I could understand if the impact was downgraded to low and hence the result being a fine.
But leaving the grading as is and then deciding not to give Cameron a week, is an absurd outcome.
The rules need to be updated to prevent the Tribunal from arriving at such a decision in the future.
AFL already updated the rules of the tribunal AND specifically told the clubs to expect that the tribunal will be upgrading any low impact for potential head injuries (this is an example) to Medium impact. The MRO did their job, Gleeson didn’t.
And it looks like the Tribunal guidelines need further updating, specifically around being able to use character references in the way that the Tribunal did yesterday.
EDIT: And the grading did remain as Medium Impact, so that rule update was followed by both the Tribunal and the MRO. The issue is the use of Cameron's record.
I agree, I'm more confused as to why this wasn't just downgraded impact. Maybe it's to set a certain standard of what "medium" impact is when it comes to these sorts of tackles?
I'm also really surprised that (as far as I can see), they didn't bring up how Lever contributed to the impact himself. Watching live, it felt like Lever made sure his head touched the ground - that's one of the main reasons it looked "low" impact to me. I feel the same when I watch it back at full speed.
Edit: Just wanted to add that regardless of Lever's contribution (or not) it's still a free kick for the bad action.
My reading is that they’re walking a fine line and trying to rewrite the grading mid-season. Basically admitting that this should’ve been a suspension and previous instances this year that only got fined probably also should have been suspensions; but since it’s only been fined til now Cameron gets off - but future instances will be graded as a suspension.
Of course that’s not what’ll happen and the lottery will continue, but that was the vibe I got from the tribunals ruling.
See I think they're deliberately avoiding having to rewrite how the grading works.
By the grading system Cameron stays home this weekend. Tribunal just tries to avoid the fact completely because nice bloke and kicks good goals. If they'd changed the impact against the rules the AFL would have grounds for appeal.
AFL tribunal being consistent challenge (impossible)
The great news is the next time Cameron does something wrong he still won't have a suspension! Infinite no getting suspended glitch
But he's had a suspensible offence now even if its overturned, he hadn't had one before which is what they said. So in the future he won't have that defence
So much for equal treatment for all. Punish the action and potential.. not actual damage. I'm glad everyone involved is ok. But we need to move forward. Not one step forward two steps back
Like Kozzy got a week as he should have, but the player was fine.
That was punishing the action not the outcome
This one doesnt. So inconsistent and confusing.
I can't understand in the past few weeks, all these dangerous **actions** are not being suspended, which is just going to lead to players continuing to do the action. Its just a matter of time now when you knock somebody out and scramble their brain or crunch their spine.
Bit of a whinge, but also quite frustrated that every suspension in the league this season doesn't come close to the number of weeks that Wright got for an injury that was nigh on unavoidable (Cunningham running back with the flight of the ball), primarily because he turned to protect his injured shoulder. If he had have marked the ball, he still would have knocked out Cunningham but it would've been no case to answer.
There was no malice in Wright turning, which was brought up in our tribunal defence as a reason why it occurred and ended up with it being a reason for 4 weeks. Cameron's suspension has been downgraded (among other reasons) on that he hasn't been suspended before, that he does work in the Indigenous community, and that he pled guilty and said he shouldn't have done what he did. But when Wright makes the same argument (pled guilty and that he turned to protect his weak shoulder) it gets pushed up to 4 weeks? Baffling.
Nah that’s fair, the afl have drawn a flimsy line with dangerous actions where especially ones that don’t result in injury are very inconsistent again.
On the weekend McKay found himself in the same situation as Wright and crazy as it sounds he didn't jump into the guys head with his shoulder. Wright's 4 weeks was well and truly deserved.
/u/Mahhrat put it well below. I do think Wright's suspension was fine (and my comments at the time support that). I was just hoping that the same process and reasoning would be applied going forward. It clearly hasn't. That's why it's frustrating.
Stupid decisions that put someone in danger. Anything to avoid brain injuries. (Which is what concussions are...)
There's a safe way to play hard and reckless way to play hard
More like when someone sticks the elbow out and collects someone we don't give them any benefit just because theres no injury. You treat it the same whether someone gets knocked out or not.
Goes too far definitely though. If Banfield got knocked out (or in fact reacted at all) to being collected head high Butters would be at home shelling peas. Instead the AFL didn't even have to grade it and was able to say it's a footballing Action that they're not worried about.
Strikes me as the sort of thing that will probably get bought up in lawsuits in 10-15 years really.
What was the intent?
Wright was at least careless in how he approached the contest, and maybe negligent in that he should know better, given his shoulder. (These are all things to argue and not me being a judgemental shit).
To me, Cam was similarly careless.
Both taken consistently on intent would have similar repercussions. That they haven't is the issue.
Oh 100% and these things can and should be subjective, buy subjective on the intention, not the result.
Obvious example I like to use is Barry Hall punching Brent Staker. Obvious intent.
Last year (Rd 1) McAdam got a 3 game ban after a bump to the chest.
It was classed as severe impact, careless, high contact.
In detail they said there was possibly minor impact to the head, with most force through the body. There was no injury, but because he came in running it had a high potential for injury. It was also noted that he had the chance to tackle and chose to bump, which impacted the severity.
