That's all we have for you this evening.

The Adelaide Crows rolled the dice at the Tribunal, hoping to get Darcy Fogarty back for a key game this week.

They didn't succeed.

We will be back to blog that game, with the Crows hosting Collingwood at Adelaide Oval on Thursday night to kick off round 20 of the AFL.

In the meantime, this is Andrew McGarry, thanking you for joining us and wishing you a very good night.

That deliberation did not take long, less than 20 minutes.

The panel were satisfied that Fogarty did what he was charged with, and now the Crows have to handle his absence.

They are expected to get Taylor Walker back for this week's game against Collingwood on Thursday night at Adelaide Oval, but they will still miss Fogarty, who was in excellent form against the Swans.

Adelaide would be expected to beat Essendon and Richmond (although GWS might argue that point), but as we said earlier, it's not just a case of wins as we head into finals it's also percentage.

Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson is back, saying the panel is "comfortably convinced" that Darcy Fogarty committed the offence of striking.

The three-match ban is an appropriate one in their eyes, and Fogarty will miss matches against Collingwood (this Thursday), Essendon and Richmond.

"Fogarty had time to decide how he would do so (approach Cunningham), and he did so by swinging his right arm forcibly in the direction of Cunningham's upper body and head."

Gleeson says that Cunningham may have been lower than Fogarty expected, but the Sydney player did not do something untoward or unforeseen in his movement.

He says Fogarty's actions were careless, that Cunningham was concussed and took no further part in the game, and that he will miss at least one more game due to concussion protocols.

Craig,

The AFL's rules for interchanges are important, we see what happens when teams don't apply them correctly.

But it would seem to be sensible thinking that reducing the impact of a player's injury and making sure of their safety was more important - at a critical time - than ensuring that an interchange is made perfectly.

One argument put by Mr Baum for Fogarty was that Sydney's Cunningham, although he had to be helped up by support staff, was able to gather himself after a period of walking with help, and was able to half-jog off the ground.

This, according to Mr Baum, separated this case from concussed players who have been knocked out.

So, after just short of 80 minutes of evidence and submissions, the panel is deliberating over the charge.

The question revolves around whether a "reasonable player" would have done what Fogarty did, and that the resulting concussion was due to a football act and not an intentional act to make contact.

If the panel rejects the charge of striking, then they can consider the alternate charge of "rough conduct".

Not sure how long this one will go for, but it's not necessarily straightforward.

Submissions end with Andrew Woods KC saying the AFL's position on one precedent called by Fogarty's side for medium impact - a tackle by Adelaide's Jordan Dawson on Collingwood's Jack Crisp - does not apply because Crisp was not concussed.

The chair, Jeff Gleeson KC, moves the panel into deliberations.

Mr Baum continues, referring to Fogarty's evidence that he was aware - thanks to the coaching from the club and AFL - of the need to have a duty of care.

Although the contact is made high, it's merely a high contact, not an intentional act causing high contact, because the tackle "changes significantly" and that Fogarty had to make "split-second decisions".

"Cunningham's position when he landed was different from when the tackle was applied," Baum says.

"Mr Cunningham was lower than he (Fogarty) expected, we say that a reasonable player would have made a similar assessment.

"And the fact the contact was slightly too high ... does not mean this was a dangerous tackle."

Mr Baum says that Fogarty after making contact then brings his hands down to grab the ball, stating that the intent was to get possession, rather than hitting Cunningham high.

He says there was "no backward swing" and no follow-through or attempt to drive the arm through the Swans player.

Mr Baum continues, referring to the concept of the "reasonable player" who would know that the high contact was inevitable, says the reasonable player has to be someone in Fogarty's position, not someone "who has eyes in the back of his head".

He goes on to say that not every contact above the shoulder constitutes a strike, and that - as his client said - the intent and the footage shows a wrapping motion with an open palm.

Fogarty's counsel, Nicholas Baum, says the guidelines make reference to a forceful swing when tackling.

"If that's separate to strikes, the guidelines must be dealing with it as something other than a strike."

He says the incident should be considered as rough conduct, dangerous tackle.

Mr Woods KC says it was no surprise the incident resulted in a concussion.

 The contact "was flush, it was direct, and it was on a player whose eyes were on the ball, so he was vulnerable in that moment".

"Cunningham goes to ground, he is visibly severely impacted.

"He remains on the ground and requires the help of support staff to get up and exit the field."

Mr Woods KC moves to his submissions, and says that Fogarty drawing back his arm as far as he did before the swing was definitely careless.

"It's a breach of duty of care, he should have known ... that swinging his arm in that position was going to lead to a forceful high strike."

He says a player can't get out of a charge because of a "football act".

"Fogarty has a clear view of Cunningham as he went for the ball.

"There may have been a different expectation ... but the person who jumps up is always going to come back down.

"A reasonable and prudent player would not have done this."

The AFL counsel asks again about swinging his arm, and Fogarty denies doing it.

"No, I was just trying to wrap him up. But I knew I was gonna make contact - and his momentum was heading towards my right," Fogarty says.

The Crows forward repeats his intent was to wrap Cunningham up, and didn't consider using both hands.

Andrew Woods KC suggests that Fogarty's approach was "an inherently dangerous" one. Fogarty rejects this.

As the questioning continues, Fogarty rejects the suggestion he tried to hit the head.

He denies he tried to swing his arm at Cunningham, and said he didn't intend to strike him at all.

This meant whether or not to tackle Cunningham.

Fogarty says he expected the Swan to put his arms up and release the ball.

He says he originally expected his arm to make contact with the mid-chest.

"I was just trying to wrap him up and execute the tackle ... I adjusted as much as I could to try and get low whilst he went low. I tried to get my arms as low as I could."

Fogarty says that when Cunningham began to drop, he leaned forward.

And that he was trying to wrap him up rather than strike him.

Mr Baum calls Darcy Fogarty.

He says clubs tell players a lot on how to avoid hitting players high.

The key he says is to "protect the head".

He says his initial intention was to try and grab the ball, but once he saw Cunningham was going to get there first, "I had to weigh up if he was going to take it or not."

The AFL counsel says Cunnungham was concussed, he had to leave the field. He failed a HIA, and was into concussion protocols.

He will miss at least 12 days and one match.

Fogarty's counsel, Nicholas Baum, says his client disputes that his conduct constitutes a strike, and that if it did, the impact should be high, not severe.

The AFL's counsel Andrew Woods KC, says that if the Tribunal finds against striking, they wish to seek the alternate charge of rough conduct with the same classification.

Harry Cunningham was unable to continue in Friday night's game, after the high tackle from Adelaide's Darcy Fogarty (Getty Images)

Without wishing to put the arguments before the hearing, some obvious lines of prosecution and defence are there.

From the AFL perspective, the fact that Fogarty's tackle was high, and Harry Cunningham was left concussed as a result of the contact means, presumably, that Fogarty did not live up to his duty of care.

From the Crows' side of things, no doubt they will say that it was a contest in the wet, that Fogarty was doing his job trying to earn a holding the ball free close to goal in a big game - and that his attempted tackle was a football act, and so not worth three weeks.

We will see what transpires, but which side of the coin it lands between accident / football act and duty of care will probably decide how many weeks Fogarty misses, or whether he misses any at all.