Unofficial Preview Changes & discussion Round 6 v Cats @ Gabba.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
not sure if someone has posted this



The AFL Tribunal found that this was 'medium' impact, but downgraded the sanction from a one-match ban to a fine based on exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Here are the full reasons on that:

We turn now to exceptional and compelling circumstances.We find that those circumstances do exist here.Cameron has played for 10 years without being suspended - 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority.

Only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games. Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more.

Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

This alone would not be enough in our view to result in us necessarily describing it as an exemplary record or, if it was, to exercise our discretion to downgrade.

We note in this matter Cameron has suffered five fines in his history, including three for rough conduct, the charge he faces tonight.It is however the case that he has not been suspended for 207 games.

The matters that cause us to downgrade this sanction from a one-week suspension to a fine commensurate with a low impact grading are as follows.

1) While this was careless, it was at the lower range of careless. Cameron knew Lever had one arm free. He is much smaller and lighter than Lever and, as he said, lost control of a tackle. If he didn't rotate 95-plus kilograms of Jake Lever, he would’ve landed squarely on his 74-kilogramme frame.It was careless but not grossly careless.We take into account Cameron's guilty plea, his acceptance that he could and should have released Lever’s arm.

2) While this was medium impact for the reasons we stated, Lever suffered no injury or apparent discomfort. The difference between this case and the three examples that were graded low impact was real but not significant.

3) The references from Eddie Betts and Gregory Egert provide impressive details of the work Cameron does in the Indigenous community.

He is a role model with an impressive AFL career, it is something for those he connects with aspire to.These matters are not irrelevant when we come to exercise our discretion in respect of a first suspendable offence when no injury was suffered and was neither intentional or grossly negligent.

Exceptional and compelling means what it says. It will be a rare case when all of the circumstances combine to result in an exercise of discretion to downgrade a sanction.This is such a case.

We determine in our discretion the appropriate sanction is the fine that would be imposed on Cameron if this was graded as low impact.
Click to expand...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The AFL Tribunal found that this was 'medium' impact, but downgraded the sanction from a one-match ban to a fine based on exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Here are the full reasons on that:

We turn now to exceptional and compelling circumstances.

We find that those circumstances do exist here.

Cameron has played for 10 years without being suspended - 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority.

Only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games.

Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more.

Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

This alone would not be enough in our view to result in us necessarily describing it as an exemplary record or, if it was, to exercise our discretion to downgrade.

We note in this matter Cameron has suffered five fines in his history, including three for rough conduct, the charge he faces tonight.
It is however the case that he has not been suspended for 207 games.

The matters that cause us to downgrade this sanction from a one-week suspension to a fine commensurate with a low impact grading are as follows.

1) While this was careless, it was at the lower range of careless.

Cameron knew Lever had one arm free. He is much smaller and lighter than Lever and, as he said, lost control of a tackle.
If he didn't rotate 95-plus kilograms of Jake Lever, he would’ve landed squarely on his 74-kilogramme frame.

It was careless but not grossly careless.
We take into account Cameron's guilty plea, his acceptance that he could and should have released Lever’s arm.

2) While this was medium impact for the reasons we stated, Lever suffered no injury or apparent discomfort.
The difference between this case and the three examples that were graded low impact was real but not significant.

3) The references from Eddie Betts and Gregory Egert provide impressive details of the work Cameron does in the Indigenous community.

He is a role model with an impressive AFL career, it is something for those he connects with aspire to.

These matters are not irrelevant when we come to exercise our discretion in respect of a first suspendable offence when no injury was suffered and was neither intentional or grossly negligent.

Exceptional and compelling means what it says.

It will be a rare case when all of the circumstances combine to result in an exercise of discretion to downgrade a sanction.

This is such a case.

We determine in our discretion the appropriate sanction is the fine that would be imposed on Cameron if this was graded as low impact.
 
Hollow Knight said:
I have no clear memory of the tribunal using good character as a mitigating factor… am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Bachar Houli a while ago. Swung a massive elbow and knocked someone out. Richmond brought in a bunch of high profile character references and managed to only get him two weeks.

The AFL appealed it because he just knocked a bloke out and concussions were starting to become more of a prevalent issue and got it back up to the expected four weeks.
 