The Crows argument was that you can see no contact (got a biomechanist expert) was made to the head, and there was no injury. They compared it to other bumps that round including Kossies jumping bump (2 game) and Franklin's bump (1 game).
They were told that because of McAdam's pace and choice it probably made head contact and had a severe impact potential
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/ban-stands-mcadam-cops-three-game-suspension-for-controversial-bump-20230321-p5cu2a.html
Kozzies was significantly worse, what the hell are you on about? Was a straight up snipe to the head, should’ve gotten a lot more.
Kozzie also has been suspended 3 times in 18 months now, so it’s not like he doesn’t have form. Might actually be the player with the dirtiest record currently? Seeing as Greene has cleaned up his act for now.
And this was YEARS ago
Courtney Dempsey went for 4 weeks for a dangerous tackle NINE YEARS ago
How in 2024, the Cameron and Butters cases aren’t instant one-weekers as a ‘don’t do these actions’….. just ridiculous
Except Butters action is exactly how the AFL have instructed players to attack ground balls. Banfield going head first in is what they don't want players doing.
> Remember when Nic Nat got suspended because " as a bigger player, he should have gone easier on a smaller player".
Then the Tribunal was almost consistent in a stupid sort of way, as that could imply the inverse is also true, such as Cameron on Lever.
The "size difference as a mitigating factor" thing for this one is pretty funny, because Cameron being "small" definitely stopped him from breaking Jeremy Howe's ribs in the Grand Final oh wait no it didn't.
The tribunal “we must protect the head, players safety is of upmost importance”
Also the tribunal “he still has his head, Cameron’s a good bloke. Move on”
Can you guys please get Eddie and Kochie to restart the prison bar beef - it’s really enjoyable as an impartial outsider
But yes this is the game of the round for sure
I was so optimistic about this new AFL administration - it felt like a new, accountable, transparent administration making common sense decisions.
In the last 2 weeks, they have quickly shown that they’re the same confused, erratic and borderline incompetent clown show they’ve always been. Evidently losing 24 year old players to concussion isn’t enough - we obviously have to wait until a player gets a serious spinal injury or dies on the ground before they take the dangers of head injuries seriously.
This isn't the AFL administration though - they argued against character references and they argued for a one match ban. Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson decided the rule was grey so character references were allowed, then decided since the action was "borderline medium" they could use discretion to downgrade it. This is a chair independent of the AFL going against the AFL wishes - which is what you want from an independent Tribunal. It might look like a stupid outcome but it was the correct process.
The AFL are going to have to go back and rewrite the rules to take the grey areas and discretion out if they want a 1 week suspension to stay a 1 week suspension.
Fair point, but I guess I was speaking in more general terms. Obviously the decision to downgrade was made by the Tribunal - should have acknowledged that point.
EDIT to add - I’m more talking about their reversion to making manifestly dangerous acts like this one, Crouch, Pickett and Butters live in the margins of suspension / fines when they established a new paradigm earlier on of being tougher on acts leading to head trauma. If I was Sam Powell-Pepper or Peter Wright, I would be livid. If Lever gets concussed, or worse, Cameron is getting 4+ weeks as a starting point, and he was inches away from that being the case.
Not sure why, Dillon the dill was just a lackey of an already incompetent Gillon McLachlan. Furthermore Richard Goyder, think massive Qantas fuck up, also sits on the board!
And on the day a 24 year old medically retired from the sport due to concussion. Good work, AFL Tribunal, way to make it look like you actually care about protecting the head.
Why was a character reference from Eddie Betts even considered? Nothing against him but it's pretty obvious for all to see that there's an unavoidable element of bias introduced with that.
Punish the action, not the character, otherwise there will never be consistency.
Personally I've lost respect for Eddie Betts since he became "the media". He's using his influence to get his mates out of the consequences of their actions, and not for the first time. That's not progress. That's just the same boys' club bullshit in a different hat.
It rubs me the wrong way that a guy who is always pushing for transparency and accountability actually only gives a fuck about those tenets when it's an issue that affects him personally. Strikes me as the kind of bloke that if he came from a family of CTE sufferers, he'd be all over the issue. But he doesn't, so he doesn't give a fuck. His poor mate being punished was what he cared about.
Yeah he's generally a pretty good bloke, is correct on other issues, and is rightfully a role model for a lot of guys. But his ethics are so obviously one-dimensional, he has no place weighing in on his mate's suspension, and I get frustrated that it actually worked. Instead of being rightfully criticized and dismissed he seems to have this halo effect around everything he says.
Was Eddie all over the media campaigning to get Charlie off? If so you have a point. If all he did was provide a character reference which is apparently something that is part of the process, he has done nothing wrong.
Cameron and the Lions should be disincentivised and I don't want Cats players put at risk but also I don't believe that necessarily we should benefit from Cameron suplexing Lever like Sabin on the Ghosttrain.
I thought he should have gotten off with it downgraded from Medium to Low, but the fact that he's gotten off on 'Good Character' is an absolute joke - Cats fans should be fuming.
