Robbo: AFL and tribunal lets footy down by accepting Charlie Cameron’s ‘good bloke’ defence

The Brisbane Lions’ defence of Charlie Cameron makes a mockery of the tribunal process, MARK ROBINSON writes of its “most mind-boggling decision” this year.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA. April 11, 2024. AFL. Round 5. Melbourne vs. Brisbane at the MCG. Brisbanes Charlie Cameron celebrates a 4th qtr goal. Pic: Michael Klein

Everyone – the players, coaches, the AFL and the fans – had agreed in principle that slam and aggressive tackles were outlawed.

If a player banged an opponent’s head into the turf, the player could expect a week’s suspension.

It made sense. Concussion was real and had to be avoided and defenceless players had to be protected when caught in a vulnerable position.

That presumption is out the window.

Charlie Cameron’s “good bloke’’ defence, which helped downgrade a suspension to a fine on Tuesday night, is the most mind-boggling decision at the AFL tribunal this year.

Second is Toby Greene escaping suspension the week before, for putting Mac Andrew’s head into the ground, with a level of menace that caused Andrew to retaliate.

Charlie Cameron is free to play against Geelong this weekend after the AFL Tribunal accepted a good character defence on Tuesday. Picture: Michael Klein

The reality is dangerous tackles, suddenly, are not as dangerous as we were led to believe.

In releasing Cameron with a fine for his drag-down tackle on Melbourne’s Jake Lever, the AFL tribunal has confused all in football.

The AFL won’t appeal, nor will it publicly condemn the decision.

But it’s fair to say headquarters was surprised by the verdict.

“From an AFL point of view, I was really happy with the way the MRO graded it with a one-match suspension and that was what we were hoping the outcome would be,’’ AFL boss Andrew Dillon said.

“We won’t appeal. We’ve had a look at that and we think the discretion was there for the tribunal to use. But as I said, the MRO graded it a one-match suspension. That’s where we thought the right result would have been.

“We’ll then look at the tribunal; how we go for the rest of the year. But as we do at the end of every year, we’ll review our tribunal guidelines.’’

Asked if being a “good bloke’’ should count, Dillon said: “I think that would be one of the things that we would look at towards the end of the year.’’

The confusing element is the tribunal had already previously indicated that each incident would be assessed on merit, rather than character.

Highlighted by Fox Footy’s tribunal correspondent David Zita in 2017, the AFL appeal’s lifted Bachar Houli’s suspension from two weeks to four weeks for striking, despite a glowing reference from then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

“A blow from a person of exemplary character has the same effect as a blow from a person of bad character,” appeal board chairman Peter O’Callaghan QC said at the time.

Clearly, “chook lotto’’ is alive and well.

That Cameron, an Indigenous man, does work with Indigenous youth, is a ridiculous offering to help downgrade a suspension to a fine.

Does that mean a player visiting sick kids at the Royal Children’s Hospital should also be given a reprieve because he’s a good bloke? What about attending a 100th birthday at a senior’s home? Or cooking snags for the homeless? Do they also fall under the “exceptional and compelling circumstances”, which the tribunal offered to explain the Cameron verdict?

And Cameron is not squeaky clean, either. He’s been fined five times in his 207-game career.

The tribunal did a disservice to the game.

And the AFL stands accused of the same because it did not appeal the decision.

Originally published as Robbo: AFL and tribunal lets footy down by accepting Charlie Cameron’s ‘good bloke’ defence