MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Handyandy said:
I don’t recall so many players being concussed in tackles 20 years ago. Is this a new phenomenon? An unforeseen result of rule changes & evolution of the game?

Players are taught not to bump, the game is faster, but with more congestion/ flooding, players are very good at riding through the tackle & still disposing the ball effectively & players are receiving all sorts of novel tackling coaching, from rugby & judo specialists

Perhaps the tackle is one of the few mechanisms still open for the thugs to hurt people?
Click to expand...
20 years ago you got your "bell rung" and got told to get back out there.
 
Watching the collisions that occurred in last nights state of origin game, both head high and tackles to the ground, I am convinced we have a lower threshold for what is deemed a concussion that rugby. If it was an afl game we would have had nearly every player off with concussion in that game.
 
There are also a lot more tackles per game these days as the game has become more and more congested with more and more stoppages.

For example - our game on the weekend had 127 tackles whilst the 2004 grand final had 80.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TeeKray said:
There's been about half a dozen players forced into retirement due to brain injuries in the last year alone. Countless others with unknown long term damage. I don't know about you but I'm not sure I really want to be watching a sport knowing that many of its participants will end up with brain injuries down the track. Yes the AFL itself is largely concerned with the legal side but that doesn't mean making the game safer is not a worthwhile thing to do.
Click to expand...
Don’t watch any contact sport then.

It’s unavoidable.

It will only be mitigated.

Malcolm Gladwell did a great Revisionist History episode on it.
 
Not the reasons behind the decision but some of the arguments.

CAMERON HEARING

Representing Brisbane, Chris Winneke KC said there were two grounds for the appeal:

- With their reliance on the Tribunal guidelines in preference to the laws of the game, Tribunal impermissibly prioritised the guidelines over the laws. The path of reasoning thus created a material error of law;

- The factual findings and conclusion of rough conduct were so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could’ve reached the same findings and conclusion.

The Lions argued the Tribunal focused on how the rough conduct guidelines impact the offence, rather than first finding whether the tackle was a reportable offence, and “in effect put the cart before the horse”.

“The Tribunal applied the text of the guidelines as if they had legal force, which we say is an error of law ... the guidelines are directory only,” Winneke said.

Appeal chairman Will Houghton KC asked what material effect this had on the Tribunal’s decision-making, with Winneke pointing to the rules which state the consideration of rough conduct must include “whether the conduct was likely to cause injury”.

“We say this tackle, the approach to the tackle and the actual tackle itself was a lawful tackle,” Winneke said.

“It’s not contact between members of the public in a supermarket. It’s between strong, fit people playing on a football field in a contact sport.”

The Lions also argued it was “fanciful” to suggest Cameron could’ve tried to sit Liam Duggan down in their tackle.

“This is a great game, Australian football, because it’s an incredibly skilled game with incredibly skilled players, who engage in conduct which by definition and requirement requires body-on-body contact,” Winneke said.


“There’ll be circumstances where players will suffer injury despite players exercising reasonable care. To find that Cameron did not exercise reasonable care was simply not open on the evidence.”

Lisa Hannon for the AFL said there was no error of law and the Appeals Board should ignore the suggestion the Tribunal only listened to the guidelines over the rules; and that even if the Tribunal did that, their approach would’ve been “no different” had it behaved differently.

Appeal chairman Houghton questioned the AFL’s case, that the Tribunal had considered the rules of the game and not just the guidelines, based on the Tribunal not mentioning the rules within its stated reasoning.

Hannon argued the guidelines are not inconsistent with the laws of the game, and the fact there was an injury points to the incident being likely to cause injury, but it’s not determinative.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Not the reasons behind the decision but some of the arguments.

CAMERON HEARING

Representing Brisbane, Chris Winneke KC said there were two grounds for the appeal:

- With their reliance on the Tribunal guidelines in preference to the laws of the game, Tribunal impermissibly prioritised the guidelines over the laws. The path of reasoning thus created a material error of law;

- The factual findings and conclusion of rough conduct were so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could’ve reached the same findings and conclusion.

