Scott Pendlebury: Collingwood Magpies veteran learns fate after challenging ban at AFL Tribunal
Collingwood veteran Scott Pendlebury has learned his fate at the AFL Tribunal after the Magpies challenged a one-match ban handed to the 427-gamer.
Collingwood legend Scott Pendlebury has avoided the first suspension of his 21-year AFL career despite being found guilty of rough conduct.
Pendlebury’s proposed one-match suspension was downgraded to a $3000 fine at a two-hour tribunal hearing on Tuesday night.
Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson stressed the 427-gamer great wasn’t saved from suspension by any so-called good bloke clause.
Sign up to The Nightly's newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.Instead, the ban was downgraded to a fine under a ‘compelling and exceptional circumstances’ provision.
“We are comfortably satisfied that this provision applies to Scott Pendlebury,” Gleeson said.
The Magpie great challenged a one-game ban for rough conduct from a collision with Adelaide’s Josh Worrell in Collingwood’s loss on Saturday night.
AFL match review officer Michael Christian deemed Pendlebury’s actions as careless conduct, medium impact, and high contact.
Pendlebury, who needs six more games to break the VFL/AFL record for most matches played, contested the careless conduct aspect of the charge while accepting its other facets.
The 38-year-old told the hearing contact with Worrell was inevitable as they pursued a loose ball after a throw-in.
“I just braced myself for a collision,” he said. “I felt that if I didn’t brace myself, potentially we would have knocked each other out.”
Pendlebury thought nothing of the contact, nor knew he made contact with Worrell’s head, until cited the following day.
“The first thing I asked was, ‘Is he OK? Did he get any concussion symptoms,” Pendlebury said.
“Because I know how important the head is, and it has never been the intention in my career to ever try and injure another player.”
Worrell, while felled by the contact, didn’t receive medical attention but Albert Dinelli KC, for the AFL, said Pendlebury opted to bump rather than brace.
That suggestion was refuted by Collingwood advocate Myles Tehan, who described the charge as “borderline”.
“We say it’s not even a bump case,” Tehan said.
He said if the tribunal found differently, Pendlebury shouldn’t be banned given his “truly remarkable tribunal record”.
“Pendlebury stands in a class of his own,” Tehan said.
“Other than the four fines that he has accepted historically, he has never even been before the tribunal on a charge or faced suspension.
“It is practically difficult to imagine a more exemplary record and it’s frankly difficult to imagine how it could not constitute an exceptional and compelling circumstance (to avoid a ban).
“I should say this is not by any means a good bloke clause or a get of jail free card or anything of that nature.”
Tribunal chairman Gleeson then interjected.
“I might add, it never has been,” Gleeson said.
“It’s misreported as being something to that effect from time to time.
“But people who read the guidelines and listen to what the tribunal says will understand it’s nothing to do with being a good bloke.
“It’s to do with whether the circumstances are exceptional and compelling.”
After hearing evidence for 70 minutes, Gleeson and his tribunal members - former players David Neitz and Darren Gasper - returned their verdict some 50 minutes later, upholding the charge but reducing the penalty.
