The Brisbane Lions and GWS have had the respective three-game bans for Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford sensationally overturned at the AFL Appeal Board, both citing the same defence – that the initial tribunal had made an error of law.
Charlie Cameron is free to face the Swans.Credit: AFL Photos
In the Cameron case, 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.
Cameron’s verdict paves the way for him to line up against flag favourites Sydney at the Gabba on Sunday, a match the Lions must win to stay in the top four or risk falling out of the eight entirely should other results go against them.
It is the second time this season Cameron has dodged a suspension. Four months ago he controversially avoided a one-game ban on grounds of good character from not being suspended in his first 207 games despite three fines for rough conduct.
For Bedford, the appeals board referred to the same law of the game, 18.7, as the Cameron case did earlier in the evening.
The board found it could not substitute its own ruling in place of the tribunal so it dismissed the case.
Thursday’s shock development has done little to offer clarity to players or the football public over what constitutes a dangerous tackle as the appeals board was not required to make a judgment on the specifics of Cameron’s tackle on West Coast’s Liam Duggan.
The Lions successfully argued the tribunal had made an error of law, which had a material impact on the case, saying it had “put the cart before the horse” by solely referring to tribunal guidelines to establish Cameron’s guilt without referencing the rough conduct law. Therefore, the Lions said, the tribunal had “inverted proper reasoning process”.
They said the tribunal had erred in not addressing which stage of Cameron’s conduct was likely to cause injury, which forms part of the spirit and intention of the rough conduct law.
“The tribunal reasoned backward from the conduct to conclude the conduct had a certain character to it,” Chris Winneke, representing the Lions, said. “We say it should’ve started by considering for itself what amounted to rough conduct.”