Cricket
Racing
Rugby
League
Motorsport
Football
Golf
Combat Sports
Basketball
Tennis
Other Sports
Sport Nation
Experts call for system rejig following controversial Kangaroo ban
Jaiden Sciberras • April 28th, 2025 2:49 pm
North Melbourne’s Paul Curtis has been offered a three-match ban after a controversial tackle on Port Adelaide’s Josh Sinn.
The Kangaroo forward tackled Sinn from behind, pinning the arms and bringing him to ground, falling on top of the Port Adelaide player.
Sinn was concussed as a result of the incident, and with the MRO Michael Christian determining that the tackle was a reportable offence, Curtis was automatically handed three weeks.
The tackle has been deemed careless, high contact and severe impact, with North Melbourne set to challenge the ban at Tribunal on Tuesday night.
Collingwood legend Nathan Buckley believes that the incident, and incidents of a similar nature, should not be treated as reportable offences, deeming Curtis’ tackle as a football action.
“It was a chase-down tackle,” Buckley told SEN’s Whateley.
“He effected the tackle well, it’ll be a free kick against because he ended up landing into his back, he wasn’t able to turn him.
“I don’t think Curtis was over the top in his aggression at the tackle, I don’t think he was over the top at trying to drive the head into the ground or trying to drive the player into the ground.
“I think he laid the tackle, they both lost balance and he landed on top of the player he was tackling.
“How accountable is he to that? Should he have been able to turn him? I’m pretty sure he didn’t want to give the free kick away, (so) he would have been trying to turn him.
“I think if you’re looking at it from a neutral perspective, what does Paul Curtis do? He is playing the game of footy; you go and stick a tackle. He is playing with ferocity and intensity.
“He wasn’t trying to hurt him; he was just playing the game. I don’t think that he should be penalised for that.”
Within the laws of the game, had MRO Christian determined that the tackle was not a reportable offence, Curtis would have avoided any sanctions for the tackle.
Deem it reportable, and Curtis receives three, as has happened. Within the laws of the game, the tackle, based on the result (concussion), is either no sanction, or three weeks, with no scope for more or less.
“I don’t think the system is fair to players that are playing the game,” Buckley continued.
“I understand the medico, legal aspects and trying to avoid being accountable and responsible for potential down-the-track medical legal issues that the AFL don’t want to be responsible for.
“You’ve got to look after the players in their workplace which is on the football field, I think the AFL has done a pretty good job with it.
“But I think the system that we are applying… when you look at Curtis, I don’t think there is any way that he should be suspended.
“If you look at precedent and you look at the system that’s been written up then maybe he has to be accountable, but I don’t think that system is right.
“It doesn’t account for acceptable football actions, and negative results from those acceptable football actions. It goes from result back.
“What would a reasonable player do in Paul Curtis’ situation. If we want to put that there as the benchmark, then let’s prosecute that consistently.
“It really doesn’t matter what the system says, go up in front of a tribunal and ask what would a reasonable player do in Paul Curtis’ position? What other alternatives does he have?
“He doesn’t not play the game, not lay the tackle. That’s not a reasonable alternative.”
Both David King and Kane Cornes were also vocal on the incident on SEN’s Fireball.
Joined by AFL.com.au’s Josh Gabelich, each of the three analysts believe that the reporting system and grading format requires an overhaul.
King: “Is it right that is has to be zero or three? Why is there no room in our system where you look at that and go, that is a one-weeker.”
Gabelich: “I think the grading system needs a rejig.
“It was either going to be zero or three, as soon as Michael Christian deemed this a reportable offence, he had no other option other than it to be three because it was careless, severe and high.
“You put that through the matrix and that’s three games.
“It’s significant, especially when you factor in how well he is going, he is clearly in the All-Australian discussion after Round 7, kicked 18 goals to start the year.
“He has been incredible. He has been the main reason to watch North to start 2025.”
King: “We’ve had a couple of very similar cases to this, the (Patrick) Dangerfield/(Sam) Walsh situation.”
Gabelich: “He got one game as a ban, and it was overturned in the tribunal back in April last year.
“He pinned the arms in the tackle with Sam Walsh, the difference was Sam Walsh was not concussed, so the grading was different.”
King: “Don’t you have to pin the arms if you tackle from behind? How do you not pin the arms as a mechanism?”
Cornes: “I think the wording is, ‘is the player in a vulnerable position’.
“That’s what you’ve got to consider, and if they are, have you exercised your duty of care to protect the player that’s got the ball.
“I don’t think he did that, I do think he drove him into the ground.”
King: “I’m starting from the concussion point of it, we have had a couple that have been overturned upon appeal.
“He will have a good case to present, and whether it gets through or not, I don’t mind.
“If he gets the three (weeks), he gets the three. The concussion debate is too important to lose.”
North Melbourne will face the Tribunal on Tuesday night in attempt to overturn the three-match sanction Curtis received.
