Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2024, Part I

[CatToTheFuture]

Carn the draw!

 

[Trek]

Carn the draw!

The only result one can want as a Cats fan for this game. That or the stadium implodes, but is far less likely...

 

[Mr Meow]

I feel like we're not far away from fan sentiment turning against the GWS social media team. Not for any substantive reason or because people are oversensitive to the jokes, but because the likes of Robbo and Gerard are in on the joke now and their players are being interviewed about how hilarious the trolling is.

They're a cult hit that's going mainstream, which means they're getting praise from footy industry figures everyone considers cringeworthy, who are often over-explaining the joke. I feel like the perception is going to shift to "GWS try too hard" quite soon.

Imagine if it was Dangerfield/Geelong doing this stuff to Richmond or Hawthorn a few years ago. I think neutrals would've actually lost the plot.

 

[And_ROOS]

Imagine if it was Dangerfield/Geelong doing this stuff to Richmond or Hawthorn a few years ago. I think neutrals would've actually lost the plot.

Imagine if Richmond had done this in 2017 after Danger was cheated out of a potential Brownlow...

 

[cats_09]

 

[cats_09]

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[cats_09]

 

[cats_09]

that's pretty piss poor

 

[cats_09]

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I don't understand anything anymore

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Well done appeals board. A win for footy.
Correct call. Good tackle from Cameron.

Cop that Laura Kane.

 

[cats_09]

Can anyone translate this into English please - it sounds like because the tribunal failed to address Cameron's actions in terms of "likely to cause injury" that it's been deemed they've made an error of law... But wouldn't the fact that Duggan was concussed show that there was an injury?

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.

 

[allrighty]

Can anyone translate this into English please - it sounds like because the tribunal failed to address Cameron's actions in terms of "likely to cause injury" that it's been deemed they've made an error of law... But wouldn't the fact that Duggan was concussed show that there was an injury?

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.

Thanks CBF, but I'll try:

Yada yada yada. But good bloke, so off you go

 

[cats_09]

Well done appeals board. A win for footy.
Correct call. Good tackle from Cameron.

Cop that Laura Kane.

This finding is nothing to do with the tackle & whether it was a good tackle or not - same tackle this weekend with the tackled player concussed, will see another 3 week suspension handed down

It's been overturned based on a "failure in the law" with the tribunal seemingly not addressing whether the tackle was "likely to cause injury"

It's the same situation as when Cripps was cleared a couple of years back at the appeal level - that was nothing to do with his actions, but rather based on an argument that the tribunal failed to clarify what constitutes a bump

 

[Art Vandelay_]

This finding is nothing to do with the tackle & whether it was a good tackle or not - same tackle this weekend with the tackled player concussed, will see another 3 week suspension handed down

It's been overturned based on a "failure in the law" with the tribunal seemingly not addressing whether the tackle was "likely to cause injury"

It's the same situation as when Cripps was cleared a couple of years back at the appeal level - that was nothing to do with his actions, but rather based on an argument that the tribunal failed to clarify what constitutes a bump

and my comment has nothing to do with the mumbo jumbo spiel handed out.
End result is a BS suspension overturned. How they got there, couldn't give a stuff.

 

[cats_09]

This is probably the easiest way of understanding the appeal board overturning the Cameron decision - so no real clarity on the validity of the tackle, which most probably means don't surprised when the same action sees the next player suspended for 3 weeks, but this time the tribunal will dot all i's and cross all t's, so that it won't be overturned on appeal

 

[cats_09]

and my comment has nothing to do with the mumbo jumbo spiel handed out.
End result is a BS suspension overturned. How they got there, couldn't give a stuff.

Just don't be surprised when there's another suspension for the same action, but it won't be overturned next time

 

[you pick one]

This finding is nothing to do with the tackle & whether it was a good tackle or not - same tackle this weekend with the tackled player concussed, will see another 3 week suspension handed down

It's been overturned based on a "failure in the law" with the tribunal seemingly not addressing whether the tackle was "likely to cause injury"

It's the same situation as when Cripps was cleared a couple of years back at the appeal level - that was nothing to do with his actions, but rather based on an argument that the tribunal failed to clarify what constitutes a bump

It just emphasises how complex the system has become and how incompetent those charged with administering the laws are.Sack and scrap the lot at seasons end get all the stakeholders together and start afresh.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[Hamingja]

100% that twitter account is actually a 50 year old man that still lives with their Mum

 

[cats_09]

It just emphasises how complex the system has become and how incompetent those charged with administering the laws are.Sack and scrap the lot at seasons end get all the stakeholders together and start afresh.

First Cripps & now Cameron have been cleared essentially due to an administration error

Over the past hour it's been clarified that if in the tribunals findings they specified that "Cameron's conduct had the potential to cause injury", that Charlie would be out for the next 3 weeks

So it seems even crazier when you then consider that a player has been cleared to play, not because their actions have been deemed reasonable but due to an apparent administration error

 

[And_ROOS]

100% that twitter account is actually a 50 year old man that still lives with their Mum

If you mean that Danderfield account its legit.

 

[allrighty]

First Cripps & now Cameron have been cleared essentially due to an administration error

Over the past hour it's been clarified that if in the tribunals findings they specified that "Cameron's conduct had the potential to cause injury", that Charlie would be out for the next 3 weeks

So it seems even crazier when you then consider that a player has been cleared to play, not because their actions have been deemed reasonable but due to an apparent administration error

It's a billion dollar organisation run like a cottage industry. The main difference being the shitloads everyone gets paid, iIE not voluntary.

 

[Art Vandelay_]