MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 22

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Duggan in the end was trying to turn Cameron sidewise to loosen his grip. Cameron stuck with the bear hug and Duggan fell on his back, head on the ground is a collateral.
If it's off the ball Cameron would've got the Rankine treatment. Here he may get a week since Duggan won't play next week.
 
Do people seriously want Cameron charged for the Duggan tackle?
Yes, for the sake of consistency.

The AFL have constantly proclaimed "the head is sacrosanct", to the point where players are now being suspended for the potential to cause injury. Its a stupid ruling, but if you are going to commit to it then it has to be consistent. Cameron's tackle resulted in an actual head injury, so by the interpretation of the AFL's own ruling, he gets weeks. Otherwise we end up existing in some twilight zone where "good blokes" get to drop guys on their heads without repercussion, and others get multiple weeks for the bad optics of a tackle - like what has already happened this year.

Truthfully the whole system needs to be overhauled, and my belief is that the only way to do that is to highlight how farcical it currently is.
 
Christian will cite Cameron from pure media hype alone but it should be a very good tribunal test case of how far the AFL want to go with this because it really is a pure “shit happens” incident where Charlie did nothing wrong.

If the AFL is going to punish outcome regardless of circumstances, then we will know this week. If they are consistent with whatever they decide from this case, so be it. But it could be a very different game depending on their decision.
 
Yes, for the sake of consistency.

The AFL have constantly proclaimed "the head is sacrosanct", to the point where players are now being suspended for the potential to cause injury. Its a stupid ruling, but if you are going to commit to it then it has to be consistent. Cameron's tackle resulted in an actual head injury, so by the interpretation of the AFL's own ruling, he gets weeks. Otherwise we end up existing in some twilight zone where "good blokes" get to drop guys on their heads without repercussion, and others get multiple weeks for the bad optics of a tackle - like what has already happened this year.

Truthfully the whole system needs to be overhauled, and my belief is that the only way to do that is to highlight how farcical it currently is.
Is it more important to be consistent than just wrong?
You know yourself a suspension is harsh yet want consistency on bad decisions?
Priorities are wrong imo. Let’s not keep being incompetent because incompetence is a consistent thing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Three weeks for Cameron.

Simply must and will be tested at the tribunal.

Probably correct by the inflexible MRO guidelines so the tribunal is the only place to get it adjusted to something less manifestly disproportionate to the act.

Will be stunned if the final result is 3 weeks. Great test case.
 
The Cameron one is a nasty one in my opinion. The ball was clearly not going to come out and it was going to be a ball up. It was pinned between the two players.

Cameron could have looked after Duggan and chose drive him backwards. He was basically was looking to hurt him. Three weeks is stiff but maybe Charlie might look after a player in a compromising situation next time?
 
Reid got 2 weeks for a tackle that yielded zero damage so Cameron was always getting cooked for a tackle that resulted in a concussion.

No good bloke defense this time around unfortunately.

Reid is a terrible comparison if the Tribunal are going to be judging intent/technique. So, so different.
 
The Cameron one is a nasty one in my opinion. The ball was clearly not going to come out and it was going to be a ball up. It was pinned between the two players.

Cameron could have looked after Duggan and chose drive him backwards. He was basically was looking to hurt him. Three weeks is stiff but maybe Charlie might look after a player in a compromising situation next time?

I think the argument is going to be made that Duggan was the one pulling the tackle in that direction. It looks like he is driving his legs hard to escape the tackle only to lose balance whereas Charlie’s hand position looks like he is holding on rather than pushing/driving.

Whether the tribunal see it that way, who knows, but that will be the case made.

Will involve a biomechanist no doubt.
 
The Cameron one is a nasty one in my opinion. The ball was clearly not going to come out and it was going to be a ball up. It was pinned between the two players.

Cameron could have looked after Duggan and chose drive him backwards. He was basically was looking to hurt him. Three weeks is stiff but maybe Charlie might look after a player in a compromising situation next time?
I reckon Duggan drags and turns Cameron trying to break free of the tackle. At one point it looks like Cameron trips on Duggan's leg and he loses his balance and falls.

Three weeks is ridiculous for that.
 
I reckon Duggan drags and turns Cameron trying to break free of the tackle. At one point it looks like Cameron trips on Duggan's leg and he loses his balance and falls.

Three weeks is ridiculous for that.

And I think a biomechanist will be able to make that case. The umpire will also likely give a similar account when asked why no free kick was paid.

Very good case to argue here. Similar to Dangerfield/Walsh in that the tackler arguably was not responsible for the momentum that caused the head impact.
 
3 weeks for Bedford is absolutely nonsensical. He had to reach out with both arms and dive, otherwise he couldn’t have made the tackle. Everything else is accidental.
Very similar to Dangerfields… let’s see if it plays out the same.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 22

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top