2024 MRO & Tribunal

[spirit of norm smith 13,081]

In a rare decision, Charlie Cameron’s clean record over more than 200 games paid dividends after the Brisbane livewire escaped with a fine at the tribunal for his sling tackle on Jake Lever.

 

Another bizarre decision !!!! 

Brisbane sought to have the impact grading lessened from medium to low, which would let Cameron escape with a fine, despite his guilty plea.

 

Tribunal counsel Sally Flynn said it was the potential to cause injury that warranted the medium grading, labelling the tackle "inherently dangerous".

Lever's "vulnerable" position, the angle and rotation of the tackle and the extent of the force were relied on to argue for medium impact.

Tribunal dismissed his argument that the impact of the incident should have been graded as "low’' rather than "medium''.
BUT chairman Jeff Gleeson - found exceptional and compelling circumstances to use its discretion to turn the ban into a fine, citing Cameron's clean record. 
Gleeson said the incident was careless but at the lower end of seriousness, and noted Cameron had to complete the tackle in a rotating manner to avoid Lever - who is 20kg heavier than him - crushing him due to momentum.

 

Character references from Adelaide and Carlton champion Eddie Betts and an Indigenous elder also helped sway the Tribunal, but they were most taken by his previous disciplinary record.

The Tribunal also noted that Lever was uninjured in the incident.

"His 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority … only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games," Gleeson said.

"Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more. Mr Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

[Dodos Demons 195]

6 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

 

In a rare decision, Charlie Cameron’s clean record over more than 200 games paid dividends after the Brisbane livewire escaped with a fine at the tribunal for his sling tackle on Jake Lever.

 

Another bizarre decision !!!! 

Brisbane sought to have the impact grading lessened from medium to low, which would let Cameron escape with a fine, despite his guilty plea.

 

Tribunal counsel Sally Flynn said it was the potential to cause injury that warranted the medium grading, labelling the tackle "inherently dangerous".

Lever's "vulnerable" position, the angle and rotation of the tackle and the extent of the force were relied on to argue for medium impact.

Tribunal dismissed his argument that the impact of the incident should have been graded as "low’' rather than "medium''.
BUT chairman Jeff Gleeson - found exceptional and compelling circumstances to use its discretion to turn the ban into a fine, citing Cameron's clean record. 
Gleeson said the incident was careless but at the lower end of seriousness, and noted Cameron had to complete the tackle in a rotating manner to avoid Lever - who is 20kg heavier than him - crushing him due to momentum.

 

Character references from Adelaide and Carlton champion Eddie Betts and an Indigenous elder also helped sway the Tribunal, but they were most taken by his previous disciplinary record.

The Tribunal also noted that Lever was uninjured in the incident.

"His 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority … only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games," Gleeson said.

"Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more. Mr Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

Just when we thought the rules had been written in such a way to allow wriggle room for the grading of impact (ie potential to cause serious injury is now relevant to the “impact”) so that the “stars” can be protected, along comes a new contender “the Chairman’s Discretion” as the ultimate power to save the stars when not even the ambiguous rules can.  Oh boy, could they be any more transparently biased to the “stars”* if the game.  Note those that qualify as a “star” are determined in the AFL’s discretion lol.  An indictment on the fairness of the game. 

[daisycutter 28,627]

so, only 5 rounds in and the new "potential to cause injury" upgrading impact category, now has a novel and neat circumvention thanks to the ever ingenious and malleable mr. gleeson.

only the afl could contrive such a great escape.  helpful [censored] abound in many spheres.

Edited April 16 by daisycutter
[*ijits]

[Red and Bluebeard 2,044]

"His 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority … only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games," Gleeson said.

"Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more. Mr Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

Even by the "standards" of the Tribunal, the above doesn't make any sense. Gleeson's own words state that more than half of the players who have played 200 or more AFL games have not been suspended. So Charlie is somehow exceptional, along with at least 51% of 200+ game players (some 300+)? It would make far more sense to say "We just make up rules to suit, and we like Charlie, so he gets off because that's the vibe and that's the way we roll".

 

Edited April 16 by Red and Bluebeard

[monoccular 16,224]

No wonder there are those who see the AFL as a totally corrupt body, like the IOC, FIFA etc.  

They seem to be able to find special circumstances to suit their agenda at will

As others have said, I love footy and the MFC but I have nothing but contempt for the administrative body known as  the AFL. 
 

I used to watch maybe 4 or 5 games a weekend but really now only watch MFC, with occasional looks at Kayo minis of other games 

Edited April 16 by monoccular

[Dodos Demons 195]

Just now, daisycutter said:

so, only 5 rounds in and the new "potential to cause injury" upgrading impact category, now has a novel and neat circumvention thanks to the ever ingenious and malleable mr. gleeson.

only the afl could contrive such a great escape.  helpful [censored] abound in many spheres.

So true - “potential to cause serious injury can be taken into account when grading impact*”.

*unless we think you are a great bloke or character witness tell us that we should believe you are a great bloke in which case the inverse applies and we can downgrade the impact in such circumstances. Farcical.  It really is. If the AFL did not have so many sycophant reporters - they need to call this out.    

[Dodos Demons 195]

5 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

"His 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority … only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games," Gleeson said.

"Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more. Mr Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

Even by the "standards" of the Tribunal, the above doesn't make any sense. Gleeson's own words state that more than half of the players who have played 200 or more AFL games have not been suspended. So Charlie is somehow exceptional, along with at least 51% of 200+ game players (some 300+)? It would make far more sense to say "We just make up rules to suit, and we like Charlie, so he gets off because that's the vibe and that's the way we roll".

 

Did he know those numbers off the top of his head or were they given to him by AFL HQ in the script? 

