Review Round 18, 2024 - West Coast vs. Brisbane Lions

[Elixuh]

Ordinarily you can introduce new evidence in limited circumstances. I’m not sure what the rules are for the tribunal but the tribunals reasoning and reliance on Cameron being able to do all of these other actions plus the feet tangling being irrelevant might be grounds to bring in the biomechanist.

The only thing I’d add Grasshopper17 is that for these hearings there is a time and cost factor + (more importantly in this case) sometimes it’s best not to overcomplicate an argument when you think the existing evidence - in this case the footage and Charlie’s account - is compelling + there is an onus on the AFL to actually make their case before the tribunal so bringing in additional evidence can in some cases give the other side more to pick at in what would otherwise be a pretty weak matter for them. Maybe in hindsight you amend that strategy if you knew the tribunal would accept some pretty farcical arguments from the AFL, but you can’t know that going in.

I think it was entirely reasonable in this instance that we thought we had a really strong position without the need for additional supporting evidence.

 

[McIvor]

Interesting that they said that when the tribunal decisions dropped last night that the 18 CEOs were having dinner with Dillon and can only assume Kane at Crown in Perth and most, particularly Swann and Matthew’s were particularly angry and all wanted to discuss this tackling debacle (fair to say all CEOs think the penalty’s are wrong and manifestly excessive) at the dinner but Dillon being the gutless faux CEO he is refused to discuss it saying it would be added to todays agenda at the end.

Again the AFL executive showing what little leadership they actually have.

 

[Grasshopper17]

The only thing I’d add Grasshopper17 is that for these hearings there is a time and cost factor + (more importantly in this case) sometimes it’s best not to overcomplicate an argument when you think the existing evidence - in this case the footage and Charlie’s account - is compelling + there is an onus on the AFL to actually make their case before the tribunal so bringing in additional evidence can in some cases give the other side more to pick at in what would otherwise be a pretty weak matter for them. Maybe in hindsight you amend that strategy if you knew the tribunal would accept some pretty farcical arguments from the AFL, but you can’t know that going in.

I think it was entirely reasonable in this instance that we thought we had a really strong position without the need for additional supporting evidence.

Yeah see my knee jerk reaction is to interpret that as complacency. However I acknowledge your argument with regards to giving the other side more stuff to pick at and distract the jury with.

 

[Paul Mac]

Awesome listening to Jordy Lewis on AFL 360 tonight with the charlie cameron

23

Charlie Cameron

Age

30

Ht

180cm

Wt

76kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.1

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.5

5star

D

9.6

2star

K

7.9

3star

HB

1.7

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.7

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

9.6

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

4.2

4star

M

1.4

2star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.2

4star

decision. Its just mind boggling when ex players sit there and say duggan has contributed to the action and charlie has done everything perfectly re the tackle. What are the tribunal panel missing in watching the incident. I know we are banging on about it but seriously what the **** is going on here.

 

[Paul Mac]

Any chance at the appeal that someone could actually show Charlie how he should have taken duggan down, not in verbal sense but in a practical sense. Then with a biomechanist sitting there saying are you people dreaming if you think you could sit the person down.

 

[McIvor]

Awesome listening to Jordy Lewis on AFL 360 tonight with the charlie cameron decision. Its just mind boggling when ex players sit there and say duggan has contributed to the action and charlie has done everything perfectly re the tackle. What are the tribunal panel missing in watching the incident. I know we are banging on about it but seriously what the **** is going on here.

Here is the discussion

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

I hope that the Lions also raise the fact that the AFL are providing unsafe workplaces for their players with the fact that the Optus stadium is and has been ridiculously hard.

You have to ask why this has not been raised.
I mentioned earlier Rugby fields are softer, it can be done.
Might slow down the play make bouncining the ball slightly harder, but has to be investigated.

 

[McIvor]

Interesting that they said that when the tribunal decisions dropped last night that the 18 CEOs were having dinner with Dillon and can only assume Kane at Crown in Perth and most, particularly Swann and Matthew’s were particularly angry and all wanted to discuss this tackling debacle (fair to say all CEOs think the penalty’s are wrong and manifestly excessive) at the dinner but Dillon being the gutless faux CEO he is refused to discuss it saying it would be added to todays agenda at the end.

Again the AFL executive showing what little leadership they actually have.

AFL forced to act after high-powered dinner turns tense

7NEWS has revealed things got frosty between AFL executives and club bosses when one topic dominated the conversation.

7news.com.au

 

[McIvor]

Listened to the Roar Deal earlier and must admit was gobsmackes at Doms analysis of the Charlie incident saying he had all these other options including not forcing him down heavily and that there were other options etc.

