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

[joe444]

As Whateley pointed out today, the defence that Cameron is "unusual" because he's one of (over) half of the players with 200 games who haven't been suspended is BS:

Cameron has previously been fined five times… three of those for rough conduct… the charge he was facing last night.

 

[JasRulz63]

that's just a dumb comment. things of different scales of danger require different factors.

Someone who did something minor should not be treated in the same way as someone who did something major.

The seriousness of potential injury to what Pendles did to what Cameron did is in no way a parallel.

One could also argue that what Cameron did was in the run of play, albeit admittedly poorly executed, whereas what Pendles did was unnecessary and not a "footballing action". Should this also be factored into it, especially as punching someone in the gut off the ball seems like the antithesis of "good bloke" character.

 

[Bucking Beads]

It should have been a low impact grading originally so the right result in the end for the incident IMO. That said the Tribunal clearing because he's a good bloke thing is so far away from where we need to be as a game.

 

[Hoops]

This is beyond a joke, it was not altered and the Tribunal has confirmed it was a dangerous tackle of medium impact. But because he is a good Aboriginal bloke, it was careless and the player didn't suffer injury he is free to play.

So for my club, Matt Crouch is a good bloke, it was careless but exactly the right technique all of us were taught when
going in after the footy and the player was not injured. Does this mean he can appeal and just get a fine??

The Tribunal is a pathetic, its a bloody lottery

Why bring race into it?

 

[LordLucifer]

Why bring race into it?

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

 

[HairyO]

One could also argue that what Cameron did was in the run of play, albeit admittedly poorly executed, whereas what Pendles did was unnecessary and not a "footballing action". Should this also be factored into it, especially as punching someone in the gut off the ball seems like the antithesis of "good bloke" character.

Did you think Sicily deserved 2 weeks for his McCluggage tackle ?

 

[Longlevers]

Every club signing every player up for community work. What a win.

Bet they don't.

 

[Longlevers]

As Whateley pointed out today, the defence that Cameron is "unusual" because he's one of (over) half of the players with 200 games who haven't been suspended is BS:

Cameron has previously been fined five times… three of those for rough conduct… the charge he was facing last night.

SUSPENDED. Bold Italics Underline

 

[Darksidepoints]

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

 

[Chief]

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

So they used "he's aboriginal" ?

 

[joe444]

SUSPENDED. Bold Italics Underline

Indeed, so after that many fines you should be suspended. You're not "unusual". You're not a "role model".

Look, I'm glad he's playing. I think it was not worthy of a suspension.

But why a Lions fan wants to bend over backwards to defend the reasons the tribunal gave is beyond me. The Tigers tried the same trick with Houli being such a good M*slim in 2017 and it was rightly appealed and restored back to the original penalty.

 

[joe444]

So they used "he's aboriginal" ?

Yep. To quote their third reason:

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
I'm sorry, but that's irrelevant, yet the tribunal has specifically focused on him being an indigenous role model, and so did his defence.

 

[Chief]

Yep. To quote their third reason:

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
I'm sorry, but that's irrelevant, yet the tribunal has specifically focused on him being an indigenous role model, and so did his defence.

Thank you.

It was about work he did in those communities and being a role model.

Not "he's aboriginal".

 

[joe444]

Besides, where is "he's a good bloke" in this? (the regulations for exceptional and compelling circumstances)

For the purposes of Regulation 19.6(a)(ii), exceptional and compelling circumstances may include:
(i) a Player has an exemplary record;
(ii) where a Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation;
(iii) where a Reportable Offence was committed in self-defence;
(iv) where there are multiple Reportable Offences that arise from the same event of course of conduct.

Yes, it includes "may include" but the intent is clear.

I'm sorry, but this is just a joke.

 

[joe444]

Thank you.

It was about work he did in those communities and being a role model.

Not "he's aboriginal".

Pendles works in a soup kitchen. So same ruling for him, or do you think "indigenous" communities had something to do with it? And that Charlie is a "role model" because he works there, or because he is indigenous and works there.

I'm as woke as the next person, seriously. But this is just silly.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Done.

 

[Chief]

Besides, where is "he's a good bloke" in this? (the regulations for exceptional and compelling circumstances)

For the purposes of Regulation 19.6(a)(ii), exceptional and compelling circumstances may include:
(i) a Player has an exemplary record;
(ii) where a Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation;
(iii) where a Reportable Offence was committed in self-defence;
(iv) where there are multiple Reportable Offences that arise from the same event of course of conduct.

Yes, it includes "may include" but the intent is clear.

I'm sorry, but this is just a joke.

Yeah I don't know why it is relevant unless the person is particularly bad off the field showing a tendency to violence out of proportion or whatever.

 

[burge13]

I didn't think it was suspension worthy when watching live but the AFL can't get out of it's own way. Even when they get to a decision I'd ordinarily agree with they make it difficult on themselves

It's such a cowboy league. No other professional sport is run worse

 

[Chief]

Pendles works in a soup kitchen. So same ruling for him, or do you think "indigenous" communities had something to do with it? And that Charlie is a "role model" because he works there, or because he is indigenous and works there.

I'm as woke as the next person, seriously. But this is just silly.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Done.

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.

 

[burge13]

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.

Zero need or relevance to bring up anything in the 'indigenous' community

 

[BringFevBack2021]

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.

I think we both know exactly the type of person you’re arguing with here Chief

 

[Dogflogger]

Huh?

The tribunal would not see through all players all of a sudden getting into some minor community work? Because... money?

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.

 

[flyinghi64]

I agree with the outcome but not the reasoning behind it.
After watching the replay of the incident several times I stand by my initial reaction and thought when I watched it live and that is Lever contributed to the action of going sideways and trying to make contact with the ground with his head.
Geez, the tackle hadn't even finished and he is looking for the ump to wave his arms at.

If players are going to try swing their body and head to try turn a legit tackle into a dangerous one it is no different than ducking, shrugging, dropping the knees to get a high free kick.
For a player to get suspended because the person being tackled is willing to risk injury by their own actions is just wrong.

I have said it before, and we all know it's true, when a ruling comes out that rewards a free kick for an action players and coaches will exploit it.

 

[MiguelM]

Pathetic result, have nothing against Cameron, just the goddam inconsistency of the actual tribunal.

Butters - got off
Couch - 1 week
Cameron - got off

The fact that Butters wasn't even a free shows the umpires are biased like we all know.

 

[Chief]

Zero need or relevance to bring up anything in the 'indigenous' community

Again - making out it was about "being aboriginal" when it was about community work... in aboriginal communities.

The first is the central argument. The next bit is a descriptor. You've put the cart before the horse here so you get the opportunity to scoff at what you want to scoff at.

Give it up dude. We see you.

 

[MiguelM]

TBH, I think he should get a week each time they play "Country Roads"!!