Tribunal Round 18: Charlie Cameron, Toby Bedford and Alex Davies fail to overturn bans
Charlie Cameron, Toby Bedford and Alex Davies have all had their three-game bans upheld at the AFL tribunal. SCOTT GULLAN has the details.
AFL
Don't miss out on the headlines from AFL. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Charlie Cameron’s luck at the AFL Tribunal has run out with the Brisbane star found guilty of using excessive force in a tackle which concussed West Coast Eagle Liam Duggan.
There was no good guy tax handed out this time for Cameron who will miss the Lions next three matches after the tribunal upheld the match review officer’s grading of careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.
The decision is set to cause more uncertainty in the game with former Brisbane champion Jonathan Brown believing the “fabric of the game” is under threat if incidents like Cameron’s are worthy of suspension.
But the tribunal, which was chaired by KC Renee Enbom and included former Essendon premiership midfielder Jason Johnson and ex-Blue and AFL umpire Jordan Bannister, deliberated for 45 minutes before dismissing Cameron’s claims that it was Duggan who caused the tackle to go wrong.
“We find that in tackling his opponent in the way he did, Cameron engaged in rough conduct,” Embom said.
She said both Duggan’s arms were pinned and that Cameron used the right side of his body to “forcefully drive Duggan backwards”.
“Duggan managed to avoid being immediately driven to the ground by taking a few steps backwards and turning to the side,” Enbom said. “However, under the continued force being applied, Duggan then lost his feet and landed heavily on his back with his head hitting the ground.
“It is the combination of the excessive force used in driving Duggan backwards with both of his arms pinned that makes the tackle unreasonable in the circumstances.
“Those two features put Duggan in a highly vulnerable position. He had no opportunity to try to protect himself. If he wasn’t driven backwards with such force, then there would have been an opportunity for him to try to control the way he landed.
“If his arms weren’t held, then there would have been an opportunity for him to try to use an arm or shoulder to cushion his landing. For these reasons, we uphold the charge.”
Earlier Cameron had done an impressive job giving evidence - clearly helped by a cheat sheet infront of him - and said he’d lost his footing in the tackle and that it was actually Duggan who had dragged him down which caused the accidental head clash.
“You can see him dropping his knees and rotating,” Cameron said. “I’ve got no control, I’ve only got control of him. He’s dragging me to the ground. I felt like he had created backward momentum.
“I’ve lost my footing due to him fighting the tackle . . . . that caused the imbalance for me to leave my feet.
“He rotates his body and twists, so he’s dragging me down when we get our feet tangled and I lose my balance.
“(The head contact) was accidental due to the momentum he created.”
The AFL argued that Cameron could have released Duggan’s right arm and also attempted to slow momentum at the top of the tackle by trying to sit the Eagles player down rather than driving forward with force.
Three months ago Cameron had a much better time at the tribunal when he remarkably had a one-week sentence for a tackle on Melbourne’s Jake Lever in Round 5 downgraded to a fine for his “exemplary record and character”.
GIANT BAN UPHELD
Toby Bedford and the Giants have been unsuccessful in their attempts to fight the tagger’s three-match ban for a tackle that left Richmond midfielder Tim Taranto concussed.
It means Bedford will miss three crucial matches for GWS against teams in a similar position to them on the table – Gold Coast (H), Melbourne (A) and Hawthorn (H).
Bedford was charged with rough conduct after executing a dicing tackle on Taranto, with the Match Review Officer grading it as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact. Taranto also suffered a concussion from the incident and will miss the Tigers’ next game.
The Giants presented the case that Bedford’s tackle of Taranto was neither careless conduct nor a reportable offence. The club’s counsel Mr d’Arville argued that Bedford only had two choices in the incident – to tackle the way he did or to not tackle at all.
If they were unsuccessful on those grounds, the Giants also suggested that the impact grading should have been medium or at worst, high, instead of the severe rating it received.
Bedford was quizzed over the incident and spoke through the intricacies of the tackle. He said that because there was a free player next to Taranto, his priority was to wrap up both arms to ensure no handball could be released. That was also the reason why he could not have made the tackle any lower.
The Giants tagger confirmed he did leap towards Taranto, but only because if he had taken more steps in an attempt to get close to the Richmond midfield it would have been too late to execute the tackle successfully.