The Lions argued the Tribunal focused on how the rough conduct guidelines impact the offence, rather than first finding whether the tackle was a reportable offence, and “in effect put the cart before the horse”.

“The Tribunal applied the text of the guidelines as if they had legal force, which we say is an error of law ... the guidelines are directory only,” Winneke said.

Appeal chairman Will Houghton KC asked what material effect this had on the Tribunal’s decision-making, with Winneke pointing to the rules which state the consideration of rough conduct must include “whether the conduct was likely to cause injury”.

“We say this tackle, the approach to the tackle and the actual tackle itself was a lawful tackle,” Winneke said.

“It’s not contact between members of the public in a supermarket. It’s between strong, fit people playing on a football field in a contact sport.”

The Lions also argued it was “fanciful” to suggest Cameron could’ve tried to sit Liam Duggan down in their tackle.

“This is a great game, Australian football, because it’s an incredibly skilled game with incredibly skilled players, who engage in conduct which by definition and requirement requires body-on-body contact,” Winneke said.


“There’ll be circumstances where players will suffer injury despite players exercising reasonable care. To find that Cameron did not exercise reasonable care was simply not open on the evidence.”

Lisa Hannon for the AFL said there was no error of law and the Appeals Board should ignore the suggestion the Tribunal only listened to the guidelines over the rules; and that even if the Tribunal did that, their approach would’ve been “no different” had it behaved differently.

Appeal chairman Houghton questioned the AFL’s case, that the Tribunal had considered the rules of the game and not just the guidelines, based on the Tribunal not mentioning the rules within its stated reasoning.

Hannon argued the guidelines are not inconsistent with the laws of the game, and the fact there was an injury points to the incident being likely to cause injury, but it’s not determinative.
Click to expand...
wait, why does the AFL and MRO have guidelines? that's why rules exist
 
b0ydman Jr said:
wait, why does the AFL and MRO have guidelines? that's why rules exist
Click to expand...
Because the Laws of the Game don't go into what level of punishment should be put out for suspensions.

Can you imagine how stupid it would be if the Laws of the Game specified that a careless, low impact strike to the body is a $1500 fine and that was applied to Amateur football?
 
Cameron reasons: (Appeals Board allowing appeal)

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.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Cameron reasons: (Appeals Board allowing appeal)

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.
Click to expand...

This legalese does my head in - so this was just a point of law f*ck up, like the oh so convenient Patrick Cripps case, never mind that Liam Duggan actually was injured (concussed)?

A delighted Charlie Cameron is pictured after the appeal:

1721293597332.png
 
Last edited:
The Brisbane Lions sensationally had Charlie Cameron’s three-game ban overturned at the AFL Tribunal’s appeals board on a technicality on Thursday, in a massive boost to their hopes of snaring a top-four finish.

The appeals board took just on half an hour to rule in favour of the Lions after finding that the tribunal had made an error of law by giving too much consideration to tribunal guidelines over the laws of the game regarding rough conduct.

www.theage.com.au

The ‘error of law’ that freed Lion Cameron and Giant Bedford

GWS Giants forward Toby Bedford is free to play after his appeal was upheld by the AFL appeals board on Thursday night. The Brisbane Lions also have had Charlie Cameron’s three-game ban overturned.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au

One Word: GOOD!

Judged solely on its merits, and forgetting the crap posted about his past indiscretions and him being a 'dirty player' (the same crap levelled at SPP and others btw - I hate it and it is of no relevance to this charge).

This is the Tribunal and MRO being told to go back to making the laws of the game the centrepiece rather than guidelines.

Maybe I'm biased because of my background but contrary to the widespread opinion in The Age and other media outlets, this is NOT 'a technicality'. It's a fundamental point of how the rules of the game (the AFL equivalence of legislation) need to be central to how charges are subsequently dished out and adjudicated. Otherwise the players will have no clue about how to play the game from week to week and too much power is placed in the hands of the adjudicators (i.e. the police and prosecutors) compared with those who drafted the laws.