[Red and Bluebeard 2,044]

20 minutes ago, Dodos Demons said:

Did he know those numbers off the top of his head or were they given to him by AFL HQ in the script? 

Probably got them from ChatGPT for all the sense it makes ...

[Dodos Demons 195]

2 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

Probably got them from ChatGPT for all the sense it makes ...

I wonder if many players know that once you get to 200 games you can avail yourself of this loophole.  Jack Viney can cut loose now.   

[Demon Dynasty 15,648]

It was as sure as the sun rises tomorrow that Cameron was going to wriggle out of this.

Not hard to read the AFL at all now. They want their preferred teams at full strength and hence those team's stars playing wherever possible.

The charge was only ever put through as a 'be a little more careful next time' warning shot.

Nothing has changed at HQ.  Nothing unusual at all really. 

Butters off another sad example of hope hopelessly corrupt the entire place is.

The circus continues to roll along and god help anyone who stands in its way.

Edited April 16 by Demon Dynasty

[pitmaster 3,064]

So while Jeff Gleeson runs the tribunal it seems when the victim plays for Melbourne no penalty applies.

[The heart beats true 16,338]

Now we are doing character references on tackles? This is a joke.

It’s a split second movement when it suits them -  but now also one of the contributing factors in that split second is that 3 years ago the tackler facilitated a youth workshop. Well, that should be easy to manipulate at their discretion in the future - which is exactly what they want.

The social contract of equity and justice between the AFL and its audience is starting to tear. They’ve become obsessed with public rhetoric, that they then have to find increasingly inane ways to work around to support their broader goals (making money). It’s becoming so transparent that it’s damaging the relationship I have with the sport.

[Gawndy the Great 7,585]

We have clearly [censored] some people off at AFL HQ. Non suspensions, ludicrous fixturing, one sided umpiring. 

[Bitter but optimistic 21,344]

The match review/tribunal system of "adjudication" has moved beyond ludicrous into some sort of ultimate fantasy realm.

It's pointless being outraged or shocked anymore. Just look forward to to the next piece of wonderfully creative whimsy.

 

[forever demons 1,854]

8 hours ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

"His 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority … only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games," Gleeson said.

"Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more. Mr Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

Even by the "standards" of the Tribunal, the above doesn't make any sense. Gleeson's own words state that more than half of the players who have played 200 or more AFL games have not been suspended. So Charlie is somehow exceptional, along with at least 51% of 200+ game players (some 300+)? It would make far more sense to say "We just make up rules to suit, and we like Charlie, so he gets off because that's the vibe and that's the way we roll".

 

So if I have never shot anyone in all my life and i then I do, I get a walk for my good record

[daisycutter 28,627]

fox sports

Quote

Fears ‘absolutely ludicrous’ Tribunal verdict will open ‘Pandora’s Box’ as pundits left staggered

The incredible reversal of Charlie Cameron’s one-match suspension due to a good character and record has left experts in a state of disbelief.

 

[daisycutter 28,627]

Quote

Cameron has never been suspended in his 207 career games though he had been fined five times, including three times for rough conduct.

 

[Cranky Franky 1,514]

Both Cameron & Kosi should have got off. The sensible thing to do with those type of tackles is to judge them on the outcome.

If the tackled player is injured you are gone if not you are gone.

[gs77 3,350]

9 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

"His 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority … only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games," Gleeson said.

"Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more. Mr Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

So of players that have played 200 games, "almost half" have been suspended. So Mr Cameron is NOT in the "unusual" category - he's in the majority. 

Moreover, this is an utterly fallacious self-fulfilling prophecy. A player hasn't yet been suspended. Therefore they have a good record and we downgrade suspendable offences when they front the tribunal. Thus they continue to have a "clean" record ready to note the next time they get reported. Yet take another player that happens to cop a week for a minor incident early in their career, their fortunes in front of the tribunal are open to snowballing into further and sometimes longer suspensions.

AFL, fix this corrupt mess!

[Clintosaurus 6,551]

7 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

We have clearly [censored] some people off at AFL HQ. Non suspensions, ludicrous fixturing, one sided umpiring. 

Winning a flag probably didn't help over their darling Bulldogs.

[GM11 695]

If the AFL were serious, they would appeal this decision.

Thought when Laura was appointed things might change.

But no, just more of the same inconsistent garbage.

So Charlie is a good bloke. Kozi obviously isn't.

 

[demon3165 1,987]

41 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Both Cameron & Kosi should have got off. The sensible thing to do with those type of tackles is to judge them on the outcome.

If the tackled player is injured you are gone if not you are gone.

There would not have been a problem with Kossie if he had continued the action of his arms up at contact instead of turning his body to allow engagement of his shoulder to his head.  The decision on Maynard was wrong but if he also had contacted Gus with his arms up with the continuation of a smother Gus would still be playing, and would not have been an issue.

[Jaded No More 58,417]

Nonna Petracca better be available to give a character reference should Trac ever find himself at the tribunal... "he's a lovely boy and he makes an excellent lasagne, just how I taught him".

A farce. 

[sue 8,457]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

Cameron has never been suspended in his 207 career games though he had been fined five times, including three times for rough conduct.

Looks like it is self-perpetuating.  If they let you off in the past, then that is an argument for letting you off in future.

It's blindingly obvious that the MRO is corrupt.  But what can you expect when we have an entertainment corporate business rather than a sporting body.

Edited April 16 by sue

[sue 8,457]

1 minute ago, sue said:

Looks like it is self-perpetuating.  If they let you off in the past, then that is an argument for letting you off in future.  So you are safe forever.

It's blindingly obvious that the MRO is corrupt.  But what can you expect when we have an entertainment corporate business rather than a sporting body.