I’ve seen the incident at least twenty-thirty times and I must be blind because Charlie isn’t trying to throw him to the ground and only falls onto Duggan when Duggan is trying to shake Cameron off him by trying to twist Charlie and that’s when they both lose balance and legs get twisted that a fall occurs.

Either way, truly stunned that Dom is spouting what he is and attributing most of the blame on Charlie.

Each into their own and I guess Dom has seen it exactly as Christian and the Tribunal and AFL.

I probably need to go get my eyes checked.

 

[Nunez]

Listened to the Roar Deal earlier and must admit was gobsmackes at Doms analysis of the Charlie incident saying he had all these other options including not forcing him down heavily and that there were other options etc.

I’ve seen the incident at least twenty-thirty times and I must be blind because Charlie isn’t trying to throw him to the ground and only falls onto Duggan when Duggan is trying to shake Cameron off him by trying to twist Charlie and that’s when they both lose balance and legs get twisted that a fall occurs.

Either way, truly stunned that Dom is spouting what he is and attributing most of the blame on Charlie.

Each into their own and I guess Dom has seen it exactly as Christian and the Tribunal and AFL.

I probably need to go get my eyes checked.

Dom has been bought by the AFL administration. As corrupt as they come!!

 

[McIvor]

Dom has been bought by the AFL administration. As corrupt as they come!!

John Ralph understudy I heard

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

John Ralph understudy I heard

Double agent

 

[dlanod]

John Ralph understudy I heard

He's changed his name to Ron Jalph.

 

[The Zork]

I hope that the Lions also raise the fact that the AFL are providing unsafe workplaces for their players with the fact that the Optus stadium is and has been ridiculously hard.

A reasonable player would know exactly how hard each particular surface is across the league taking into account recent rainfall whilst understanding differing drainage rates to which they would reasonably adjust the force-fullness of their tackle to be reasonable in any given circumstance.

 

[Hollow Knight]

 

[The Flying Belgian]

He's changed his name to Ron Jalph.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I think we are making the best possible case within the restrictions of the appeals board process.

At the very least it feels like we are forcing the AFL into a situation where they have to admit that they are judging the outcome rather than the act. I’m sure they will find some way to worn their way out of saying that though.

 

[Tom14]

View attachment 2051311
View attachment 2051312

I think the suspension was wrong but not sure how looking at the laws of the game helps? The Rough conduct section mentions a player being in a vulnerable position, and being driven to the ground.



Now, I disagree that Duggan was driven with excessive force - he tries to break the tackle and creates the rotation. But that is a question of fact and very hard to overtun on appeal imo.

 

[Hollow Knight]

 

[Hollow Knight]

I still think we lose, because the AFL themselves basically told the club admins that the MRO matrix is cooked and will be reviewed at the end of the season. Until then, it’s just a shit sandwich in the hands of lawyer drones.

But at the very least we have made a stand and helped further the debate for the benefit of the code.

Basically we are heroes and the clear good guys in this whole little affair.

 

[braddsey]

I still think we lose, because the AFL themselves basically told the club admins that the MRO matrix is cooked and will be reviewed at the end of the season. Until then, it’s just a shit sandwich in the hands of lawyer drones.

But at the very least we have made a stand and helped further the debate for the benefit of the code.

Basically we are heroes and the clear good guys in this whole little affair.

Heroes and good guys we may be, but that doesn't get Charlie back on the field, nor make it any better for any player tackling between now and the end of the season.
Any player tackling in the finals will be tackling on egg-shells, until the GF when it will be a free-for-all!

 

[TheMan_Bun]

Basically we are heroes and the clear good guys in this whole little affair.

I’ll remember that when Kai has zero impact on Sunday because he gets their best small defender and not Charie..

 

[Sproj]

I still think we lose, because the AFL themselves basically told the club admins that the MRO matrix is cooked and will be reviewed at the end of the season. Until then, it’s just a shit sandwich in the hands of lawyer drones.

But at the very least we have made a stand and helped further the debate for the benefit of the code.

Basically we are heroes and the clear good guys in this whole little affair.

Yep we can use 'the good guy' defense.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Now deliberating. We made great arguments but we are fighting against a very stacked appeals board process and an AFL that is a law unto itself.

Expecting to be disappointed but proud how we stood up for ourselves and the game.

 

[braddsey]

David Zita didn't report much from the AFL legal response, but it basically amounts to "we are right and you are wrong, and we are rubber you are glue...".

"The AFL says the guidelines are not inconsistent with the Laws of the Game."
"Lisa Hannon (AFL) argues there was no error of law, no prioritisation of the Tribunal guidelines."