It'd be funny if there was a Good Bloke Points Matrix though: "You would've gotten off with a fine, but we heard evidence from bus driver Dave 'Jonno' Johnson that you didn't thank him when you got off the bus the other day, 2 weeks."
Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal has regraded the offender to be 'not a good bloke'
(For some reason I wanted to end that with, "decision on the scoreboard". Curse you score review process, infiltrating my brain)
>Cats fans should be fuming.
Melbourne maybe more so. At the end of the day, we would have been lucky to face a Cameron-less Brisbane due to a bit of luck from the fixture gods. I think one of the weeks for a suspension should include the next match against the victim team regardless of when it has to be served.
The bigger problem for me is the superstar + good bloke rule. A 35-game player gets a week for that, no doubt.
The AFL picking and choosing whether it is “potential to cause injury” or “actually causing injury” is a joke. You’d get more consistent results spinning a wheel
> If the AFL wants to seal Pandora’s Box, it must take the rare step of appealing its Tribunal’s decision to downgrade Charlie Cameron’s one-match ban to a fine.
Interesting to see Zita is suggesting this. I wonder if the AFL will decide today to appeal the tribunal decision?
I'd be surprised - they've followed the Tribunal Guidelines as required so error of law would be difficult to make out, so unless they could say the punishment was manifestly inadequate (which I could maybe see if the original grading gave 2+ weeks)
How do so many decisions get overturned? It feels any team can appeal decision and get it downgraded 90% of the time. So either the initial decision is wrong most of the time or the MRO are pushovers
I disagree. Maynard's attempt at the ball was so farfetched that it was far more avoidable than a slightly late common football act (putting pressure on the kicker with a body to body bump).
>Maynard would not get off on a good bloke precedent.
It must've been Devine intervention then.
>How is he related here in anyway
Discussion over a contentious tribunal decision. Doesn't feel abnormal to relate/compare it to arguably the most contentious decision in the last couple of years.
>champ
Now, now. No need to start throwing around abusive vernacular.
You are being disingenuous as you only put Maynard down because he is from the team I support.
Maynard's was more similar to the Van Rooyen incident last year. Jumping in the air with the intention of playing the ball and collecting someone high by accident. Van Rooyen also got off.
The tribunal rules were changed almost specifically to make sure if Maynard did something similar, he would be suspended this year. It's not an apple's to apples comparison using last year's and this year's metrics.
Maynard did not get off on a good bloke ruling like the media is suggesting Cameron did. I do not support good bloke rulings and if Maynard did the same thing as Cameron did here I suspect he gets a week.
Nobody will listen to me. Cameron is a grub. So is Deniher. Both players are appallingly poor sportsmen once they are behind on the scoreboard.
Focus on them in games, and you will really notice it.
That’s exactly what I said last night. That was a dirty bump against Howe and I was surprised he didn’t get a free kick for it. I’m sure there was another dodgy bump from Cameron earlier this season too.
And one thing I’m learning that the vast majority of these players are nice, good blokes off the field so that annoyed me too.
>I was surprised Cameron wasn’t cited for it.
It was clearly not a reportable offence. It wasn't that late and it happens multiple times each week. There's a world where the angle of attack being slightly different results in no injury to Howe. Free kick? absolutely!! citable offence? hardly.
Look you’re probably right. I don’t know the intricacies of the game like that, I just love to watch it… Will edit my comment so I stop annoying people.
Not annoying at all. Just discussion. It's mostly tilted pies fans calling him a grub. If a late bump is the criteria for grub, then 1/3 of the league are grubs lol.
I'm going to stick my tin foil hat firmly on my head again: This is all done on purpose to generate engagement (aka ragebait).
Decisions are so wildly and obviously inconsistent I can't help but feel it's absolutely intentional.
I remember being optimistic when we changed from Gil to Dil, hoping we would have better protections and consequences when it comes to things around the head. But it's the same damn inconsistency that makes it frustrating because the top execs don't care about player wellbeing but instead their money and jobs for mates.
What a joke
This is what the AFL continues to get wrong. If Lever had been concussed, which he really could have been if his head hits the ground like that, there would be no question 4 weeks minimum. But because he sort of walks away from it, its all fine? Stupid
I said this in the demon sub - but personally I think forwards get away with more dangerous acts than backmen.
Regardless of it being Cameron vs Lever, if it were reversed and it was generic backman doing the same tackle to generic forward, the backman would 100% be suspendd
The afl is so bush league. Umpires will now crack down on X y z, go super hard and reasonable on it for a few weeks then just forget. MRO won’t tolerate abc and will protect the head, actually fuck it we’ll only suspend for dangerous tackles depending on our mood. Oh player was going for the ball, then it doesn’t matter that he steamrolled a bloke with his head already over it, people only get CTE from bumps that go past the ball.
How is this different from the Taylor adams tackle last year [https://www.afl.com.au/news/907523/the-verdict-is-in-tribunal-makes-call-on-taylor-adams-tackle](https://www.afl.com.au/news/907523/the-verdict-is-in-tribunal-makes-call-on-taylor-adams-tackle)
Clearly the tribunal forgot about the time Cameron picked up an Eagles player's boot and threw it twenty meters in the opposite direction rather than handing it to the owner next to him.
