on the evidence that Mansell was not contesting the ball at the time of impact.

Those findings in our view were well within the range of possible outcomes of the evidence before the Tribunal.

We dismiss the appeal, and we confirm the findings of the Tribunal.