“No one knows the rules – that’s the trouble. I feel for the umpires. In fairness the umpires didn’t award a free kick [after the Bedford tackle] so I think they got it right.

“Michael Christian ... he might have been great as a player, but he’s certainly mucking these up.

“If there is indecision, and the umpires don’t know when to blow the whistle and the supporters don’t know what’s happening, we have got total confusion.”

The appeals board decision came a week after it rejected a plea from the Swans to have Isaac Heeney’s one-match ban for striking overturned.

Loading

The AFL was contacted for comment on Friday.

Lions football department boss Danny Daly said on Friday that Cameron had “executed the tackle really well”, and that Duggan had “contributed in some way to the outcome of the incident”.

Daly said justice had been served, but understood the crackdown on bumps and tackles which led to head trauma was required.

Giants football boss Jason McCartney said there had been an error of law, but suggested the overall tackling issue which has plagued the competition needed to be dealt with in the post-season. Highlighting the confusion, in Bedford’s case, the tagger did not even concede a free kick.

Geelong great Jimmy Bartel, now the Giants’ football director, said there was a “huge disconnect” between what is considered a “fair and reasonable” tackle on the field, and the punishment then handed out because a player was concussed.

The Lions argued the tribunal had “put the cart before the horse” during Cameron’s initial hearing by focusing on the tribunal guidelines without having had determined whether the player had committed a reportable offence when tackling Duggan.

The Giants argued Bedford’s tackle, which pinned Taranto’s arms, was not “careless conduct” under the tribunal guidelines, and took issue with the “severe” grading of the impact. Giants lawyer Anais d’Arville also disputed the AFL’s argument that there was an alternative way to tackle.

Appeals board chair Will Houghton ruled the tribunal did not fully consider Law 18.7, instead it had focused too much on guidelines when upholding both bans.

“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,” Houghton said directly about the Cameron suspension.

“Whilst we accept that the tribunal found the conduct to be unreasonable, which is one element of the offence, 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 ... we consider that the tribunal did fall into an error of law that had a material impact on its decision.”

Club CEOS discussed tackling in Perth this week at their annual meeting, with an acknowledgement clarity was needed on the balance between player safety and the traditional game. The AFL Players Association has also called for greater clarity.