Bomber Evans shielded his eyes from the flashes that burst around him, the photographers yelling for him to look in their direction.

Evans shook his head, still shocked to find himself at the AFL Tribunal on a cold Tuesday night. Ten minutes later the three members of the Tribunal, chaired by Roger Hollis QC, took their seats and the hearing began.

McGee announced that he would act as Evans’s Player’s Advocate. The Reporting Officer read out the charge: "For misconduct in that player Shawn Evans No. 32 of the Essendon Football Club did strike player Broadbent No. 2 of the Carlton Football Club in the head." McGee pleaded not guilty on Bomber Evans’s behalf.

The Reporting Officer indicated he would call Umpire Shanahan to give evidence. Shanahan made it clear that he did not see the incident and could shed no further light on Broadbent’s injury. He agreed that Broadbent had emerged from the pack holding his head, that he seemed genuinely distressed, and that player Evans had clearly protested his innocence and in fact blamed Broadbent’s team-mate McLaren.

The Chairman asked if he had seen Evans’s elbow in the air, and Umpire Shanahan replied that there were too many players in the pack to be sure what was going on. "I believe Broadbent was hit, but I have no idea who did it," he concluded.

McGee asked the next witness, Umpire Smith, if it was possible that the injury had been caused by McLaren. "Of course," he replied, "anything is possible in that situation. And I have to say, player Evans seemed genuine in his protestations of innocence."

Evans was called. He told the same story – he was off balance, his elbow hit the ground hard, he had never made contact with Broadbent, but he had seen McLaren’s elbow hit Broadbent's face, although he was careful to characterise that as an accident.

"Would McLaren know it was his elbow that did the damage?" the Reporting Officer asked.

"He couldn’t help but feel it," Evans replied.

Next to be called to give evidence was McLaren, who appeared to be very pleased with himself. "It wasn’t me, that’s all I know. I never touched him. Why would I lie about it? If it was me…well, these things happen on a footy field, even more often at training…I would have apologised to Broady and bought him a beer after the game."

Next the two video excerpts were shown. The footage from Channel 7 was of no value, little more than a confusion of players. The second video, obtained from Footy Cable (and the source of the photos in the Herald-Sun), was more graphic. Evans’s elbow was clearly raised, and it looked as though it was moving away from Broadbent’s head as he regained his balance. It showed Broadbent accusing Evans, and Evans looking very surprised indeed, obviously proclaiming his innocence.

McGee summed up the case on behalf of Evans. Evans had never been reported, he argued, and he had consistently and strenuously denied the charge from the very beginning. He reminded the Tribunal that there was no real evidence of the alleged offence, and of the extreme ramifications on Evans and the club if he was suspended.

"Also," McGee continued, "I take the greatest offence at the breach of the rules of natural justice in this case. We have a right to know the exact charge against our player. Instead, the charge is merely that he did strike his Carlton opponent." He paused and looked at the Tribunal members. "Did Broadbent have the ball when he was allegedly struck? This is important, because a player with a ball is allowed to be legally tackled, and Evans would have to be shown to have struck Broadbent on purpose to sustain a charge of striking." He shook his head. "There was no specificity in the charge, and what charge exists has not in the slightest been made out. This case should be dismissed."

The Tribunal left the room to consider its decision, but quickly returned.