![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/brisbane.png)
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
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.