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

[Chief]

every tribunal decision is based on money, is this player a brownlow chance? is he a premiership chance? any talk of community work is fluff.

I am sure a few are.

 

[bungalow_bill]

From now on, irrespective of other MRP sanctions, any player who has not been suspended before will be permitted to invoke the 'good bloke' defence and not receive a suspension for a suspendable offence. Charlie Cameron may use he status as "never suspended" at his next tribunal case, and so forth in an infinite loop. Once all players to have been previously suspended prior to 16/04/2024 have finished their careers, suspensions will cease to exist in the AFL.

The head remains sacrosanct.

I can understand some not agreeing with the decision but a few posters are becoming a little unhinged

There have been plenty of players suspended for an almost identical tackle that have not caused any damage. Neale got straight up and continued playing. He did not even leave the ground.

This is a classic case of not punishing the action, just the outcome.

Very silly stance in regard to that kind of tackle when potential to cause damage is very serious.

Very silly decision, but my opinion of course.

A punch to the gut has the potential to cause serious damage, intestinal bleeding for one. This kind of thuggery also needs to be removed from our game before someone is seriously injured or worse

 

[joe444]

We've already established it wasn't "because he's Aboriginal".

Whether it should have been considered is the next issue. I don't think so, see above.

Cool. Agree.
(and it's debatable whether five findings against you (albeit fines) ... so one offence every second season of your career ... is "exemplary" anyway)

 

[Dogflogger]

I am sure a few are.

pretty much all, unless your a bad enough player that barely anyone knows your name.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I can understand some not agreeing with the decision but a few posters are becoming a little unhinged


A punch to the gut has the potential to cause serious damage, intestinal bleeding for one. This kind of thuggery also needs to be removed from our game before someone is seriously injured or worse

no one was punched..........

 

[Sentinel]

I can understand some not agreeing with the decision but a few posters are becoming a little unhinged


A punch to the gut has the potential to cause serious damage, intestinal bleeding for one. This kind of thuggery also needs to be removed from our game before someone is seriously injured or worse

I'm clearly taking the piss. It's a ridiculously situation and I'm shocked the AFL have decided not to appeal it. I'd have no big problem with it had they just downgraded it to low impact, instead they've opened a can of worms.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Pushes head high/concussion agenda to ad nauseam levels, then lets player off cause hes been a good boy.

View attachment 1961989

Cripps won a Brownlow after knocking someone out. This Cameron decision is irrelevant at this point, the AFL don’t care.

 

[Elixuh]

Confirmed by the AFL that Good Bloke Charlie cannot be suspended until they change the guidelines!

Go get em Charie! Vroom vroom.

 

[_Big_D_]

The AFL have a duty of care to admit that it was overturned because Lever contributed to the danger. At the moment the rules are encouraging players to do what Lever did (throw his body at the ground), and it could result in them / coaches who encourage being sued.

 

[Hoops]

The tribunal did and so did the Lions as part of their defence.

They mention he works in the indigenous community but him being aboriginal was not used as a reason it was reduced to a fine.

Why did Charlie Cameron get off at AFL tribunal? Brisbane star avoids suspension for rough conduct charge | Sporting News Australia

Charlie Cameron has successfully fought a rough conduct charge with the AFL Tribunal recording an unprecedented outcome to allow the Brisbane star to play against Geelong on Saturday night.

www.sportingnews.com

 

[Demon in Hell]

But it wasn't overturned.

Cameron was found guilty of being careless, with medium impact and high contact.

Lever had nothing to do with it other than being the victim.

 

[Sentinel]

Let's not forget that close ot half of the players who have played over 200 games have been suspended, so we need to consider Charlie Cameron

23

Charlie Cameron

Age

29

Ht

180cm

Wt

76kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.1

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.5

5star

D

9.6

2star

K

7.9

3star

HB

1.7

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.7

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

9.6

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

4.2

4star

M

1.4

2star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.2

4star

's record of being in the small minority made up of over 50% who have not been suspended. The reasoning is sound.

