AFL insists tackles were dangerous after appeals board overturns player bans

The AFL insists that the contentious tackles by Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford were dangerous, as three-time premiership coach Mick Malthouse took aim at the sport’s rule makers, declaring “lunatics are running the asylum” after a week of confusion and controversy over tackling played out at the tribunal.

The Brisbane Lions and Greater Western Sydney were successful on Thursday night in their bid to overturn three-match bans handed to Cameron and Bedford for rough conduct, each party citing the same defence – that the initial tribunal had made an error of law.

Cameron and Bedford were suspended by match review officer Michael Christian before taking their cases to the AFL tribunal, which upheld the bans. But the appeals board ruled in favour of the two players, finding that the tribunal had made an error of law by giving too much consideration to tribunal guidelines over the laws of the game regarding rough conduct.

The men Cameron and Bedford had tackled in their respective games – West Coast co-captain Liam Duggan and Richmond star Tim Taranto – were each left concussed, and will miss at least this weekend’s games.

While the AFL said on Friday it understood the appeal board’s call, it backed the original suspension, and shared video examples of dangerous tackles to its 18 clubs just hours before round 19 began with Friday night’s clash between Essendon and Adelaide. You can watch those examples in the video below.

“In the AFL’s view (shared by the independent AFL tribunal on Tuesday) the tackles by Cameron and Bedford were dangerous tackles, principally because both of the tackled players had their arms pinned (resulting in vulnerability) and were additionally brought to ground with excessive force,” the AFL statement said.

“But we accept the appeal board’s decisions, albeit that they were made on a legal technicality involving a perceived technical deficiency in the tribunal’s reasons. The AFL will reflect on those reasons and will address the deficiency in the conduct of further tribunal hearings this season. The AFL will also review the system at the end of the season, as we do every year.”

Malthouse, who guided the Eagles and Collingwood to premierships, said that players, umpires and supporters were confused by what constituted a legal tackle.

“Well, what does it mean? It means both players laid the perfect tackle and what they are saying is ... concussions are consequences of the tackles, but they are perfect tackles,” Malthouse told Nine’s Today on Friday.

“Until the rule changes ... and I don’t know how that’s going to happen because the lunatics are running the asylum at the moment. We had the sheriff come in last night and straighten it out. I don’t think anyone knows. The players don’t know, coaches don’t know, supporters are up in arms.

The tackle that resulted in Charlie Cameron’s suspension.Credit: Fox Footy

“No one knows the rules – that’s the trouble. I feel for the umpires. In fairness the umpires didn’t award a free kick [after the Bedford tackle] so I think they got it right.

“Michael Christian ... he might have been great as a player, but he’s certainly mucking these up. If there is indecision, and the umpires don’t know when to blow the whistle and the supporters don’t know what’s happening, we have got total confusion.”

Western Bulldogs premiership coach Luke Beveridge said the sport had become “significantly paranoid and overprotective of the head, and concussion”.

“It has forced people into coaching the umpires a certain way, interpreting different situations in different ways, because we are concerned there might be some fallout with head injuries more than anything,” Beveridge said.

“But, ultimately, it has sent us, we are in a spiral now where everyone is confused.”

Beveridge said it might have to be accepted that the sport carried risk and, as a result, only penalise players where there had been an intent to hurt an opponent.

“I think we are really happy for both those boys – Charlie and Toby – to get off because I don’t think anyone thought there was any malice in their tackles,” he said.

Beveridge said the Bulldogs coaching staff had not altered the way their players were tackling because of the ongoing confusion around the rules.

Lions football department boss Danny Daly said on Friday that Cameron had “executed the tackle really well”, and that Duggan had “contributed in some way to the outcome of the incident”.

Daly said justice had been served, but understood the crackdown on bumps and tackles which led to head trauma was required.

Giants football boss Jason McCartney said there had been an error of law, but suggested the overall tackling issue which has plagued the competition needed to be dealt with in the post-season. Highlighting the confusion, in Bedford’s case, the tagger did not even concede a free kick.

Appeals board chair Will Houghton ruled the tribunal did not fully consider Law 18.7, instead it had focused too much on guidelines when upholding both bans.

“Whilst 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 of the offence: that is, whether the conduct was likely to cause injury. Absent that consideration ... we consider that the tribunal did fall into an error of law that had a material impact on its decision,” Houghton said directly about the Cameron suspension.

Club chief executives and the AFL Players Association have also called for greater clarity.