Tom Stewart, a key player for Geelong, found himself at the center of controversy following a collision with Port Adelaide’s Ollie Wines during a recent match. The shocking incident happened on Sunday at GMHBA Stadium during Geelong’s 88-point rout of Port Adelaide.
On that game defining play Stewart jumped as high as humanly possible trying to intercept a handball from Wines. Unfortunately, he came down right on Wines, which produced a pretty scary hit that had fans and analysts holding their breath. Wines fought through the contact and continued to play. He was the largest positive bright spot of anyone on Port’s side, and his noticeable postgame soreness notwithstanding, he was effective all over the field.
Geelong’s coach, Chris Scott, expressed confidence that Stewart would not face suspension from the AFL as a result of the collision. He explained that had Wines suffered more grievous injuries, it would have been a different story.
Scott said that Stewart’s intentions during the play were noble. I really assumed that he only fell on that man,” he said with certainty. So pound-for-pound, yeah, I’m super-sure-that-he’d-be-fine.
To his credit, Scott did recognize the increased attention on player safety and situations like this one. He remarked on the current environment in football, saying, “We’re in an environment now where if anyone gets concussed we’re looking for someone to pay.” For instance, he stressed the challenge players face when they are placed in these scenarios. As he stressed, “You can’t turn on a dime in the air, but you gotta do something to prevent an injury to that other player at all times.”
Port Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley avoided pressing avenues of inquiry about Stewart’s hit on the game. In his statements, he clearly showed that he did not view the situation as anything other than a football play gone wrong. Hinkley mentioned that, “To be honest, from afar it really just looked like some dude doing what he’s supposed to be doing. He further stressed the importance of him not getting involved with decisions regarding players on-field actions.
In the days following the news break, former St Kilda great Nick Riewoldt commented on the incident. He drew parallels to the other highly contentious collision earlier this year involving Brayden Maynard and Angus Brayshaw. He supported Stewart’s intentions during the play, stating, “You’ve got to be able to attempt to make a play on the ball. His initial intention is the ball.” Riewoldt was adamant as well that it’s unfair to put the onus of duty of care on players in high-speed scenarios. We very intentionally keep their primary focus directly in the center of the game.
Their argument ultimately fell short, despite showing that after the collision Stewart immediately demonstrated concern for Wines—a clear and compelling signal that he acted without malice. Why perception of intent matters Intent is a critical consideration in the assessment of such incidents in professional sports. Riewoldt reacted very positively to that line of thinking. I think it’s too much to ask of a player to have duty of care in that situation.
Stewart now looks forward to the game review officer’s report. In the meantime, coaches and commentators are hard at work figuring out what the incident means for player welfare and accountability in Australian rules football.
