RICHMOND has successfully had Eilish Sheerin's charge downgraded at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night, with the star midfielder fined just $200 and cleared to play against Hawthorn in Week 10.

Sheerin was initially charged by the Match Review Officer with making intentional contact with an umpire, but the charge was downgraded to making careless contact in a two-and-a-half-hour Tribunal hearing.

Sheerin was sent straight to the Tribunal after the initial charge, but the Tribunal, chaired by Renee Enbom KC with panellists David Neitz and Michelle Dench, was unconvinced the contact was intentional and forceful, therefore the charge was downgraded to careless, attracting a fixed financial sanction of $200. Had Sheerin been found guilty of making intentional contact, it would have been up to the Tribunal to determine an appropriate sanction.

The incident in question involved a push from Sheerin on Essendon's Georgia Nanscawen that caused the Bomber to fall into the path of an umpire, which in turn sent the umpire tumbling to the ground during Saturday night's Dreamtime match in Darwin.

The incident occurred during a stoppage in the final two minutes of the match, when Sheerin, who was positioned around the ball-up, pushed her opponent Nanscawen into the path of the umpire, who was running backwards away from the contest after throwing the ball into the air. Nanscawen's head and shoulders made contact with the umpire's hip, causing the umpire to fall backwards onto the ground.

At Tuesday night's hearing, the AFL submitted that the contact was intentional as the push against Nanscawen was forceful, Sheerin knew where the umpire was, Sheerin made a conscious decision to push Nanscawen into the umpire's path, and that therefore contact with the umpire was inevitable given the proximity of the umpire.

The AFL contended that forcefully pushing an opponent into an umpire is a clear breach of the duty of care owed to umpires.

Richmond submitted that the contact was not intentional but merely careless, as the push wasn't forceful but umpire contact occurred due to the position of the umpire and Sheerin's understanding of an umpire's usual movements in backing out of a stoppage.

The Tigers contended the umpire fell due to location of the contact made to her, which was low down and therefore had a destabilising effect, rather than being due to the force of the push.

Richmond's counsel Jonathan Barreiro argued that Sheerin's push was not only a normal football action but "good football craft" as she "never took her eye off the ball".

Sheerin gave evidence during the hearing, admitting that while she was "obviously very strong", she didn't use her full strength in pushing Nanscawen away to create space at the stoppage, instead claiming that she was merely extending her arms into the side of Nanscawen.

"We're taught to body-on with our opponent, I'm using my body so I own the space at this stoppage. I'm nudging my player towards the stoppage to create more space for me and a greater competitive advantage," she said.

"Correct stoppage craft would be to use my advantage. She showed me her back, so I'm trying to minimise her space by pushing her towards the ruck contest."

Sheerin said that while she knew the umpire would likely run backwards out of the stoppage after throwing the ball up, she denied intending for Nanscawen to be in the umpire's path.

"I have awareness of where the umpire is. Am I looking at her? No, I'm looking at the ball at this stage," she said.

"This is my first season in the midfield, I've played 10 or so games there so I'm familiar [with how an umpire leaves a stoppage]".

When asked by the AFL's counsel Amara Hughes as to why she didn't body-on with Nanscawen in a similar fashion as other midfield match-ups around the stoppage, Sheerin said she was doing that, the only difference was that her teammates' opponents were "holding their body weight better" while Nanscawen wasn't, which caused her to fall over.

In giving the Tribunal's reasons for finding Sheerin guilty of careless contact rather than forceful, Ms Enbom said that Sheerin's evidence was consistent with the vision of the incident, that her push did not appear to include much force, and that the panel was not satisfied of Sheerin's intention to push Nanscawen into the path of the umpire.