CARLTON forward Lila Keck has had her one-match ban for rough conduct overturned at the AFLW Tribunal.

Keck will be available for the round two clash against Adelaide at Ikon Park.

Keck was cited for rough conduct after a tackle on St Kilda defender Bianca Jakobsson that was initially graded as careless, high contact and medium impact. 

The Blues successfully argued that the grading of the charge should be low, rather than medium. 

The Blues also pointed to the fact that Jakobsson did not require immediate assessment on the field after the incident, did not leave the field as a result of the incident and has shown no signs of concussion, despite the AFL arguing that Keck had pinned Jakobsson's arms and used excessive force. 

The Tribunal deliberated for just 30 minutes before reaching a verdict.

"We consider that low impact is the appropriate grading," Tribunal Chair Jeff Gleeson KC said.

"It is clear that Bianca Jakobsson's head strikes the ground with a degree of force and that she suffers some momentary discomfort. But she suffered no injury, did not leave the field as a result of the incident and resumed to her feet and rejoined fairly quickly," he continued. 

"It is true that some of the forces absorbed when Jakobsson's knees and then shoulder hit the ground first. We also note that both Keck and Jakobsson slowed their speed as Jakobsson bent to pick up the ball and Keck tackled her.

"This resulted in the speed of the players at impact and therefore the degree of force being reduced to some extent."

The Blues used examples of Jai Newcombe's tackle on Ed Richards in the AAMI Community Series and Billy Frampton's tackle on Matt Whitlock in round 18 as evidence to downgrade Keck's tackle.

"The tackles are different in certain respects, and both Newcombe and Frampton fall or manoeuvre themselves more to the side of the tackled player at the moment of impact, as compared to Keck, who landed largely on top of Jakobsson," Gleeson said. 

"But the actual force of the tackled players' head hitting the ground does not appear to us to be sufficiently different across the three matters to warrant a different outcome here.

"Accordingly, we classify the impact here as low."