MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Finals Week 1

[Vindicater]

Good. First one thrown out.

Bedford better get off as well.

 

[mpal6]

Im not unhappy with the outcome but I thought Cameron’s was worse than Bedford’s. Like what why did he have to slam him? He showed no duty of care for Duggan.

There is no "slam" so let's not go on n on with this narrative. Duggan was twisting his body to get away from Cameron and Charlie was bear hugging him with feet barely getting any leverage. Once they both lost balance, it was pot luck on the injury aspect.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Take me home country road in full force and he shall never be rubbed out.

AFL is a farce. If a 10 gamer commits the same exact act the penalty stands.

Cameron has his own rules and he is a dirty grub of a player.

Tonight the Appeals board freed a player who laid a fair tackle.

Two years ago they freed a player for this so that he could win a best and “fairest” award.



I’ll leave it to the court of BigFooty opinion to decide who got most looked after.

 

[mpal6]

Cameron 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.

 

[Hollow Knight]

You forgot to add he also won a Brownlow and keep the salt flowing!

That was the best and fairest medal I was referring to big fella. Do try and keep up.

As for salt, you are the one losing his nana over an incident that doesn’t involve your club at all.

No one with any credibility or football experience believed this suspension was warranted. We have never seen such unanimous dismay from the entire industry. The AFLPA even issued a statement on behalf of all players to say it was bullshit. You are simping for a historically bad decision and your only ally is Jon Ralph.

Show us on the doll where Charlie hurt you.

 

[Fadge]

Cameron 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.

So we have no idea as to whether a player will be suspended for a similar incident in the future...

 

[mpal6]

So we have no idea as to whether a player will be suspended for a similar incident in the future...

Run the gauntlet !
Hopefully MRO are a bit sensible than doling out "was it concussion? 3 weeks!" sentences.

 

[CarterS]

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.

are they saying the injury was an unlucky accident basically and not charlie/s fault

 

[Fadge]

Run the gauntlet !
Hopefully MRO are a bit sensible than doling out "was it concussion? 3 weeks!" sentences.

You're expecting far too much...

 

[Fadge]

are they saying the injury was an unlucky accident basically and not charlie/s fault

No.

They're saying the Tribunal was meant to assess whether the act was likely to cause injury, but were silent on the matter.

He got off on an error of application of the law (by my reading).

 

[JackFlash]

Cameron gets off and rightly so, now for Bedford and then the AFL needs to call an emergency meeting to discuss what sort of game they have in 2024. I believe a lot of these concussions are due to the hard surfaces they play on. Most players today don't know what this is! They wouldn't know what a soft ground looks like!

 

[Underarm]

So we have no idea as to whether a player will be suspended for a similar incident in the future...

Correct. And they'll change the rule at the end of the year to be more clear.

 

[mpal6]

GWS need to quickly run outside and get the Lions Lawyer back.

 

[CarterS]

No.

They're saying the Tribunal was meant to assess where the act was likely to cause injury, but were silent on the matter.

He got off on an error of application of the law (by my reading).

ok I get it, so the appeals board job is to check the tribunal applied the laws/rules properly

 

[Fadge]

ok I get it, so the appeals board job is to check the tribunal applied the laws/rules properly

That's one of their remits.

 

[Xtreme]

Cameron was rightfully let off. Idiocy of the AFL wasting everyone's time.

 

[Hollow Knight]

GWS’s lawyer seems to be making a bit of a meal of the Bedford case. This might not go as well :/

 

[Plugger35]

It looks like the AFL have seen the media and supporter backlash from these tackle suspensions and decided to overturn them.

Surely Bedford gets his suspension overturned too after Cameron had his overturned, they can't overturn one and not the other.

 

[mpal6]

Looks like the AFL have seen the media and supporter backlash from these tackle suspensions and decided to overturn them.

Surely Bedford gets his suspension overturned too after Cameron had his overturned, they can't overturn one and not the other.

GWS lawyer doesn't seem to be arguing well.
It's as if Tribunal would like to overturn and the man in the middle is stuffing things up.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Lol this place is taken way to seriously at times and i hope you were not outraged mate!

I’m cackling like a fool. This has been a great night.

 

[Underarm]

Cameron 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.

There's some really fascinating lawyer stuff in here.

No one is going to read it, and everone is going to think he got off because of the outrage in the last couple of days.

 

[mpal6]

Why can't GWS lawyer just repeat what was said in Cameron's defense?

Only guideline considered, overlooked whether the action / conduct is likely to cause injury.

Bedford is like a 101 tackle they'll see countless times in a weekend. Too bad Taranto's head got hit on the ground but that's not the likely outcome every single time.

 

[Gavin Excell]

It looks like the AFL have seen the media and supporter backlash from these tackle suspensions and decided to overturn them.

Surely Bedford gets his suspension overturned too after Cameron had his overturned, they can't overturn one and not the other.

Yes they can
It's the AFL

 

[M Malice]

Im not unhappy with the outcome but I thought Cameron’s was worse than Bedford’s. Like what why did he have to slam him? He showed no duty of care for Duggan.

If you watch the tackle you can see Duggan was struggling in the tackle as you would expect, momentum and a tangle of legs took them both to the ground.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Cameron 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.

Lawyers are such weirdos.

ChatGPT please translate this text into syntax and vocabulary used by real humans.