Ed Curnow suspended after AFL appeal upheld, brother Charlie free to play
Carlton's Ed Curnow has been suspended for one match following a successful AFL appeal against his tribunal verdict but his younger brother Charlie is free to play for the Blues this weekend.
Both Ed and Charlie were found not guilty of intentional contact with an umpire but guilty of the lesser charge of making careless contact at the tribunal on Tuesday night.
The AFL appealed the decision by the tribunal to clear the Curnows of making intentional contact at an extraordinary hearing on Thursday afternoon, with Ed's charge upgraded from careless contact with an umpire to intentional contact.
Ed Curnow had placed an open hand on umpire Nathan Williamson during Carlton's match against Essendon on Saturday, in what appeared to be a dismissive gesture as Williamson was talking to the midfielder.
Charlie Curnow touched Matt Stevic and pushed him away from a scuffle that broke out between a group of players.
He will be free to play for the Blues against Melbourne on Sunday.
The players did not appear at Thursday's appeal but Carlton's head of football Andrew McKay took a swipe at the outcome and process.
"It's a bittersweet moment," McKay said.
"We had a very reasonable jury on Tuesday that found [Charlie] guilty of careless contact with the umpire and yet pretty frustrating that same jury was found to be unreasonable [with Ed Curnow's charge].
"It's a little bit confusing. We'll cop it on the chin and move on."
The AFL had appealed both sanctions on the grounds that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision given the evidence before it, and that the sanctions imposed were manifestly inadequate.
The appeal board released a statement saying it believed the evidence showed Ed Curnow's contact with Williamson went beyond careless.
"There is no doubt he saw the umpire, spoke to him and agreed in his evidence that he came into contact with the umpire's chest and that his hand remained on his chest," the statement read.
"The video demonstrates with clarity that his concession as to that in his evidence was well-based.
"We consider in those circumstances, and upon our own viewing of the evidence in the video that no other conclusion is reasonable, other than that the contact was intentional."