MRP / Trib. Charlie Cameron gets a week for dumping tackle on Lever - Tribunal = down to a fine.

[Hollow Knight]

If only he received the sort of generous umpiring Hawkins gets. The reality is Hawkins gets away with a lot.

Yep imagine watching Hawkins and Selwood combine for over 500 games and unironically complaining about players from other clubs getting favourable treatment.

Wowee!

 

[Gavin Excell]

If only he received the sort of generous umpiring Hawkins gets. The reality is Hawkins gets away with a lot.

Laughable

 

[Neese]

Just want consistency in decision making. It's obviously too hard though.

 

[CarterS]

Facebook and Insta comments on this story are very toxic, unsurprisingly.

 

[CarterS]

The reality he is treated more favourably than others

Discounts for good records at the tribunal go back years and years

Here's an extract from the 2009 Tribunal Handbook:

Deductions
25% of the base points shall be deducted if the player has not been found guilty of any reportable offence within the previous five AFL years. If the player’s only reportable offence(s) in the previous five AFL years have been financial sanctions, he still qualifies for the 25 per cent deduction.

This whole "good bloke tax" thing is a beat up, the rule has been there in some form for over 15 years

 

[CarterS]

Full Tribunal Decision - https://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl...sion-result-brisbane/65acfc87759132cc196b0983

See Parts in Bold in quote below

They specifically say that the character references alone are not enough to downgrade! This point has been completely ignored.

but

when combined with the fact that it was already on the lower end of medium, there was no injury or even discomfort to Lever, Lever had one arm free and hence wasn't defenceless, and he is much smaller.

But the media have completely ignored these aspects of the decision and cherry picked their headlines for outrage bait, and people have been sucked in.

As I said in another post, for years and years under the old tribunal system you would get a points discount for having a good record.

Full AFL Tribunal Reasons Transcript For Cameron Decision​

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.

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

8

Jake Lever

Age

28

Ht

194cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.6

4star

K

9.7

4star

HB

4.9

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.3

3star

MG

242.0

4star

D

9.6

2star

K

6.5

3star

HB

3.1

2star

M

3.9

4star

T

1.3

2star

MG

145.4

3star

D

16.0

4star

K

11.0

4star

HB

5.0

4star

M

6.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

189.8

4star

, 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.

 

[HairyO]

Full Tribunal Decision - https://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl...sion-result-brisbane/65acfc87759132cc196b0983

See Parts in Bold in quote below

They specifically say that the character references alone are not enough to downgrade! This point has been completely ignored.

but

when combined with the fact that it was already on the lower end of medium, there was no injury or even discomfort to Lever, Lever had one arm free and hence wasn't defenceless, and he is much smaller.

But the media have completely ignored these aspects of the decision and cherry picked their headlines for outrage bait, and people have been sucked in.

As I said in another post, for years and years under the old tribunal system you would get a points discount for having a good record.

The Tribunal said Medium. They could have just gone with Low for those reasons.

Instead they created a mess all on their own.

And the AFL stupidly didnt appeal.

 

[BF Tiger]

Discounts for good records at the tribunal go back years and years

Here's an extract from the 2009 Tribunal Handbook:



This whole "good bloke tax" thing is a beat up, the rule has been there in some form for over 15 years

You’ve had to dig out a handbook from 2009 to defend a bloke who started his career in 2014… in the year 2024.

 

[CarterS]

You’ve had to dig out a handbook from 2009 to defend a bloke who started his career in 2014… in the year 2024.

Point was that this supposed “good bloke tax” stuff has been a part of the system for over 15 years and people have only cottoned onto it this week.

 

[Freddy Swift]

Except he’s not exactly an exemplary player with a good record is he? He has in fact been found guilty 5 times in the past but only fined, not suspended.

He’s clearly not learning by being let off continually is he?

 

[Consolaçao]

Right outcome, appalling reasoning. They've literally said he's "unusual" because there is more "than half" of the players in his category.

I would like at this time to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the AFL leaders - past, present and emerging.

I agree. That failure of logic in that reasoning is just amazing. Bigfooty standard argumentation.

 

[BF Tiger]

Point was that this supposed “good bloke tax” stuff has been a part of the system for over 15 years and people have only cottoned onto it this week.

1. He doesn’t have a good record.
2. You’re referencing an old system. Points discounts and other good bloke taxes went out years ago. If they didn’t find me a tribunal handbook from this decade that gives deductions.

