Hello and welcome toย Zero Hanger'sย coverage of Thursday's AFL Appeal Board hearings, which saw both Brisbane and GWS challenge respective Tribunal outcomes for players Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford.
The Lions fronted the Appeal Board in the opening hearing of the evening, with Cameron's three-game suspension for rough conduct, which was handed down to the Brisbane star by the Match Review Officer following Round 18, cleared in a successful hearing for Brisbane.
The Giants followed suit after lodging their own appeal of the Tribunal's verdict from Tuesday night, which saw the GWS forward's three-game suspension for a dangerous tackle on Tiger Tim Taranto upheld.
In a similar fashion, GWS were successful at the Appeal Board and saw Bedford's three-game ban scrapped.
Here's how both proceedings played out...
Bedford and Giants succeed with second challenge
Verdict:ย GWS have successfully challenged the AFL Tribunal's outcome at the Appeal Board, meaning Toby Bedford is available for the next three matches.
"There are two elements to the offence of rough conduct. First, there's got to be unreasonable conduct, and second, the conduct must be likely to cause injury. Now we accept that the Tribunal below found unreasonable conduct. However, it made no finding about whether or not the conduct of player Bedford was likely to cause injury," Appeal Board chair William Houghton said in his summation.
"There's nothing in the reasons of the Tribunal that indicate any consideration for that second element of the defence of rough conduct, nor is there anything in the transcript dealing with the evidence or submissions of counsel.
"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, that error of law being a failure to take into account the second element of the charge of rough conduct."
7:00:ย The Appeal Board is now deliberating.
6:57: d'Arville: "Tackling players to the ground is an inherent part of our game. A finding that a tackle is likely to bring someone to the ground is not a finding that it is likely to cause injury. Comfort to resort to that finding should be rejected."
6:46: Hannon (AFL): "The Tribunal did take into account the extent of force and injury caused in assessing impact."
"The observations made by the Tribunal about previous incidents weren't central on their findings in regards to impact."
6:42:ย Hannon (AFL): "The Tribunal was not bound to accept [Bedford's evidence]. The exertion that there was no other evidence than what Mr. Bedford said must be rejected."
6:38: Lisa Hannon (AFL): "There is an abundance of evidence that could've satisfied the Tribunal that injury was likely."
6:30: d'Arville: "The Tribual didn't find that the tackle was likely to cause injury. (Relying on quotes from the Triibunal's decision): 'May well' is not the same as 'is likely to'.
6:20:ย The Giants have relied on past rough conduct charges, showing examples of tackles that were graded as either severe, high or medium impact.
6:10: The Giants have raised a denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal, with their submission pleading for the Appeal Board to assess the level of impact grading.
d'Arville: "It cannot be the case that every matter where a player is dazed falls into the 'severe' (impact) category.
5:58: d'Arville: "The multi-step decision-making and execution process which is surmised by the AFL and accepted by the Tribunal goes beyond the limits of any athlete's cognitive and physical limits.
"It's too much to ask of an athlete in the position of Mr Bedford."
5:55: d'Arville makes note that Bedford is ranked among the top 20 players in the AFL this year for tackles, and is first overall for the metric among forwards, arguing Bedford should/would know how to properly apply a tackle.
The initial half of the Giants' Appeal submission relies on the following grounds:
- An error of law had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.
- That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
5:42pm: Much like the Giants' Tribunal appeal, they will contest the findings that Bedford's tackle was 'careless', and that the impact was 'severe'.
Showing footage of the incident, GWS Counsel Anais d'Arville noted the tackle took place in 'an extremely short window of time".
d'Arville questions the Tribunal's findings following the evidence provided by Bedford on Tuesday night, given it was noted that a reasonable player would have released one of Taranto's arms to allow him to brace for impact.
"In other words, that line is the only part in the Tribunal's reasons that makes a finding about what a reasonable player might've done differently.
"There was no finding or suggestion that Bedford should not have tackled at all or should have acted differently than leaping for Taranto.
"This is a wholly unrealistic hypothetical that is not based on any evidence."
Lions succeed in challenge against Cameron tackle ban
Verdict:ย Brisbane have successfully challenged the AFL Tribunal's outcome at the Appeal Board, meaning Charlie Cameron is available for the next three matches.
"Whilst we accept that the Tribunal below 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," Appeal Board chair William Houghton said in his summation.
"What the Tribunal did not do was deal with the elements of the charge which is set out in the laws of Australian football, and in particular, what the Tribunal did not deal with was law 18.7, which is entitled 'rough conduct'. That rule provides that the spirit and intention of players should be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player which is likely to cause injury.
"We consider that the Tribunal below did fall into an error of law that had a material impact on this decision.
"It's important that the laws of Australian football have primacy over the guidelines if there is any contradiction or inconsistency.
"Law 18.7 very clearly states that 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."
4:56:ย The Appeal Board is now deliberating. Verdict to come.
4:51: The Tribunal did not accept Cameorn's evidence that the force was caused by Duggan's pulling movement or the position of Duggan's foot. They set out their reasons why."
Hannon read through key lines of the AFL Tribunal's summation and reasoning for their decision from Tuesday night.
4:45:ย Hannon (AFL): The guidelines are not inconsistent with the laws of the game.
4:35: Lisa Hannon (AFL): "Concerning an error of law, the AFL does not accept that the Tribunal only had regard to the guidelines in coming to its position.
"There was no prioritisation of the guidelines."
4:29: Winneke said the AFL's suggestion that Cameron could've sat Duggan down is a "fanciful suggestion".
Winneke" "It's unreasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that Cameron had reasonable alternatives."
4:24: Winneke (Brisbane): "It's apparent Duggan lowers his centre of gravity, he starts to twist and it seems he tries to twist to his right, which twists Cameron to his right. The twisting force causes Cameron to move forward and Duggan to move backward.
"The finding was Cameron's motion in a fluid action caused Duggan players to move backwards. After Cameron's left leg comes down, it's almost immediate that his body is propelled forward because of the force Duggan propels backwards.
"Footballers know a tackle like this is a combination of the force of both players.
"What we ask you (the Appeal Board) to do, and what the Tribunal didn't, is to look at that carefully."
4:17:ย Winneke (Brisbane): "We comfortably say we can discharge that onus (of an unreasonably acting Tribunal), because it appears to us that the Tribunal did not engage with the evidence that was before it. Whether that be Cameron's evidence, or equally that the evidence was consistent with the vision the Tribunal had before it.
"The findings that were made that Cameron drove Duggan backwards with excessive force, the evidence before the Tribunal demonstrated that it was reasonable given the nature of Australian Rules Football. This is a contact sport. The evidence is clear."
4:14: Christopher Winneke (Brisbane): "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, the failure to comply with them doesn't give weight to the Tribunal's decisions."
4:05pm: The Lions Appeal is based on the two following grounds:
- That an error of law had aย material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.
- That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could come to the decision it did.
The Lions argue that the Tribunal placed too much focus on the AFL Tribunal Guidelines and failed to interpret the key factors behind a rough conduct charge.
