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

Remove this Banner Ad

Art Vandelay_ said:
Didn't even change the impact verdict down to low and still got him off.
Murphy retired from football today as a result of concussion and tonight the tribunal does this.

More rule changes at years end coming no doubt.
Click to expand...

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/te...s/news-story/d8bbc3c456ec95797341e75fca889257

The Lions pled guilty but attempted to lower the impact grading from medium to low (which would mean a fine), and if that failed, attempted to reduce the sanction due to Cameron’s “exemplary record and character”.

The Tribunal found the incident itself would have been graded medium, but was borderline enough that they were happy to use their discretion to downgrade it to low impact, resulting in a fine.
 
M Malice said:
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/te...s/news-story/d8bbc3c456ec95797341e75fca889257

The Lions pled guilty but attempted to lower the impact grading from medium to low (which would mean a fine), and if that failed, attempted to reduce the sanction due to Cameron’s “exemplary record and character”.

The Tribunal found the incident itself would have been graded medium, but was borderline enough that they were happy to use their discretion to downgrade it to low impact, resulting in a fine.
Click to expand...
"The Tribunal found the incident itself would have been graded medium" so they should have stopped exactly there and graded at is they saw it, without considering the other irrelevant information submitted - unless they are changing the rules for everyone moving forward. Joke of a ruling.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

From the tribunal's reasoning:
"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."

So in other words, more than half of 200+ game players have never been suspended, and Charlie Cameron is in that majority, yet somehow he's in a minority and thus we let him off?

 
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.
 
“These matters are not irrelevant when we come to exercise our discretion in respect of a first suspendable offence when no injury was suffered”

So if the player doesn’t get injured it’s ok?
The above statement is just mind blowing.
Surely it’s the action that needs to suspended.
Some players will get concussed from it some won’t. Everyone is different and built different.
Why the hell are we “waiting FOR players to get concussed”?
Suspend the action for **** sake.
 
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...
Good thing for his next report that he remains suspension free after tonight then.
 
What a joke the tribunal is. That is just truly unbelievable.

“Oh, he’s a good bloke so he can get away with a bit more.”

Next week “we found him guilty - on the basis of his rough upbringing, has only played 32 games, rude haircut - and have you seen the tats?? - we have elected to increase the suspension from 1 to 2 weeks. The tribunal feels that we need to send a clear message to parts of the playing group that the head is sacrosanct, as is good-blokiness.”
 
Elixuh said:
I'm going to sing Country Roads extra loud in the stands on Saturday night
Click to expand...

Yep, for every person who whinges in this thread I am going to sing one extra decibel louder.

Disappointing how many people here just hate football and joy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Footy_Fan2007 said:
“These matters are not irrelevant when we come to exercise our discretion in respect of a first suspendable offence when no injury was suffered”

So if the player doesn’t get injured it’s ok?
The above statement is just mind blowing.
Surely it’s the action that needs to suspended.
Some players will get concussed from it some won’t. Everyone is different and built different.
Why the hell are we “waiting FOR players to get concussed”?
Suspend the action for * sake.
Click to expand...
I.think they wanted him off and invented the rationale like they did Maynard
 
Hollow Knight said:
Yep, for every person who whinges in this thread I am going to sing one extra decibel louder.

Disappointing how many people here just hate football and joy.
Click to expand...


Genuinely one of my favourite moments at the Gabba, that sequence.
 
Elixuh said:
Genuinely one of my favourite moments at the Gabba, that sequence.
Click to expand...

I literally saw Port players stop and look up at the crowd then drop their head after the second singing. They knew they’d lost their control of the game and the crowd.
 
Vivy said:
Ol mate was ready with all the responses, got hit with only 1 fact and has aborted mission. Unfortunate.
Click to expand...

It was a fact but not a relevant one. They also noted that Lever was entirely uninjured and didn’t reject the Lions’ argument that Lever contributed to the impact.

But maintain the rage bro. I’m still angry about Joel Selwood punching Andrew Raines behind play, then copping one back. Raines got three weeks and Selwood got nada.

Agendas abound.
 
Hollow Knight said:
It was a fact but not a relevant one. They also noted that Lever was entirely uninjured and didn’t reject the Lions’ argument that Lever contributed to the impact
But maintain the rage bro. I’m still angry about Joel Selwood punching Andrew Raines behind play, then copping one back. Raines got three weeks and Selwood got nada.

Agendas abound.
Click to expand...
And now you've moved away from your original argument. Took one post. And still can't dispute the itty bitty one fact. Unfortunate.
 
Vivy said:
And now you've moved away from your original argument. Took one post. And still can't dispute the itty bitty one fact. Unfortunate.
Click to expand...

My original argument was actually a pretty obvious shitpostusing the “prove me wrong” meme that you decided to respond to with a complete lack of humour, so I’m just playing along at this point.
 
Vivy said:
Ol mate was ready with all the responses, got hit with only 1 fact and has aborted mission. Unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Will you mute the TV at home on Saturday night every time King Charles kicks a goal and Country Roads rolls?

Vroom vroom
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

VicBased
Barass a week/Cameron gets off come on AFL.
Replies
22
Views
841
VicBased
VicBased
1990crow
News AFL Tribunal appeals board upholds Houston's 5 Week Suspension
32 33 34 35 36
Replies
893
Views
27K
Eshay187
Eshay187
P
  • Poll
MRP / Trib. Higgins - 3 weeks for Aliir tackle
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
128
Views
4K
PenfoldsFan
P
Leather Poisoning
Driving an elbow into a player who's on the ground - should it get weeks?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
ThatsjustDappa
ThatsjustDappa
Waspy79
Kosi Pickett Gets 3 Weeks
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
4K
Stax on the mill
S
kreuze_missile
"If you make an attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled, even if it's an incorrect attempt, it's play on"
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
gbatman
gbatman
Colonial
Tackling banned?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
3K
FlowersByIrene
FlowersByIrene

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top