An "error of law" in the tribunal system has allowed Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford to overturn their three-week suspensions for dangerous tackles, allowing both to play this week, flipping a combined six-match sanction to zero.

Rule 18.7 in the laws of Australian football was pointed out by tribunal chairman Will Houghton to explain the two elements factored into the decision to suspend the players.

โ€œThere's got to be unreasonable conduct and secondly the conduct must be likely to cause injury,โ€ Houghton said in Thursday's hearing.

The second element; conduct being likely to cause injury, is where the lawyers for Brisbane and GWS were able successfully overturn the verdicts.

Indeed, any tackle laid is "likely" to cause injury by nature, but as the Lions lawyer Chris Winneke put it on the night, the tribunal is putting "the cart before the horse" by citing this terminology with regard to the tribunal guidelines rather than the context of the actual game.

โ€œThis isn't contact by members of the public in a supermarket," Winneke said, appealing Charlie Cameron's tackle on Eagle Liam Duggan.

โ€œIt's between two strong, fit people playing on a football field in a contact sport.โ€

Therefore, it was not unreasonable that Cameron didn't foresee how his tackle was likely to injure Duggan, given the added context of legal physical combat in a contact sport.

This argument being successful opens a new can of worms for the AFL, as club's are bound to use the same argument when more players are inevitably cited to the tribunal for similar tackles in the future.

It baffles the mind to think that the context of our sport being naturally combative has only now entered the equation of tribunal hearings for the controversial dangerous tackle adjudications that have sparked confusion for over three years.

It seems a number of previously suspended tackles could have also been overturned on the same parameters, particularly those without two actions where the "duty of care" aspect was visibly met.

Have Thursday's hearings saved the game from being withered away to a version of touch football? Or will the AFL look to crack down further on the interpretation of "dangerous" or "likely to cause injury" and spark more public outrage in the process.

Either way, the AFL has a tough decision to make, potentially being legally liable for the head trauma of a number of former players - Liam Picken, Brad Sheppard, Max Rooke and more.

The league may still feel financially inclined to completely legislate concussion out of the game and continue their crackdown anyway possible.

Or these verdicts may up the ante on discussion over players choosing to participate in such a combative sport, and being somewhat liable themselves.

The cases in Thursday's hearing could be the breaking point for the AFL on the issue of concussion.

The AFL has since addressed the fallout from the overturned verdicts, sharing their approval of the decisions made in a statement on Friday.

"The AFL acknowledges the decisions of the AFL Appeals Board last night in relation to the matters involving Charlie Cameron (Brisbane Lions) and Toby Bedford (GWS Giants)," the statement read.

"Both Cameron and Bedford have had their suspensions that were originally imposed by the MRO and then confirmed by the AFL Tribunal overturned and are eligible to play this weekend.

"In the AFL's view (shared by the independent AFL Tribunal on Tuesday) the tackles by Cameron and Bedford were dangerous tackles, principally because both of the tackled players had their arms pinned (resulting in vulnerability) and were additionally brought to ground with excessive force. But we accept the Appeal Board's decisions, albeit that they were made on a legal technicality involving a perceived technical deficiency in the Tribunal's reasons.

"The AFL will reflect on those reasons and will address the deficiency in the conduct of further Tribunal hearings this season. The AFL will also review the system at the end of the season, as we do every year."

The league also shared a clip of 18 tackles they deem to be "dangerous," essentially all of which were tackles that resulted in suspensions this year.

"The AFL will continue to prioritise the health and safety of players in all aspects of the sport which includes the sanctioning of conduct that is considered to be dangerous when appropriate to do so," the statement continues.

"The AFL readily accepts that in our 360-degree, full contact sport there are injuries, including concussive injuries, that are accidental (i.e. not careless or intentional) and do not attract a sanction, however consistent and proportionate sanctions when appropriate are an effective deterrence as has been starkly evident in the reduction of suspensions for dangerous tackles in 2024 as compared to 2023."