![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/north_melbourne.png)
TennisPlayerAndy
Game #6 Klay
- Apr 1, 2008
- 59,139
- 105,823
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Raiders, GSW, QPR, NYM
So they should.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Finals Wk 1
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 1 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Hope the Bedford one goes the same way, although there are significant differences, because that tackle was not “likely” to cause injury either.Reasons:
The decision of the Tribunal really revolved around the AFL Tribunal guidelines.
It had particular emphasis on guideline 4.3(E) Rough Conduct and subrule three of that guideline dealt with dangerous tackles and described rough conduct as being unreasonable in the circumstances.
There were four factors which the guidelines recommended the Tribunal to look at.
One of the factors was whether or not the tackled player was left in a vulnerable position, and the second factor taken into account by the Tribunal was whether Cameron had slung, driven or rotated his opponent into the ground with excessive force.
The Tribunal made a finding that the conduct of Cameron was unreasonable in the circumstances.
However, what the Tribunal did not do was deal with the elements of the charge which is set out in the laws of Australian Football. In particular, what the Tribunal did not deal with was Law 18.7, which is entitled ‘Rough Conduct’.
That rule provides as follows, 18.7.1, spirit and intention, players should be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player which is likely to cause injury.
We accept that the Tribunal below found the conduct to be unreasonable, which is one element of the offence, but it completely failed to consider the second critical element of the offence, that is whether the conduct was likely to cause injury.
Absent that consideration and absent any reference to law 18.7, we consider that the Tribunal below fell into an error of law that had a material impact on its decision.
Unless and until the Tribunal had material upon which it could make a finding that the conduct of Cameron was likely to cause injury, it could not find that Cameron had committed any offence.
And in a sense, we were assisted by the video, because we of course, read the transcript and looked closely at the video.
It couldn't be said by any member of this board that it leads us to the conclusion the conduct of Cameron was likely to cause injury.
It would have been a matter that would be open to a Tribunal to make that finding or not. But in this case, made no such finding.
It was not referred to law 18.7 and it made no reference in its reasons to the existence of law 18.7 or the two elements, the two important elements which needed to be established to establish the guilt of Cameron - the charge of rough conduct.
We've dealt in the past with the guidelines; we've said in the past that the guidelines give assistance to the Tribunal below, its chairperson, and the players and the clubs, but reliance wholly solely upon the guidelines was another error that we perceive the Tribunal fell into.
Whether or not it had any material effect, is another question that we don't need to determine in light of the reasons we've given above.
But it's important the laws of Australian football have primacy over the guidelines if there is any contradiction or inconsistency. And here law 18.7 very clearly states, not only must the conduct be unreasonable, but the conduct must be found to be likely to cause injury, and it's that second element that the Tribunal was completely silent upon.
Accordingly, it's not necessary for us to go on and determine the reasonableness ground of appeal, it's not necessary for us to do so, and we don't descend into adjudicating upon that second ground of appeal.
So for the reasons we've given above, the appeal by Cameron is allowed, and the order of the appeal board is that the charge put against Cameron before the Tribunal and on appeal to this appeal board is dismissed.