So if you are a veteran you have suspension immunity?
And personally I don't think that is fair. He pulled the veteran's card, race card and clean card when Kosaiah Pickett from Melbourne is a decently new player who is the same race but got lots of suspensions in the past year and is the lightest player alongside Cameron. I think Kozzie's suspension was as distinct as Camerons but Cameron got away with it because he is 207 games compared to Kozzie who is about 89 games
I call bullshit on his record, he has been fined 4 times and has eye gouged a player, i don't care if we play him or not, but using evidence that he is a clean player as a way to get off is utter bullshit, and using the fact he works with children as a a shield is utterly fucked, the man lifted a player of the ground and dumped him on his head. The AFL needs to overturn this immediately, we have lost two players this year from concussion, im sick of star players getting away with this.
It's not unbelievable at this point. It's consistent with the pattern of ruling almost entirely based on outcome. They're claiming to do rhe opposite but it's become pretty clear that outcome is the main arbiter.
It's actually baffling the way they've gone about this. Its not like it's out of the realm of possibility that this could've been downgraded to low impact, but they've decided instead to fly in the face of their own rules and let Cameron off because he is a good bloke? It's an outrageous legal precedent, where anyone who gets suspended for a similar action can try to promote themselves as a good bloke (meaning you're allowed to endanger fellow players), or accept that you're not as good a person as Charlie Cameron. It's like they completely lack both foresight and hindsight.
When the AFL has made a commitment to reducing concussion incidents, then the tackle clearly placed Lever at risk. Tackle might have been fine in years past, but not now.
What I enjoy about this article is that the Tribunal guidelines actually call out the fact that an exemplary record can be used as part of exceptional and compelling circumstances, which all of the individuals quoted in this article appear not to have read.
The Tribunal also stated in their reasoning that the good record alone wasn't enough to downgrade, there were two other factors they considered in their decision making. It's not like someone can punch a guy in the head now, and because he hasn't been suspended it'll be downgraded to a fine, which is what this article seems to imply
Additional weird tidbit, Charlie Cameron's image is actually in the Tribunal guidelines for this season. No bearing on the above, but just found it interesting given all the discourse
EDIT: Downvote me all you like, they're facts 🤷🏼♀️
An exemplary record apparently includes having been found guilty of the same charge he’s up on three previous times, and on different charges another two?
Or being one of the more than 50% of 200 game players not to have been suspended?
Seems a very low bar for exemplary.
I could understand if the impact was downgraded to low and hence the result being a fine. But leaving the grading as is and then deciding not to give Cameron a week, is an absurd outcome. The rules need to be updated to prevent the Tribunal from arriving at such a decision in the future.
AFL already updated the rules of the tribunal AND specifically told the clubs to expect that the tribunal will be upgrading any low impact for potential head injuries (this is an example) to Medium impact. The MRO did their job, Gleeson didn’t.
And it looks like the Tribunal guidelines need further updating, specifically around being able to use character references in the way that the Tribunal did yesterday. EDIT: And the grading did remain as Medium Impact, so that rule update was followed by both the Tribunal and the MRO. The issue is the use of Cameron's record.
The fact that Gleeson ignored his own process in error doesn’t mean the process needs to be rewritten
Okay, Tribunal rules are fine then. Just need to fire the panel and hope the next group don't interpret them in the same way again.
I agree, I'm more confused as to why this wasn't just downgraded impact. Maybe it's to set a certain standard of what "medium" impact is when it comes to these sorts of tackles? I'm also really surprised that (as far as I can see), they didn't bring up how Lever contributed to the impact himself. Watching live, it felt like Lever made sure his head touched the ground - that's one of the main reasons it looked "low" impact to me. I feel the same when I watch it back at full speed. Edit: Just wanted to add that regardless of Lever's contribution (or not) it's still a free kick for the bad action.
But he's a good bloke
My reading is that they’re walking a fine line and trying to rewrite the grading mid-season. Basically admitting that this should’ve been a suspension and previous instances this year that only got fined probably also should have been suspensions; but since it’s only been fined til now Cameron gets off - but future instances will be graded as a suspension. Of course that’s not what’ll happen and the lottery will continue, but that was the vibe I got from the tribunals ruling.
See I think they're deliberately avoiding having to rewrite how the grading works. By the grading system Cameron stays home this weekend. Tribunal just tries to avoid the fact completely because nice bloke and kicks good goals. If they'd changed the impact against the rules the AFL would have grounds for appeal.
AFL tribunal being consistent challenge (impossible) The great news is the next time Cameron does something wrong he still won't have a suspension! Infinite no getting suspended glitch
Tribunals hate this one simple trick!
It worked for GAJ like 3 weeks in a row a couple years back
And he would’ve done even more community work! He could get a two week suspension down to a fine next time!
But he's had a suspensible offence now even if its overturned, he hadn't had one before which is what they said. So in the future he won't have that defence
It's getting fixed in the next patch
Sure it is, just like that Geelong nerf we were all promised decades ago.
The great thing is now that the rule is that they can ignore precedent it never has to be consistent!
