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

[D-N-R]

I think Charlie put a fair bit in that thinking he's up against a big, heavy opponent. Lever was possibly off balance or relaxed thinking the play was over and the tackle ended up looking more aggressive than it really was meant to be.

Lever complained but didn't look too dazed or hurt by the tackle. Right on the border for one week but I'm not sure it crosses it.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[Demon in Hell]

Typical Brisbane.......blame soneone else.

 

[Elixuh]

 

[Miluxx]

Great result. Was a sling tackle. But no where near medium impact.

 

[Elixuh]

Bad luck Geelong. You’re about to hear country road on repeat.

 

[Thedeftouch]

This is one time where the challenge is thrown out and another week added on for stupidity.

So close

 

[Happy_Neale]

Typical Brisbane.......blame soneone else.

What does this mean in this context?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Apparently they considered character and reputation in determining the judgement.

I’m assuming it was 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

’s.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

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.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Think it’s about right now hopefully we hear a Robbo meltdown to make it even better

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You should get SOME discount for 200+ games of good behaviour what’s wrong with it literally his first offence

 

[Sherrinator]

Typical Brisbane.......blame soneone else.

You’re a massive sook. Go cry on your own board.

 

[Sherrinator]

Apparently they considered character and reputation in determining the judgement.

I’m assuming it was Jake Lever’s.

Jake’s a big lever for sure

 

[Elixuh]

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.

 

[Hollow Knight]

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.

This post is clearly fixture related.

 

[Sherrinator]

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.

Aww bub. Wouldn’t have even commented if it was Brisbane v GWS.

 

[JackFlash]

A shocking decision, players can dump, sling or slam tackle all they want, the AFL don't have a definitive answer for it. Cameron should've copped an extra week, but oh no, the AFL come up with yet another insane contradictory take to it all.

 

[Elixuh]

Lot of Geelong supporters in here all of a sudden. Wonder why.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

This post is clearly fixture related.

Aww bub. Wouldn’t have even commented if it was Brisbane v GWS.

You three are weird.
Completely irrelevant responses.

FWIW I'd love 90% of tackle suspensions to not be penalised and quite a few of the two players contesting ball bump suspensions as well but this is the world the AFL is seeking to achieve.

If they don't like that players are using the tribunal system to get off they will tighten rules further.
Litigation is more important to them than anything else.

It is bad optics for the AFL to have players retire to concussion and tackles they're trying to be rid of getting off at the tribunal.
They'll make off season adjustments.

Tribunal also picks and chooses when character references hold weight. Certainly not applied consistently at all.

 

[Hollow Knight]

It is bad optics for the AFL to have players retire to concussion and tackles they're trying to be rid of getting off at the tribunal.
They'll make off season adjustments.

So the AFL should weight the punishment based on how recently a unassociated player retired due to concussion?

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Bent one moustache hair. Nothing in it. Play on.

 

[JasRulz63]

A shocking decision, players can dump, sling or slam tackle all they want, the AFL don't have a definitive answer for it. Cameron should've copped an extra week, but oh no, the AFL come up with yet another insane contradictory take to it all.

So frivolous the appeal was they decided to deduct a week instead.

 

[Lockie]

You two are weird.
Completely irrelevant responses.

FWIW I'd love 90% of tackle suspensions to not be penalised and quite a few of the two players contesting ball bump suspensions as well but this is the world the AFL is seeking to achieve.

If they don't like that players are using the tribunal system to get off they will tighten rules further.
Litigation is more important to them than anything else.

It is bad optics for the AFL to have players retire to concussion and tackles they're trying to be rid of getting off at the tribunal.
They'll make off season adjustments.

Tribunal also picks and chooses when character references hold weight. Certainly not applied consistently at all.

The issue is that Lever didn’t suffer any injury, had one arm free, and seems as tough he contributed by throwing his head back so it looked like he been hit on the ground. He got straight up continued to play and didn’t go off for any concussion check. It was minimal at best.

Richmond’s Vlaustin and GWS Greene had similar tackles - one got off with a fine and one was sighted.

 

[Sentinel]

So the tribunal were unable to look at Kosi Pickett's poor record in bumping a player's head 3 times in a little over 12 months to consider a stronger penalty, yet in this instance they can look at Cameron's record (and his totally irrelevant community work) to consider a weaker penalty?

Is this how a deterrent system is really supposed to work?