Kangaroo's three-match ban upheld at Tribunal

North Melbourne's Paul Curtis will miss three matches after the Tribunal upheld his lengthy ban.

The Kangaroo forward tackled Sinn from behind, pinning the arms and bringing him to ground. Falling on top of the Port Adelaide player, Sinn's head was driven into the turf.

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.

North Melbourne's challenge was unsuccessful, with the Tribunal upholding that Curtis' tackle on Sinn was fairly graded as careless, high contact and severe impact.

Curtis will miss this Thursday's clash with Essendon, Brisbane at Hobart and Richmond at the MCG.

Through seven games in 2025, Curtis has had a breakout season, averaging 14 disposals and booting 18 goals to rank equal fifth in the Coleman Medal race.

BUCKLEY CALLS FOR SYSTEM REJIG FOLLOWING CURTIS BAN

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.”