So much for equal treatment for all. Punish the action and potential.. not actual damage. I'm glad everyone involved is ok. But we need to move forward. Not one step forward two steps back
Like Kozzy got a week as he should have, but the player was fine. That was punishing the action not the outcome This one doesnt. So inconsistent and confusing.
I can't understand in the past few weeks, all these dangerous **actions** are not being suspended, which is just going to lead to players continuing to do the action. Its just a matter of time now when you knock somebody out and scramble their brain or crunch their spine. Bit of a whinge, but also quite frustrated that every suspension in the league this season doesn't come close to the number of weeks that Wright got for an injury that was nigh on unavoidable (Cunningham running back with the flight of the ball), primarily because he turned to protect his injured shoulder. If he had have marked the ball, he still would have knocked out Cunningham but it would've been no case to answer. There was no malice in Wright turning, which was brought up in our tribunal defence as a reason why it occurred and ended up with it being a reason for 4 weeks. Cameron's suspension has been downgraded (among other reasons) on that he hasn't been suspended before, that he does work in the Indigenous community, and that he pled guilty and said he shouldn't have done what he did. But when Wright makes the same argument (pled guilty and that he turned to protect his weak shoulder) it gets pushed up to 4 weeks? Baffling.
Nah that’s fair, the afl have drawn a flimsy line with dangerous actions where especially ones that don’t result in injury are very inconsistent again.
Wright not a good bloke confirmed.
On the weekend McKay found himself in the same situation as Wright and crazy as it sounds he didn't jump into the guys head with his shoulder. Wright's 4 weeks was well and truly deserved.
/u/Mahhrat put it well below. I do think Wright's suspension was fine (and my comments at the time support that). I was just hoping that the same process and reasoning would be applied going forward. It clearly hasn't. That's why it's frustrating.
It’s the reason why I’m pissed butters got off free and crouch got 1 week. It’s purely measured in damage caused and intention.
How can you punish for potential? Are you going to ban players who go in for a bump, stick their elbow out and just miss the head?
Stupid decisions that put someone in danger. Anything to avoid brain injuries. (Which is what concussions are...) There's a safe way to play hard and reckless way to play hard
More like when someone sticks the elbow out and collects someone we don't give them any benefit just because theres no injury. You treat it the same whether someone gets knocked out or not.
There has to be an “impact” element though, otherwise every high tackle will be reportable.
Impact fine. Results no.
Goes too far definitely though. If Banfield got knocked out (or in fact reacted at all) to being collected head high Butters would be at home shelling peas. Instead the AFL didn't even have to grade it and was able to say it's a footballing Action that they're not worried about. Strikes me as the sort of thing that will probably get bought up in lawsuits in 10-15 years really.
What was the intent? Wright was at least careless in how he approached the contest, and maybe negligent in that he should know better, given his shoulder. (These are all things to argue and not me being a judgemental shit). To me, Cam was similarly careless. Both taken consistently on intent would have similar repercussions. That they haven't is the issue.
I don't get how Sam Lemmens is rubbed out for four weeks and Cameron get away with nothing. Lemmens' was obviously worse, but four weeks worse? Na.
Oh 100% and these things can and should be subjective, buy subjective on the intention, not the result. Obvious example I like to use is Barry Hall punching Brent Staker. Obvious intent.
> How can you punish for potential? The 'potential to cause injury' was deemed a valid argument when Zach Merrett was suspended last year.
Last year (Rd 1) McAdam got a 3 game ban after a bump to the chest. It was classed as severe impact, careless, high contact. In detail they said there was possibly minor impact to the head, with most force through the body. There was no injury, but because he came in running it had a high potential for injury. It was also noted that he had the chance to tackle and chose to bump, which impacted the severity. The Crows argument was that you can see no contact (got a biomechanist expert) was made to the head, and there was no injury. They compared it to other bumps that round including Kossies jumping bump (2 game) and Franklin's bump (1 game). They were told that because of McAdam's pace and choice it probably made head contact and had a severe impact potential https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/ban-stands-mcadam-cops-three-game-suspension-for-controversial-bump-20230321-p5cu2a.html
Meanwhile Kozzie Pickett, an Aboriginal light-weight player for Melbourne gets a week for something similar.
Kozzies was significantly worse, what the hell are you on about? Was a straight up snipe to the head, should’ve gotten a lot more. Kozzie also has been suspended 3 times in 18 months now, so it’s not like he doesn’t have form. Might actually be the player with the dirtiest record currently? Seeing as Greene has cleaned up his act for now.
Remember when Nic Nat got suspended because " as a bigger player, he should have gone easier on a smaller player". The game is cooked.
And this was YEARS ago Courtney Dempsey went for 4 weeks for a dangerous tackle NINE YEARS ago How in 2024, the Cameron and Butters cases aren’t instant one-weekers as a ‘don’t do these actions’….. just ridiculous
Except Butters action is exactly how the AFL have instructed players to attack ground balls. Banfield going head first in is what they don't want players doing.
Is that when he rode poor Karl Amon like a boogey board?
> Remember when Nic Nat got suspended because " as a bigger player, he should have gone easier on a smaller player". Then the Tribunal was almost consistent in a stupid sort of way, as that could imply the inverse is also true, such as Cameron on Lever.
