Western Bulldogs skipper Katie Brennan’s fate remains unresolved on the eve of the AFLW grand final, with an eleventh-hour Supreme Court intervention remaining a live possibility.
The Bulldogs on Thursday night were weighing legal action after Brennan’s appeal against her two-game suspension was dismissed by the AFL appeals board.
Brennan has been named at full-forward in the Bulldogs’ side for Saturday’s season decider against Brisbane at Ikon Park.
Her chances of playing rest upon the Bulldogs deciding to take her case to the Supreme Court on Friday in a scenario similar to a famed injunction involving Sydney fullback Andrew Dunkley.
Dunkley was reported for striking James Hird in the 1996 preliminary final, only for the Swans to obtain a Supreme Court order preventing the case being heard until after the grand final.
A Bulldogs decision is expected early on Friday morning.
Club president Peter Gordon on Thursday said the Bulldogs were considering their options.
“Obviously, it’s a terribly disappointing decision for Katie and for her teammates and for the whole club really,” Gordon told reporters.
“We will consider our position.”
Brennan’s suspension for rough conduct on Melbourne’s Harriet Cordner was upheld on Thursday afternoon in a two-hour hearing.
All four grounds of the Bulldogs’ appeal against Tuesday night’s tribunal decision were dismissed.
Brennan’s legal team argued during the hearing that her suspension was discriminatory because a male player would have only been fined for the equivalent offence.
The wide-ranging defence mounted by advocate Jack Rush QC touched on the Equal Opportunity Act, the AFL’s respect and responsibility policy, and sexual discrimination laws.
But AFL legal counsel Andrew Woods argued these were all matters that should have been raised during the failed tribunal hearing, led by criminal lawyer Sam Norton.
Brennan’s tackle on Cordner, who was shaken but able to play out the game, was classified as low impact, high contact and careless conduct.
As it was Brennan’s second classifiable offence for the season, the penalty increased from a reprimand to a one-game ban which triggered the tribunal challenge.
In the men’s competition, the two charges would still only attract a fine.