“I don’t think I could have done anything differently in terms of where I grabbed him,” Bedford said. “As I executed the tackle, I thought I executed it perfectly. I don’t think there was any other way I could tackle him.”
The AFL attempted to argue that Bedford’s actions were the major contributor to the momentum in the tackle. They suggested that Taranto had stopped while claiming the ball and that Bedford’s actions “hit him with some force”.
When asked about the mechanics of the tackle, Bedford was strong in his belief that releasing one of Taranto’s pinned arms may not have made a difference in being able to brace for contact with the ground. He also confirmed that the majority of his body weight was on the ground and not on Taranto.
The Giants’ overall defence focused on the fact that in the footage it is not clear that Taranto’s arm and the ball are entirely pinned in. They also reaffirmed their stance that there was no other way to tackle and it was not possible to release in the circumstances.
They also presented multiple examples of tackles that were either graded as medium or high impact in 2023 and suggested Bedford’s actions fell more in line with them.
However, the Tribunal found that Bedford’s actions were not that of the average player. Because he lept at Taranto and both feet left the ground, they believed the midfielder was placed in a vulnerable position because of Bedford’s motion.
In reading his findings, Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson suggested that a reasonable player would have released the arms of the tackled player before hitting the ground.
They felt that the impact was severe, in particular, the force with which Taranto hit the ground. The finding of severe impact was also in line with all other cases in 2024 where concussion has been involved in a Tribunal case.
DAVIES’ SUSPENSION STANDS
Gold Coast’s Alex Davies picked the wrong night to try and argue he’d executed a perfect groundball contest rather than a forceful front-on hit which concussed Port Adelaide’s Lachie Jones.
Davies was the final case in a marathon tribunal sitting and almost six hours after the session began, the verdict was the same as the previous two cases involving Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford - upheld and a three-game suspension.
The Suns had tried to argue that the young midfielder was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for him to do so in that way, therefore his action wasn’t a reportable offence.
They tried to call former Western Bulldogs coach Brendan McCartney to give expert evidence about the best technique for AFL players to win contested ball.
But the AFL opposed the move and tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson agreed, blocking McCartney from taking part in the hearing.
Davies gave evidence saying his eyes were on the ball the whole time and it was his sole intention.
“Just because I didn’t end up with the ball doesn’t mean I wasn’t going for the ball,” he said. “I attacked the ball like it was mine to win. He had the same intent and came into me, he had the same rights as I did.”
When told by AFL counsel Sally Flynn that he tucked his arm in and didn’t have to turn his body to the extent he did, Davies said: “I disagree. Am I supposed to just run face first into him?”
After 20 minutes of deliberation, the tribunal found Davies had made forceful front-on contact.
“We are satisfied that Alex Davies bumped or made contact that was at least low impact to Lachlan Jones from front-on when Jones had his head over the ball,” Gleeson said.
“Two questions that then arise are was Davies contesting the ball and If so, was it reasonable to contest the ball in that way? Our answer to number one is yes and to number two is no.
“As to one, although we find Davies was second to the ball, he was attempting to gather the ball while bumping or making contact with Jones.
“As to two, Davies hit the contest at some speed. He was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that Jones had touched or fumbled the ball and was attempting to gather it.
“We find he could and should have seen that Jones’ head was over the ball and he was not side on. Davies could have turned or moved in such a way as to avoid or minimise impact to Jones’ head and shoulders.
“A reasonable player would not use that technique if, as here, he should realise that his opponent has his head down over the ball. We are clearly satisfied this was forceful front-on contact.”
Davies will miss games against the GWS Giants, Brisbane and West Coast.
Originally published as Tribunal Round 18: Charlie Cameron, Toby Bedford and Alex Davies fail to overturn bans
‘Long way from Birregurra’: Swans’ defensive duo who defied odds
Lewis Melican and Tom McCartin are holding the fort as equals in Sydney’s backline. SCOTT GULLAN tracks their journey from growing up 10 minutes apart to the biggest stage in football.
Tragedy, triumph and the phone call that changed everything
Logan Evans started 2023 as a highly-rated draft prospect. But in the space of two months, his life was turned upside down. The teenager was then hit with another blow in November – before the phone rang.