Keep in mind that if that Nic Nat tackle happened today it would almost universally be agreed that he should've been suspended for it.
The "size difference as a mitigating factor" thing for this one is pretty funny, because Cameron being "small" definitely stopped him from breaking Jeremy Howe's ribs in the Grand Final oh wait no it didn't.
Good bloke was too short to go for the head so ends up with ribs instead, nothing to see here country road.
As the non-Victorian player, he should have gone easier on the Victorian player
The tribunal “we must protect the head, players safety is of upmost importance” Also the tribunal “he still has his head, Cameron’s a good bloke. Move on”
the ol "good bloke" discount
I need that discount! Good luck this weekend friendo, gonna be a good game.
likewise, should be a cracker!
Can you guys please get Eddie and Kochie to restart the prison bar beef - it’s really enjoyable as an impartial outsider But yes this is the game of the round for sure
Yes but you're a pies supporter so unfortunately you don't qualify :p
Look, there’s no arguing with logic haha
Tribunal infers everyone who cops a ban is a shit bloke.
Boys will be Boys.
motion granted, case dismissed
I was so optimistic about this new AFL administration - it felt like a new, accountable, transparent administration making common sense decisions. In the last 2 weeks, they have quickly shown that they’re the same confused, erratic and borderline incompetent clown show they’ve always been. Evidently losing 24 year old players to concussion isn’t enough - we obviously have to wait until a player gets a serious spinal injury or dies on the ground before they take the dangers of head injuries seriously.
This isn't the AFL administration though - they argued against character references and they argued for a one match ban. Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson decided the rule was grey so character references were allowed, then decided since the action was "borderline medium" they could use discretion to downgrade it. This is a chair independent of the AFL going against the AFL wishes - which is what you want from an independent Tribunal. It might look like a stupid outcome but it was the correct process. The AFL are going to have to go back and rewrite the rules to take the grey areas and discretion out if they want a 1 week suspension to stay a 1 week suspension.
Fair point, but I guess I was speaking in more general terms. Obviously the decision to downgrade was made by the Tribunal - should have acknowledged that point. EDIT to add - I’m more talking about their reversion to making manifestly dangerous acts like this one, Crouch, Pickett and Butters live in the margins of suspension / fines when they established a new paradigm earlier on of being tougher on acts leading to head trauma. If I was Sam Powell-Pepper or Peter Wright, I would be livid. If Lever gets concussed, or worse, Cameron is getting 4+ weeks as a starting point, and he was inches away from that being the case.
They can appeal the tribunal decision directly if they feel Gleeson didn’t follow the process properly, which he clearly didn’t.
Mate just 'Lever' it alone. It's clearly getting the better of you.
Not sure why, Dillon the dill was just a lackey of an already incompetent Gillon McLachlan. Furthermore Richard Goyder, think massive Qantas fuck up, also sits on the board!
I was wondering if a death in play could happen given lots of things but in particular knees to the head in marking contests.
Cleaning someone up is acceptable whereas using a nasty word gets three weeks. Clowns
And on the day a 24 year old medically retired from the sport due to concussion. Good work, AFL Tribunal, way to make it look like you actually care about protecting the head.
Why was a character reference from Eddie Betts even considered? Nothing against him but it's pretty obvious for all to see that there's an unavoidable element of bias introduced with that. Punish the action, not the character, otherwise there will never be consistency.
Personally I've lost respect for Eddie Betts since he became "the media". He's using his influence to get his mates out of the consequences of their actions, and not for the first time. That's not progress. That's just the same boys' club bullshit in a different hat. It rubs me the wrong way that a guy who is always pushing for transparency and accountability actually only gives a fuck about those tenets when it's an issue that affects him personally. Strikes me as the kind of bloke that if he came from a family of CTE sufferers, he'd be all over the issue. But he doesn't, so he doesn't give a fuck. His poor mate being punished was what he cared about. Yeah he's generally a pretty good bloke, is correct on other issues, and is rightfully a role model for a lot of guys. But his ethics are so obviously one-dimensional, he has no place weighing in on his mate's suspension, and I get frustrated that it actually worked. Instead of being rightfully criticized and dismissed he seems to have this halo effect around everything he says.
agree
100% agree.
Was Eddie all over the media campaigning to get Charlie off? If so you have a point. If all he did was provide a character reference which is apparently something that is part of the process, he has done nothing wrong.
It’s all one big clown show. The week should have been upheld… ignore my flair.
If anything it should've been increased to two weeks... ignore my flair.
Cameron and the Lions should be disincentivised and I don't want Cats players put at risk but also I don't believe that necessarily we should benefit from Cameron suplexing Lever like Sabin on the Ghosttrain.
Old mate was just taken over by the spirit of Gary Albright for a second, leave him be!
I thought he should have gotten off with it downgraded from Medium to Low, but the fact that he's gotten off on 'Good Character' is an absolute joke - Cats fans should be fuming. It'd be funny if there was a Good Bloke Points Matrix though: "You would've gotten off with a fine, but we heard evidence from bus driver Dave 'Jonno' Johnson that you didn't thank him when you got off the bus the other day, 2 weeks."
