AFL tribunal: Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford both free to play after success at appeals board

Both Toby Bedford and Charlie Cameron have had their three-match bans overturned on technicalities after clubs lawyers successfully argued against their suspensions.

PERTH, AUSTRALIA - JULY 14: Charlie Cameron of the Lions celebrates a goal during the round 18 AFL match between West Coast Eagles and Brisbane Lions at Optus Stadium, on July 14, 2024, in Perth, Australia. (Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)

GWS forward Toby Bedford has followed Brisbane’s Charlie Cameron in getting his three-game rough conduct suspension dismissed on a procedural technicality.

More than an hour after it overturned Cameron’s ban on the basis the tribunal made an error in not dealing with the elements of the charge set out in the laws of the game, the AFL’s appeals board cited the same reasoning for clearing Bedford.

In shock back-to-back results, the findings in Cameron’s successful appeal paved the way for GWS to also argue the tribunal had not concluded Bedford’s actions were likely to cause injury.

Bedford’s rundown tackle on Tim Taranto led to the Richmond midfielder being concussed during the Giants’ win at the MCG on Sunday.

That same day, Cameron’s tackle on West Coast’s Liam Duggan resulted in the Eagle being subbed off with concussion.

The appeals board’s decisions follow a week in which the duo’s bans thrust tackling back into the spotlight and AFL greats raised concerns about the fabric of the game.

Both appeals being successful will likely spark more debate and confusion, given they are largely on legal grounds, rather than provide clarity about dangerous tackles.

Toby Bedford's tackle on Tim Taranto AFL tribunal

Like in the appeals board’s decision on Cameron, chairman Will Houghton pointed to 18.7 in the laws of Australian football, which focused on there being two elements to a rough conduct offence.

“There’s got to be unreasonable conduct and secondly the conduct must be likely to cause injury,” Houghton said.

“In our previous case, we upheld the appeal because there was no consideration of the second element.

“Similarly, in this case, 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.”

Houghton had earlier said GWS was religitating the case made at the tribunal after Giants lawyer Anais d’Arville had contested the grading of the impact as severe and rejected the AFL’s suggestion there was an alternative way for Bedford to tackle.

The league’s counsel, Lisa Hannon, who also oversaw the Cameron appeal on Thursday night, again argued the tribunal did not make an error of law that materially impacted its decision.

Bedford and Cameron’s availability come as a big boost for the Giants and Lions as both sides seek to book finals berths in the run home.

CAMERON FREED AFTER OVERTURNING BAN ON APPEAL

Brisbane star Charlie Cameron has had his three-game rough conduct ban overturned on appeal.

After an hour of submissions, the AFL’s appeals board on Thursday night found the tribunal made an error of law in upholding the Lions goalsneak’s suspension for a dangerous tackle that left West Coast’s Liam Duggan with concussion.

The decision follows a week in which tackling has been in the spotlight and former players have raised concerns about the fabric of the game in light of the bans to Cameron and GWS speedster Toby Bedford.

Bedford, who copped a three-game ban for a rundown tackle that concussed Richmond’s Tim Taranto, was set to appeal after Cameron’s hearing.

Cameron’s tackle left Duggan concussed. (Photo by Will Russell/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

Brisbane argued the tribunal erred and “put the cart before the horse” by focusing too heavily on its guidelines rather than apply the definition of rough conduct within the game’s laws.

Lions lawyer Chris Winneke said the tackle and Cameron’s approach to it were lawful.

“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,” Winneke said.

“This isn’t contact by members of the public in a supermarket.

“It’s between two strong, fit people playing on a football field in a contact sport.”

The tribunal on Tuesday night found Cameron acted unreasonably, driving Duggan backwards and into the Perth Stadium turf.

Brisbane argued that the findings and conclusion of rough conduct were so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have come to that decision because all the evidence pointed in one direction.

“To find that Cameron did not exercise reasonable care was simply not open on the evidence,” Winneke said.

He argued the suggestion Cameron could have sat Duggan down in the tackle was fanciful.

AFL counsel Lisa Hannon rejected the suggestion the tribunal made an error of law or prioritised its guidelines over the laws of the game.

Hannon argued that even if it did, it did not have a

She said Cameron’s tackle left Duggan in a highly vulnerable position with no opportunity to protect himself.

Cameron is free to play. (Photo by Will Russell/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

“If his arms weren’t held, he could’ve used an arm or shoulder to cushion his landing,” Hannon said.

Appeals board chairman Will Houghton said the tribunal did not deal with the elements of the charge set out in the laws of the game, particularly 18.7 on rough conduct.

“We accept that the tribunal found the conduct to be unreasonable, which is one element of the offence, it completely failed to consider the second, critical element, that is whether the conduct is likely to cause injury,” Houghton said.

“We consider the tribunal did fall into an error of law that had a material impact on his decision.”

Houghton said the video did not lead the board to the conclusion that Cameron’s conduct was likely to cause injury.

“It would’ve been a matter that would’ve been open to a tribunal to make that finding or not, but in this case it made no such finding, it did not refer to law 18.7 and made no reference in its reasons to the law 18.7 or the two important elements which needed to be established to establish the guilt of Cameron for the charge of rough conduct.”

Originally published as AFL tribunal: Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford both free to play after success at appeals board