North Melbourne and Carlton have both lost at the Tribunal with Griffin Logue and Blake Acres to miss the Good Friday clash.

After a little under half an hour of deliberations Kangaroos defender Logue failed to overturn his one-match ban for rough conduct.

Meanwhile the argument for Blues winger Acres took much longer, with over two hours of debate before he lost his argument against a one-match rough conduct suspension.

Logue told the Tribunal he only became aware of Hawthorn’s Will Day shortly after the ball ricocheted off his foot.

Asked “at any time did you make a conscious decision to initiate body contact?” by North Melbourne’s lawyer Ben Ihle, Logue said no.

“When it’s happening that quick, you don’t really know what position the opposition player would be in,” the Roos recruit said.

“Taking off at that pace upwards of 90% acceleration, I did attempt to slow down. To try a heavy stop any faster than that would result in some form of biomechanical injury for myself.”

Ihle said Logue engaged in “quintessentially a football act.”

“It is a textbook approach to a loose ball coming out of the backline.”

Ihle also said broadcast vision of the incident was misleading, with the camera panning in the opposite direction to Logue and thus providing a “false impression”.

Logue’s action, Ihle said, was “a textbook action and not unreasonable in any material aspect.”

The AFL - represented by Nick Pane - said Logue made a decision to bump and prepared the right side of his body for contact with Day.

While Logue said he wasn’t aware of Day until very late in the incident, Pane disputed this and said Logue had to have been aware of Day and that he was open and vulnerable.

“We are satisfied the charge is made out under the rough conduct (high bumps) provision,” the Tribunal found.

“Logue entered the contest at speed, he saw a Hawthorn player was also entering the contest and after initially preparing to bend low to pick up the ball, he changed his intention and did not attempt to pick up the ball but instead chose to bump.

 “It is true that the decision to do so was made quickly. We are clearly satisfied that he could and should have gone lower and closer to the ball with his hands in an attempt to pick up the ball rather than choosing to bump.

“We find Logue’s way of contesting the ball was not reasonable and accordingly he engaged in rough conduct.”

Acres’ contact with Giant Brent Daniels in the fourth quarter of Carlton’s win received the same gradings as Logue’s incident: Careless conduct, high contact and medium impact, equating to a one-match ban.

Carlton argued Acres’ conduct was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

If the Tribunal is against Carlton on that, Carlton contended impact was low or negligible and that contact was primarily to the body.

The Blues attempted to argue that the classification of the charged as ‘Rough Conduct’ rather than ‘Rough Conduct (High Bump)’ had weight on the case, but the Tribunal ultimately dismissed this argument.

As part of their submission the Blues cited a piece of vision showing Acres in discomfort due to a pectoral injury, with Acres himself claiming he did not intend to bump.

Representing the league, Nick Pane said: “It’s clear Acres bumped Daniels. It is not incidental contact in the act of smothering ... the direction of Acres is towards Daniels, not the football. His right arm is tucked in, as a player would normally do in preparing for a bump. He launches into Daniels.”

The Blues even showed GPS data from Acres’ match to suggest he decelerated before the point of contact.

After deliberating for roughly 30 minutes, the Tribunal upheld the charge.

“We find there was at least low actual impact to the head,” Tribunal chairperson Jeff Gleeson explained, adding that contact occurred “with some force.”

He added the way in which Acres contested the ball was not reasonable and that he chose to bump.