The Dill needs to get out of cruise mode and leave the feel good stuff around Gather Round and Grand Final entertainment and do some hard work over the off season with the clubs and rethink the laws of the game rather than fiddling with Tribunal guidelines and changing how those rules of the game are judged. And for feck sake come out with clear and concise consistency so that supporters, let alone players and coaches, know what to expect and how to play the game.

The sad thing is that if any player this week executes the same tackles as did Bedford and Cameron, they will most likely not get off because the AFL Tribunal will correct its charge sheet procedures. So much for procedural fairness.

A bloody disgrace. And what happens when laws of the game get over written on the run by the regulations and procedures that give them effect.

That every link in this chain (from the drafting of the rules of the game and their adjudication via umpires, and the handing out of sanctions via the MRO and the Tribunal and the hearing of appeals via the AFL Appeals Board) is done under the same roof of the same building in Docklands stadium Melbourne and they still manage to stuff it up tells you all you need to know about the ongoing incompetence of those in charge of our game.

No one - not the coaches, not the players, not the spectators and certainly not the administrators are on the same page. That's the issue.

/rant
 
Last edited:
Bedford case reasons for the Appeals Board's ruling.

Reasons:

The matter we raised with council for Bedford at the beginning of his address was the impact of law 18.7 of the laws of Australian Football.

(Law) 18.7.1, 'spirit and intention', reads as follows. "Players should be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player, which is likely to cause injury."

Now what is plain that follows from the proper construction of that law is that there are two elements to the offence of rough conduct.

First, there's got to be unreasonable conduct, and secondly, the conduct must be likely to cause injury.

We accept that the Tribunal below found unreasonable conduct, however it made no finding about whether or not the conduct of Bedford was likely to cause injury.

There's nothing in the reasons of the Tribunal that indicate any consideration that second element of the offence of rough conduct, nor is there anything in the transcript dealing with the evidence or submissions of counsel.

In our previous case, we upheld the appeal of the player because there was no consideration of the second element, being was the conduct likely to cause injury.

Similarly, in this case, we uphold the appeal on the ground that there was an error of law that had a material impact upon the outcome in the tribunal below. That error of law being a failure to take into account second element of the charge of rough conduct set out in law 18.7.1.

We must say that in coming to that view, we've also looked closely at the video of the incident to see whether any inference could be drawn about whether or not conduct of the player was likely to cause injury. We have to say that we were unable come to a view that that inference ought to be drawn.

There's simply not a conduct there that would enable the Appeal Board to somehow substitute its own decision instead of the failure by the Tribunal below to come to its decision accordingly.

For those reasons, the appeal will be allowed and the order of the Appeal Board is that the charge brought against the player Bedford is dismissed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The clowns must of watched the first 5 minutes of Origin last night to realise just how ridiculous the rules of the game have become.

The way they were tracking it was only a matter of time before the netball bibs came out.
 
Renee Enbom was the Tribunal chair on Tuesday night when she heard the 3 cases and the Cameron and Bedford cases were overturned by The Appeals Board because of an error and her and panel members didnt correctly address the likely to cause injury component of Law 18.7.1.

I wonder if she will be removed from the next case or the rest of the year.

When The Appeals Board overturned the Tribunals ruling on Patrick Cripps in 2022 they said Glesson had poorly instructed the panel, and then in future cases he went out of his way to instruct them and cover all bases. He wasnt renoved but it was only 1 case he made an error in.

The Appeals Board said both players indeed had used unreasonable conduct - I think that is bullshit - but because the panel didnt address if the conduct is likely to cause cman injury or a concussion, despite the fact that the 2 tackled players were concussed, then they get off on a technacality.

FFS where is the practical common sense?