 

[joe444]

Let's not forget that close ot half of the players who have played over 200 games have been suspended, so we need to consider Charlie Cameron's record of being in the small minority made up of over 50% who have not been suspended. The reasoning is sound.

(plus his exemplary record of having committed the same offence he was charged with three times before ... deserves a fine, surely, due to his exemplary record of always being fined ... it's spotless)

 

[Hoops]

Let's not forget that close ot half of the players who have played over 200 games have been suspended, so we need to consider Charlie Cameron's record of being in the small minority made up of over 50% who have not been suspended. The reasoning is sound.

Truth be told, I am surprised by that statistic, and I dare say that a minority of most of us would be too.

 

[LordLucifer]

So they used "he's aboriginal" ?

I think the phrase used was "his close work in the indigenous community" so you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what they were saying.

 

[Hoops]

I think the phrase used was "his close work in the indigenous community" so you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what they were saying.

Yeah, he does community work.

 

[questeds]

Honestly, I think he should have gotten the week. You can't be at the 'lower end' of medium impact - you're either low or medium. And using his character and past record, to me, is doing nothing but undermining the entire process. This is yet again highlighting what a debacle the appeal process is (yes I'm referring to Cripps).

 

[Chief]

I think the phrase used was "his close work in the indigenous community" so you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what they were saying.

As in "this isn't just a PR opportunity organised for him by his club and agent"?

 

[Dogflogger]

So will he be able to use his good behavior defense for any future tribunal cases?

 

[Kwickhatch]

Honestly, I think he should have gotten the week. You can't be at the 'lower end' of medium impact - you're either low or medium. And using his character and past record, to me, is doing nothing but undermining the entire process. This is yet again highlighting what a debacle the appeal process is (yes I'm referring to Cripps).

I genuinely believe it was low impact but that's not what they (the tribunal) found so it should be a week. I absolutely hate the "good guy" defence
As someone else posted I agree with the outcome but how they got there is a pisstake

 

[Corn Cobbers]

I genuinely believe it was low impact but that's not what they (the tribunal) found so it should be a week. I absolutely hate the "good guy" defence
As someone else posted I agree with the outcome but how they got there is a pisstake

Any aspect of "good guy off field" defence quite simply should not be allowed to stand, weak by the AFL and will open a can of worms

On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HairyO]

Let's not forget that close ot half of the players who have played over 200 games have been suspended, so we need to consider Charlie Cameron's record of being in the small minority made up of over 50% who have not been suspended. The reasoning is sound.

Also ignores the fact that fines replaced low-end suspension only about 10 years ago, so all the yester-year players who copped a week could well have only got a fine.

And it was only yesterday when mid-end suspensions became fines, sometimes.

 

[Hollow Knight]

So will he be able to use his good behavior defense for any future tribunal cases?

I think it’s pretty obvious that he won’t.

 

[delta_magpie]

Wouldnt Charlie get a suspended sentence? for being a good boy?
I mean hes such a good boy its unfathomable he would ever be in front of the tribunal again... so surely carry over suspension for next offense of that week (e.g 1 game becomes 2 game suspension etc)

And seriously its not like the AFL are sending him to prison for a week and he has to eat bread and water... its a game of Football FFS... why does being a good boy or working with indigenous community have ANYTHING to do with a potential long term brain injury to a player?

Isnt the exceptional circumstances clause in the rules to cater for incidents where (for example) an opposition player pulls off his football boot and tries to stab you with the studs..... and you belt him in the head for self defense?

 

[Pacman82]

Past good behaviour always seems to carry weight at the tribunal, so I can't see what the fuss is there.

The fact that he's done good work an any community shouldn't really effect the decision, & I doubt it really did in the eyes of the decision makers, I feel like it was just thrown in there as an extra little last ditch effort by us to get him off. For example if he was a raging alcoholic and well known womaniser, the decision would have been the same imo.