Clubs to urge overhaul of match review framework, Dillon doubles down

The AFLPA has commented on tribunal matters for the third time in its history, slamming the suspension of Toby Bedford and Charlie Cameron, saying the league is placing unreasonable expectations on players.

NCA. MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIAÉ July 6, 2024. AFL Round 17. Geelong vs. Hawthorn at GMHBA Stadium, Geelong. Will Day of the Hawks nails Tom Atkins of the Cats with a big tackle during the 1st qtr. . Pic: Michael Klein

The powerful AFL Players’ Association has broken ranks by hitting out at the three-match suspensions to Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford that were upheld by the tribunal on Tuesday night.

The union claimed players across the competition were now “genuinely confused as to what is and isn’t permissible in a tackle” as the football world angrily reacted to the sanctions imposed this week.

The AFLPA declared: “(Players) are seeing what they consider to be reasonable tackles penalised based on the outcome of the tackle, and don’t believe what is being asked of them is reasonable in the moment”.

Brisbane Lions (Cameron) and Greater Western Sydney (Bedford) have both decided to take the three-match suspensions to the AFL Appeals’ Board in a last-effort bid to free their players.

Toby Bedford's tackle on Tim Taranto AFL tribunal

The AFLPA almost never comments on findings from the Match Review Officer or tribunal.

Back in 2014 they called for clarity over bumping rules after Melbourne’s Jack Viney collected Adelaide’s Tom Lynch.

While that was a technicality, this time the AFLPA has disagreed outright with multiple decisions handed down.

“The AFLPA and players strongly support the AFL’s efforts to protect the head, including through changes to the laws of the game and the MRO and Tribunal system, and support decisions in recent years to eliminate dangerous play that puts players at unnecessary risk,” the AFLPA’s general manager of player and stakeholder relations Brett Murphy said.

“However, we are at a pivotal point in the evolution of these rules.

Liam Duggan of the Eagles lies concussed after being tackled by Charlie Cameron. Picture: Will Russell/AFL Photos via Getty Images.

“The two suspensions overnight raise important questions as to the role of tackling and what is realistically expected from players.

“Our members across the competition are genuinely confused as to what is and isn’t permissible in a tackle.

“They are seeing what they consider to be reasonable tackles penalised based on the outcome of the tackle, and don’t believe what is being asked of them is reasonable in the moment.

“This isn’t an easy issue to solve.

“Everyone in our game wants to protect the health and wellbeing of players and reducing contact to the head is critical to this. However, the question is, in an attempt to achieve this, are we getting the balance right?

“The AFLPA is seeking a wider discussion with the AFL, players and coaches on this.”

CLUBS TO CALL FOR OVERHAUL OF MATCH REVIEW FRAMEWORK

Clubs will call on the AFL to overhaul the match review framework to provide the league more flexibility to downgrade suspensions for dangerous tackles.

Key officials have become increasingly frustrated with the rigidity of the current system which doesn’t give the league the capacity to hand out lesser sanctions for football acts gone wrong.

In particular, clubs want lesser suspensions where there is no intent from the tackler to cause a head knock.

TRIBUNAL NEWS: Cameron, Bedford, Davies all fail to overturn bans

The Herald Sun understands the league will be called on to review the match review framework following its completion of the competitive balance project.

Chief executives are in Perth this week for meetings with league chief executive Andrew Dillon and football boss Laura Kane to discuss draft and trade changes, and on Wednesday Dillon doubled down on the tougher interpretation of dangerous tackles.

He said player safety was the first, second and third priorities when it comes to the league and its judiciary.

Scott Gullan: AFL has reached tribunal ‘tipping point’ after Toby Bedford, Charlie Cameron verdicts

As three week suspensions handed to GWS player Toby Bedford and Brisbane’s Charlie Cameron face challenges at the AFL Appeals tribunal, Dillon said he believed that AFL players were already adapting their behaviour in tackles, citing a clear reduction in the number of dangerous tackles in the AFL this season.

“What I will start with is that our tribunal system is based on prioritising the health and safety of our players. That is the number one, two and three priority for the system. Last year we had 35 dangerous tackles rated by the MRO and the tribunal. As we sit here two thirds of the way through the season, we have got – including the two that are going to be appealed this week only 11 tackles.”

He wouldn’t be drawn on the Cameron and Bedford cases because they were under appeal.

“I think the players have adapted. Sometimes you just have weekends like we have had,” he said.

The furore over lengthy dangerous tackle suspensions has blown-up following the three-match bans to GWS Giant Toby Bedford and Brisbane’s Charlie Cameron.

Both players are challenging the tribunal verdicts at the Appeals Board on Thursday night amid widespread outrage from former players and the football community.

What clubs want is the capacity to downgrade the suspensions in instances where the tackler, like Bedford, accidentally causes the player in possession to hit his head.

In the Bedford case, match review officer Michael Christian had little option but to either dismiss the incident or give him three matches as Tigers’ midfielder Tim Taranto suffered concussion in the tackle, resulting in a severe impact grading.

Clubs want the AFL to introduce a function the match review framework to give Michael Christian the flexibility to lessen the suspensions when an accidental head knock occurs.

Previously, the league had the ability to do that when there was three conduct gradings including a negligent classification, but that was abolished and reduced to careless and intentional only.

Tim Taranto recovers from a Toby Bedford tackle in Round 18. Picture: Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images.

The move was to help simplify and streamline the match review process, but the complexity around concussion causes could cause a rethink.

A downgrade function could allow the league to hand out lesser one and two-match suspensions where the impact is severe but the intent is not to cause a head injury.

Currently, the MRO has the capacity to upgrade and increase suspensions through the ‘potential to cause serious injury’ assessment, but not downgrade.

The downgrade lever is considered the potential next step to help address unease over the head knock suspensions.

The league is keen to protect players’ heads but the lengthy suspensions have fuelled criticism that the fabric of the game is being challenged.

AFL players around the country have questioned the Bedford and Cameron suspensions and admitted their confusion around current tackle rules.

Charlie Cameron tackle on Liam Duggan

Sydney Swans’ champion midfielder Jude Bolton, who suffered multiple concussions in his glittering career, said the game was at a crossroads, and questioned the current system.

“Can’t stand the way the things are going in the AFL with ridiculous 3 week sanctions for both Toby Bedford (on Taranto) and Charlie Cameron (on Duggan),” Bolton said.

“Both received a grading of careless, severe and high (contact) from the MRO, which is just not right.

“We are suspending players for being physical around the contest.

“The MRO has the lever of the potential to cause serious injury.

“This should be used when players get it wrong, or an incident is deemed excessive / terrible (such as Jimmy Webster’s bump on Jy Simpkin).

“Choose then to throw the book at them and make a statement.”