And I also note that Cameron would not have been eligible for deductions as listed in 2009 because has been found guilty of any reportable offence within the previous five AFL years.

 

[CarterS]

1. He doesn’t have a good record.
2. You’re referencing an old system. Points discounts and other good bloke taxes went out years ago. If they didn’t find me a tribunal handbook from this decade that gives deductions.

And I also note that Cameron would not have been eligible for deductions as listed in 2009 because has been found guilty of any reportable offence within the previous five AFL years.

Yes you are correct that there is no automatic discount for a good record in the current system. Re your Point 1, what counts as a good record and what doesn't is open to opinion. No definition in the hand book. No suspendable offences in 10 years qualifies as good if you ask me.

I'll refer back to the decision itself:

The have literally spelt out in plain text that his record of not being suspended, itself is not enough to downgrade. See red bold.

He left an arm free (so he could protect himself) and he wasn't injured. And there was no significant difference between that tackle and others graded as low impact.

[Discussion of his record]

"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.

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."

Whether point 3 is relevant or not is another argument entirely and I would agree that bit shouldn't be taken into consideration.

Haven't seen any media even mention points 1 or 2 this week.

Cooney had a 2 game suspension discounted to 1 in 2015 and it caused a similar reaction to this decision.

 

[Miluxx]

Love what Fages said. 'Interview the tribunal. I didn't make the decision'.

I feel like this is a storm in a teacup that could of been avoided by the tribunal grading it as low impact. It was in no way medium impact.

 

[SuperMal]

Impact was low

No Melb Doctors report

Lever did not go off the ground

Lever had no concussion test

Lever contributed to the appearance of serious impact.

It should never have been rated as Medium to begin with.

The ‘Good person’ discount should never have been dug up.

 

[PTizzle]

Impact was low

No Melb Doctors report

Lever did not go off the ground

Lever had no concussion test

Lever contributed to the appearance of serious impact.

It should never have been rated as Medium to begin with.

The ‘Good person’ discount should never have been dug up.

This is the crux of the issue, I think. There have been at least 5 worse tackles this year that have only been a fine or not even cited. The AFL stuffed up with the impact. Given it is a massive chook raffle they should have at least stuck with it, but they've tried to invent a new reasoning to get out of their own decisions.

People going after Charlie are pathetic. As always, it's an issue with a lack of consistency at the tribunal.

 

[Neese]

Yep what gets cited, what doesn't, different gradings for similar things. It's all a lottery and subjective.

 

[BF Tiger]

This is the crux of the issue, I think. There have been at least 5 worse tackles this year that have only been a fine or not even cited. The AFL stuffed up with the impact. Given it is a massive chook raffle they should have at least stuck with it, but they've tried to invent a new reasoning to get out of their own decisions.

People going after Charlie are pathetic. As always, it's an issue with a lack of consistency at the tribunal.

I agree, and it gets back to Chrisso’s general incompetence (or bias) in the MRO role. Is does make wonder if an MRP might have come to a different decision.

I’m also wondering Chrisso might now take “good bloke tax” into account in his decision making. He’s such fool I fear he just might… “the strike was there but just last week I saw <insert Collingwood player> on TV at the homeless shelter and decided that he couldn’t possibly deserve a suspension considering the work he goes in the community”.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I'd encourage everyone to post their favourite Charlie Cameron moments in this thread, thank you.

Tonight:

 

[BubbleBass]

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Art, old boy. I take it you didn't sleep too well last night. Terrible nightmares filled with country roads and motorbike fumes. It'll all be over in a few days, don't worry.

You arrogant clown
How many times has it played tonight?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Art, old boy. I take it you didn't sleep too well last night. Terrible nightmares filled with country roads and motorbike fumes. It'll all be over in a few days, don't worry.

Prophetic. Assume you were talking the Lions season being over. Been a pleasure to end it in April

 

[Elixuh]

Tonight:

It’s why I was so surprised about the fear in your posting earlier in the week! You should be able to get a good nights sleep tonight, you must be exhausted. I’m relieved for you.

 

[Jemaine]

You arrogant clown
How many times has it played tonight?

They must've lost the tape hahaha

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

It’s why I was so surprised about the fear in your posting earlier in the week! You should be able to get a good nights sleep tonight, you must be exhausted. I’m relieved for you.

You’ve dribbled nothing but s**t all week. In fact all you post is crap.
Enjoy the loss