The conduct in both cases is judged to have been unreasonable and caused a concussion, so why does the AFL counsel have to argue that the conduct is lilely to cause an injury, when it bloody did cause an injury and the Tribunal panel decision has to specifically say that they agree with AFL's counsel??

So you cant do a tackle like the Cameron and Bedford tackles and get away with it unless the tribunal panel is too stupid to say a concussion sustained from an unreasonable tacke is in fact proof that the coduct is not only likely to cause a injury but it farken did cause an injury.


The world has gone crazy.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Renee Enbom was the Tribunal chair on Tuesday night when she heard the 3 cases and the Cameron and Bedford cases were overturned by The Appeals Board because of an error and her and panel members didnt correctly address the likely to cause injury component of Law 18.7.1.

I wonder if she will be removed from the next case or the rest of the year
Click to expand...

It's unlikely. Tribunals and lower courts get overturned on appeal all the time. They then take the direction from the appeals board/court and keep going.

Also, Gleeson is busy with other parts of his practice that's why Enbom has had responsibility for the tribunal recently. He and Enbom are the two designated tribunal chairs. I do not know whether there is provision for any others to be appointed.
 
MrMeaner said:
It's unlikely. Tribunals and lower courts get overturned on appeal all the time. They then take the direction from the appeals board/court and keep going. from her

Also, Gleeson is busy with other parts of his practice that's why Enbom has had responsibility for the tribunal recently. He and Enbom are the two designated tribunal chairs. I do not know whether there is provision for any others to be appointed.
Click to expand...

What's that Gobby woman doing these days? She couldn't do any worse, even if she has to Zoom it from her safe house.
 
RossFC said:
Click to expand...


Of interest he’s been graded as careless, high contact and severe impact. By example Rankines 4 weeks earlier in the year was originally assessed as intentional, high contact and severe impact.

IMG_4887.JPG

I grabbed that matrix from 2023 tribunal guidelines.

Assuming nothing unusual happens does that mean he’s looking at 3 weeks or does the tribunal regularly upgrade the charge.
 
Malibu#27 said:
Of interest he’s been graded as careless, high contact and severe impact. By example Rankines 4 weeks earlier in the year was originally assessed as intentional, high contact and severe impact.

View attachment 2084030

I grabbed that matrix from 2023 tribunal guidelines.

Assuming nothing unusual happens does that mean he’s looking at 3 weeks or does the tribunal regularly upgrade the charge.
Click to expand...
The AFL counsel will give their figure and argue for that and we will argue ours.

I expect the AFL to argue for 4.

If we have conclusive proof it wasn't high, but was shoulder to shoulder we will argue either for 2 which is the minimum for careless, severe and to the body., or we will argue it was a reasonable bump given all the circumstances and should be let off. I doubt we will do that.

Its then up to the tribunal panel to come with a decision.

I hope there isn't some BS sneaky sentence in the definition of high that includes shoulder to shoulder if we have sufficient evidence that's what happened, and it wasn't shoulder to head.
 
Last edited:
The bullshit good guy defence that was successfull for Cameron (despite multiple fines for rough conduct) should ensure that Houston at worst gets three weeks.

We should take in video of the multiple instances of Charlie Cameron sniping Houston. Point out that this is player that gets a reduction for a "good record" and then point out that Houston has never even been cited by the MRO before.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Similar threads

Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Showdown 56
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
527
Views
21K
Portmagpies36
Portmagpies36
RangaInTeal
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
419
Views
14K
Peninsula Boy
Peninsula Boy
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 24, 2024 vs Fremantle
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
428
Views
15K
Dutchy5150
Dutchy5150
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 21 vs Sydney
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
8K
PowerLil
PowerLil
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 22, 2024 vs Melbourne @ MCG
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
261
Views
10K
Expat power
Expat power
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Showdown 55
25 26 27 28 29
Replies
700
Views
25K
x_les_x
x_les_x
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 19, 2024 vs Richmond @ Adelaide Oval
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
255
Views
10K
Chachi
Chachi

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top