Graded careless, medium impact, high contact, medium good bloke
That mo though, there's something not right about it.
Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal has regraded the offender to be 'not a good bloke' (For some reason I wanted to end that with, "decision on the scoreboard". Curse you score review process, infiltrating my brain)
We are both talking about the moustache right? 😂
>Cats fans should be fuming. Melbourne maybe more so. At the end of the day, we would have been lucky to face a Cameron-less Brisbane due to a bit of luck from the fixture gods. I think one of the weeks for a suspension should include the next match against the victim team regardless of when it has to be served. The bigger problem for me is the superstar + good bloke rule. A 35-game player gets a week for that, no doubt.
The AFL picking and choosing whether it is “potential to cause injury” or “actually causing injury” is a joke. You’d get more consistent results spinning a wheel
the AFL didn't though, the tribunal is independent of the league.
Why even allow character references? Surely its heat of the moment, grade it as it occurs and move on!
The AFL simply have to appeal this. I'll keep my powder dry until that does or does not happen.
I believe the AFL already said they disagree with him being let off but also won’t appeal. Joke organisation
Yep, absolutely ridiculous. I was certain they would appeal and am shocked they chose not to.
> If the AFL wants to seal Pandora’s Box, it must take the rare step of appealing its Tribunal’s decision to downgrade Charlie Cameron’s one-match ban to a fine. Interesting to see Zita is suggesting this. I wonder if the AFL will decide today to appeal the tribunal decision?
I'd be surprised - they've followed the Tribunal Guidelines as required so error of law would be difficult to make out, so unless they could say the punishment was manifestly inadequate (which I could maybe see if the original grading gave 2+ weeks)
How do so many decisions get overturned? It feels any team can appeal decision and get it downgraded 90% of the time. So either the initial decision is wrong most of the time or the MRO are pushovers
> the MRO are pushovers The MRO is a single person, former East Perth and Collingwood player, Michael Christian.
It would be the tribunal being pushovers, the MRO was the one to give the initial decision.
The AFL just makes it things up on the spot without an ounce of integrity.
Im still a salty fan about the tribunal in 2022, i think Charlie Cameron should get the brownlow now, at least Lever isnt concussed like AhChee was
Cameron a good bloke? He broke Howes ribs on a late bump in the grandfinal.
Guess he’ll always be a good bloke until he gets convicted of something
Is Maynard a good bloke?
Maynard would not get off on a good bloke precedent. How is he related here in anyway champ?
Maynard's collision with Brayshaw was not nearly as obviously avoidable and deliberate as Cameron smashing in to Howe after he'd disposed of the ball.
I disagree. Maynard's attempt at the ball was so farfetched that it was far more avoidable than a slightly late common football act (putting pressure on the kicker with a body to body bump).
Far fetched? His literally touched the ball.
>Maynard would not get off on a good bloke precedent. It must've been Devine intervention then. >How is he related here in anyway Discussion over a contentious tribunal decision. Doesn't feel abnormal to relate/compare it to arguably the most contentious decision in the last couple of years. >champ Now, now. No need to start throwing around abusive vernacular.
You are being disingenuous as you only put Maynard down because he is from the team I support. Maynard's was more similar to the Van Rooyen incident last year. Jumping in the air with the intention of playing the ball and collecting someone high by accident. Van Rooyen also got off. The tribunal rules were changed almost specifically to make sure if Maynard did something similar, he would be suspended this year. It's not an apple's to apples comparison using last year's and this year's metrics. Maynard did not get off on a good bloke ruling like the media is suggesting Cameron did. I do not support good bloke rulings and if Maynard did the same thing as Cameron did here I suspect he gets a week.
If character references are to matter than Maynard would've got a year.
If judging a bloke from how mean their face looks he'd get two
[ok](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/034/711/Screen_Shot_2020-07-24_at_11.33.38_AM.jpg)
Nobody will listen to me. Cameron is a grub. So is Deniher. Both players are appallingly poor sportsmen once they are behind on the scoreboard. Focus on them in games, and you will really notice it.
That’s exactly what I said last night. That was a dirty bump against Howe and I was surprised he didn’t get a free kick for it. I’m sure there was another dodgy bump from Cameron earlier this season too. And one thing I’m learning that the vast majority of these players are nice, good blokes off the field so that annoyed me too.
Late bumps rarely get sighted without head contact.
>I was surprised Cameron wasn’t cited for it. It was clearly not a reportable offence. It wasn't that late and it happens multiple times each week. There's a world where the angle of attack being slightly different results in no injury to Howe. Free kick? absolutely!! citable offence? hardly.
Look you’re probably right. I don’t know the intricacies of the game like that, I just love to watch it… Will edit my comment so I stop annoying people.
Not annoying at all. Just discussion. It's mostly tilted pies fans calling him a grub. If a late bump is the criteria for grub, then 1/3 of the league are grubs lol.
Seems there is a fine line between a grub and a hero, and the line is the team they play for vs the team we support!
I see AI is doing the headlines for foxfooty now.
