Charlie Cameron has successfully fought a rough conduct charge with the AFL Tribunal recording an unprecedented outcome to allow the Brisbane star to play against Geelong on Saturday night.
The Lion forward had been initially suspended for one-game by the AFL Match Review Officer after being cited for a sling tackle on Melbourne's Jake Lever.
With inconsistencies apparent in the AFL Match Review and Tribunal process, The Sporting News explains why Cameron is free to play this week.
MORE: Follow the Coleman Medal race with daily updates | Every fixture and result for the 2024 AFL season | Every AFL team’s injury list and Supercoach implications
What was Charlie Cameron originally suspended for?
Cameron was initially reported by the AFL MRO for rough conduct after the dump tackle on Lever, that was graded careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.
These gradings result in an automatic one-match suspension, which Cameron and Brisbane decided to contest at the AFL Tribunal.
Charlie Cameron has received a one-game suspension for this incident involving Jake Lever.
— AFL (@AFL) April 12, 2024
Details: https://t.co/zJgQDEzwR8 pic.twitter.com/Pc7X14EGyE
Why Charlie Cameron wasn't suspended by the AFL Tribunal?
Cameron saw his one-match suspension quashed at the AFL Tribunal because of 'exceptional and compelling circumstances'.
Despite the AFL Tribunal deciding that the tackle was 'medium impact', which would usually retain the one-match ban, an unprecedented ruling was made based on Cameron's prior record and good character.
Reasons given by the AFL Tribunal included the fact Cameron had not been suspended in his 207-game career, the fact he is a role model and that the tackle was careless but not grossly careless.
Cameron will be free to play in Saturday night's Gabba blockbuster against Geelong.
Full AFL Tribunal Reasons Transcript For Cameron Decision
The AFL Tribunal found that this was ‘medium’ impact, but downgraded the sanction from a one-match ban to a fine based on exceptional and compelling circumstances.
We turn now to exceptional and compelling circumstances.
We find that those circumstances do exist here.
Cameron has played for 10 years without being suspended - 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. Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more.
Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.
This alone would not be enough in our view to result in us necessarily describing it as an exemplary record or, if it was, to exercise our discretion to downgrade.
We note in this matter Cameron has suffered five fines in his history, including three for rough conduct, the charge he faces tonight.
It is however the case that he has not been suspended for 207 games.
The matters that cause us to downgrade this sanction from a one-week suspension to a fine commensurate with a low impact grading are as follows.
1) While this was careless, it was at the lower range of careless. Cameron knew Lever had one arm free. He is much smaller and lighter than Lever and, as he said, lost control of a tackle. If he didn’t rotate 95-plus kilograms of Jake Lever, he would’ve landed squarely on his 74-kilogramme frame.
It was careless but not grossly careless.
We take into account Cameron’s guilty plea, his acceptance that he could and should have released Lever’s arm.
2) While this was medium impact for the reasons we stated, Lever suffered no injury or apparent discomfort.
The difference between this case and the three examples that were graded low impact was real but not significant.
3) The references from Eddie Betts and Gregory Egert provide impressive details of the work Cameron does in the Indigenous community.
He is a role model with an impressive AFL career, it is something for those he connects with aspire to.
These matters are not irrelevant when we come to exercise our discretion in respect of a first suspendable offence when no injury was suffered and was neither intentional or grossly negligent.
Exceptional and compelling means what it says. It will be a rare case when all of the circumstances combine to result in an exercise of discretion to downgrade a sanction.
This is such a case.
We determine in our discretion the appropriate sanction is the fine that would be imposed on Cameron if this was graded as low impact.