Section 5 said:
The AFL Tribunal found that this was 'medium' impact, but downgraded the sanction from a one-match ban to a fine based on exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Here are the full reasons on that:

We turn now to exceptional and compelling circumstances.

We find that those circumstances do exist here.

Cameron has played for 10 years without being suspended - 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority.

Only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games.

Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more.

Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

This alone would not be enough in our view to result in us necessarily describing it as an exemplary record or, if it was, to exercise our discretion to downgrade.

We note in this matter Cameron has suffered five fines in his history, including three for rough conduct, the charge he faces tonight.
It is however the case that he has not been suspended for 207 games.

The matters that cause us to downgrade this sanction from a one-week suspension to a fine commensurate with a low impact grading are as follows.

1) While this was careless, it was at the lower range of careless.

Cameron knew Lever had one arm free. He is much smaller and lighter than Lever and, as he said, lost control of a tackle.
If he didn't rotate 95-plus kilograms of Jake Lever, he would’ve landed squarely on his 74-kilogramme frame.

It was careless but not grossly careless.
We take into account Cameron's guilty plea, his acceptance that he could and should have released Lever’s arm.

2) While this was medium impact for the reasons we stated, Lever suffered no injury or apparent discomfort.
The difference between this case and the three examples that were graded low impact was real but not significant.

3) The references from Eddie Betts and Gregory Egert provide impressive details of the work Cameron does in the Indigenous community.

He is a role model with an impressive AFL career, it is something for those he connects with aspire to.

These matters are not irrelevant when we come to exercise our discretion in respect of a first suspendable offence when no injury was suffered and was neither intentional or grossly negligent.

Exceptional and compelling means what it says.

It will be a rare case when all of the circumstances combine to result in an exercise of discretion to downgrade a sanction.

This is such a case.

We determine in our discretion the appropriate sanction is the fine that would be imposed on Cameron if this was graded as low impact.
Click to expand...
wow!


Just WOW!!!

Anyway, they owed us one
 
I've always found the tribunal a bit s**t when we lose or even when we win. Does this mean small guys have more leeway for rough conduct (when it is in the process of protecting their.. smallness?)

Lever suffered no discomfort. But that action not something we want to see.

Oh well, glad to see Charles play anyway. :)
 
jonnobackpocket said:
Love that Chuck got off but how they conduct themselves away from footy should have absolutely zero effect on a hearing. The fact Lever exaggerates the force and 3 other blokes have got off for the exact some thing should be the reason.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Right result but for the wrong reasons.
 
Nathan Barley said:
Crazy
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever read such gobbledegook in their lives ?

It sounds like it was written by a first year law student.

And then to try to tie it to them being somehow sensitive to the indigenous community.

Why highlight that ? It's a simple incident on a footy field that should be judged on its merits.

It seems that it's impossible for the AFL not to open a can of worms every time they have to deal with something contentious.

I really am a bit gobsmacked at the amateurish explanation of why they arrived at their decision. Too many words , too many things that didn't need to be said. Just downgrade it to low impact which it was.

Honestly these people are clowns. I don't think I'm going overboard there. It's footy, not politics.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I assumed (seeing the result on the background in the pub) that it was downgraded to low impact. That they have come out to say effectively "we are letting him off cause he's a good bloke" is actually insane.

Has anyone ever actually been suspended for a sling tackle that didn't result in a concussion yet? Is this the first year they have decided the action is worse then the outcome?
 
Anderson is the same guy who got Berry out of the BS “eye gouge” against Oliver. With his previous experience working for the AFL you’re way better off with him than the guy you used to use who constantly lost
 
FLVanLandingham said:
not sure if someone has posted this

Click to expand...

An entirely proper result - the rules are written the way they are for a reason. Meaning is to be given to the words. I already love watching media commentators trying to mis-explain the basis of the decision and say it stands for good guys all getting off - what a load of drivel.
 
Elixuh said:
lol John Ralph is livid on whatever show this is on fox about Charlie getting off
Click to expand...
Just saw and about to post the same thing. Ralph and Jay Clark, two absolute hacks having tantrums that CC got off; hilarious and citing would Pendlebury get off remembering only a fortnight ago he deliberately struck Lachie and the AFL was too pissweak to do anything.

And then they have a sook about the academy and father sons. Campaigners.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top