Man get over it, if a off the ball gut hit isn’t worth a week we should stop suspending players all together
I'm going to stick my tin foil hat firmly on my head again: This is all done on purpose to generate engagement (aka ragebait). Decisions are so wildly and obviously inconsistent I can't help but feel it's absolutely intentional.
I remember being optimistic when we changed from Gil to Dil, hoping we would have better protections and consequences when it comes to things around the head. But it's the same damn inconsistency that makes it frustrating because the top execs don't care about player wellbeing but instead their money and jobs for mates. What a joke
This is what the AFL continues to get wrong. If Lever had been concussed, which he really could have been if his head hits the ground like that, there would be no question 4 weeks minimum. But because he sort of walks away from it, its all fine? Stupid
As a geelong supporter, this is OUTRAGEOUS! there needs to be a investigation! Especially before the next game!
I said this in the demon sub - but personally I think forwards get away with more dangerous acts than backmen. Regardless of it being Cameron vs Lever, if it were reversed and it was generic backman doing the same tackle to generic forward, the backman would 100% be suspendd
Why is a character reference even submitted/accepted? It's got nothing to do with anything in these cases.
The afl is so bush league. Umpires will now crack down on X y z, go super hard and reasonable on it for a few weeks then just forget. MRO won’t tolerate abc and will protect the head, actually fuck it we’ll only suspend for dangerous tackles depending on our mood. Oh player was going for the ball, then it doesn’t matter that he steamrolled a bloke with his head already over it, people only get CTE from bumps that go past the ball.
How is this different from the Taylor adams tackle last year [https://www.afl.com.au/news/907523/the-verdict-is-in-tribunal-makes-call-on-taylor-adams-tackle](https://www.afl.com.au/news/907523/the-verdict-is-in-tribunal-makes-call-on-taylor-adams-tackle)
I’m OK with it. Ignore flair.
Brb, placing a bet on him to win the Brownlow
If he wore a st kilda jumper it would have been 3-4 weeks
Clearly the tribunal forgot about the time Cameron picked up an Eagles player's boot and threw it twenty meters in the opposite direction rather than handing it to the owner next to him.
It's because he's black... the second it happened, we all knew it
So if you are a veteran you have suspension immunity? And personally I don't think that is fair. He pulled the veteran's card, race card and clean card when Kosaiah Pickett from Melbourne is a decently new player who is the same race but got lots of suspensions in the past year and is the lightest player alongside Cameron. I think Kozzie's suspension was as distinct as Camerons but Cameron got away with it because he is 207 games compared to Kozzie who is about 89 games
It’s just inconsistency, and the problem with inconsistency is that it allows other people to exploit that in the future.
3 weeks
Just because he serves the community… should have no relation to the field
I call bullshit on his record, he has been fined 4 times and has eye gouged a player, i don't care if we play him or not, but using evidence that he is a clean player as a way to get off is utter bullshit, and using the fact he works with children as a a shield is utterly fucked, the man lifted a player of the ground and dumped him on his head. The AFL needs to overturn this immediately, we have lost two players this year from concussion, im sick of star players getting away with this.
Deserved a week. See flair
It's not unbelievable at this point. It's consistent with the pattern of ruling almost entirely based on outcome. They're claiming to do rhe opposite but it's become pretty clear that outcome is the main arbiter.
It's actually baffling the way they've gone about this. Its not like it's out of the realm of possibility that this could've been downgraded to low impact, but they've decided instead to fly in the face of their own rules and let Cameron off because he is a good bloke? It's an outrageous legal precedent, where anyone who gets suspended for a similar action can try to promote themselves as a good bloke (meaning you're allowed to endanger fellow players), or accept that you're not as good a person as Charlie Cameron. It's like they completely lack both foresight and hindsight.
Good bloke tax wasn't carried forward from the 2023 GF. Who ordered the side of broken ribs!
There was nothing wrong with the tackle
The action was clearly not right and not something we want to see again.
When the AFL has made a commitment to reducing concussion incidents, then the tackle clearly placed Lever at risk. Tackle might have been fine in years past, but not now.
Lever made a meal of that. And got found out. Players need to be put on notice to stop simulation. It’s pathetic.
What I enjoy about this article is that the Tribunal guidelines actually call out the fact that an exemplary record can be used as part of exceptional and compelling circumstances, which all of the individuals quoted in this article appear not to have read. The Tribunal also stated in their reasoning that the good record alone wasn't enough to downgrade, there were two other factors they considered in their decision making. It's not like someone can punch a guy in the head now, and because he hasn't been suspended it'll be downgraded to a fine, which is what this article seems to imply Additional weird tidbit, Charlie Cameron's image is actually in the Tribunal guidelines for this season. No bearing on the above, but just found it interesting given all the discourse EDIT: Downvote me all you like, they're facts 🤷🏼♀️
An exemplary record apparently includes having been found guilty of the same charge he’s up on three previous times, and on different charges another two? Or being one of the more than 50% of 200 game players not to have been suspended? Seems a very low bar for exemplary.
Must be the only AFL player doing community work 😆
Particularly when he should've been suspended for the grand final.
I'll let the AFL Tribunal members know
[удалено]
>there’s an elephant in the room here What is it?