Charlie Cameron suspended stiff to not get the StKilda tax

[CURLY]

Cameron has been given a week for a sling tackle a game a week after Green had no case to answer for exactly the same.

Difference being Green was playing StKilda the following week.

Bad luck Charlie

[saynta]

Cameron has been given a week for a sling tackle a game a week after Green had no case to answer for exactly the same.

Difference being Green was playing StKilda the following week.

Bad luck Charlie

The AFL is an effing disgrace.

[SaintPav]

Was there that much difference between the Cameron and Greene tackles? Didn’t look too dissimilar.

[Sainter_Dad]

Was there that much difference between the Cameron and Greene tackles? Didn’t look too dissimilar.

Huge difference!

Toby Greene - Commentators said -Dangerous tackle - should have been a free kick - but you have to ... wear 'em
Charlie Cameron - Commentator said - could be in trouble for a dangerous Tackle on Jake Lever.

No follow up story with Green so Michael Christian did not know where to look - AFL reported before MRO findings on the Cameron one - so it was highlighted to Christian.

But I await [Serial Umpire Apologist] - The_Dud's justification of the difference as it is he who tells us that All Umpires adjudicate exactly the same and the AFL never gets anything wrong.

Here is a link to the Toby incident.https://www.afl.com.au/news/1104938/mat ... -the-clear.

PS - The AFL has lost a hessian bag that they use to keep their integrity in - if anyone finds it - please return it to Michael Christian - Michael Christian needs the sack!

[Otiman]

SD are you suggesting the commentators are to blame?

IMO the AFL listens to the 'community' too much when selecting MRO and tribunal verdicts, unfortunately their idea of community is a handful of TV and radio commenters.

[SaintPav]

Was there that much difference between the Cameron and Greene tackles? Didn’t look too dissimilar.

Huge difference!

Toby Greene - Commentators said -Dangerous tackle - should have been a free kick - but you have to ... wear 'em
Charlie Cameron - Commentator said - could be in trouble for a dangerous Tackle on Jake Lever.

No follow up story with Green so Michael Christian did not know where to look - AFL reported before MRO findings on the Cameron one - so it was highlighted to Christian.

But I await [Serial Umpire Apologist] - The_Dud's justification of the difference as it is he who tells us that All Umpires adjudicate exactly the same and the AFL never gets anything wrong.

Here is a link to the Toby incident.https://www.afl.com.au/news/1104938/mat ... -the-clear.

PS - The AFL has lost a hessian bag that they use to keep their integrity in - if anyone finds it - please return it to Michael Christian - Michael Christian needs the sack!

Interesting point.

What alerts Christian to a potential offence?

Does he watch 36 hours of footage each week? They have the technology to reduce this by a lot and to focus on contested play and clashes I suspect.

What’s the alert mechanism for a potential offence?

I want to see a workflow!

[The_Dud]

Was there that much difference between the Cameron and Greene tackles? Didn’t look too dissimilar.

Huge difference!

Toby Greene - Commentators said -Dangerous tackle - should have been a free kick - but you have to ... wear 'em
Charlie Cameron - Commentator said - could be in trouble for a dangerous Tackle on Jake Lever.

No follow up story with Green so Michael Christian did not know where to look - AFL reported before MRO findings on the Cameron one - so it was highlighted to Christian.

But I await [Serial Umpire Apologist] - The_Dud's justification of the difference as it is he who tells us that All Umpires adjudicate exactly the same and the AFL never gets anything wrong.

Here is a link to the Toby incident.https://www.afl.com.au/news/1104938/mat ... -the-clear.

PS - The AFL has lost a hessian bag that they use to keep their integrity in - if anyone finds it - please return it to Michael Christian - Michael Christian needs the sack!

If you can’t tell the difference between those tackles by yourself then there’s really no point in me trying to explain it…

[shrodes]

I don't think there is a "St Kilda tax" (whatever that is).

I do think there is still inconsistency in rulings. All of Greene, Cameron, Vlaustin should have got a week for the dumping tackle. All three likely would have in prior years, very odd.

[SaintPav]

Consistency doesn’t appear to the AFL’s strong suite.

[Sainter_Dad]

Was there that much difference between the Cameron and Greene tackles? Didn’t look too dissimilar.

Huge difference!

Toby Greene - Commentators said -Dangerous tackle - should have been a free kick - but you have to ... wear 'em
Charlie Cameron - Commentator said - could be in trouble for a dangerous Tackle on Jake Lever.

No follow up story with Green so Michael Christian did not know where to look - AFL reported before MRO findings on the Cameron one - so it was highlighted to Christian.

But I await [Serial Umpire Apologist] - The_Dud's justification of the difference as it is he who tells us that All Umpires adjudicate exactly the same and the AFL never gets anything wrong.

Here is a link to the Toby incident.https://www.afl.com.au/news/1104938/mat ... -the-clear.

PS - The AFL has lost a hessian bag that they use to keep their integrity in - if anyone finds it - please return it to Michael Christian - Michael Christian needs the sack!

If you can’t tell the difference between those tackles by yourself then there’s really no point in me trying to explain it…

Of course I can see differences - But I can see the SIMILIARITIES and the AFL has been preaching POTENTIAL to cause injury - hence King and Windhager got suspended for things that would not have been looked at in the past.

Both Cameron's and Greene's had the POTENTIAL to cause injury - and in fact Greene executed two tackles that pinned the arms and took the player to ground within a minute.

Interesting point.

What alerts Christian to a potential offence?

Does he watch 36 hours of footage each week? They have the technology to reduce this by a lot and to focus on contested play and clashes I suspect.

What’s the alert mechanism for a potential offence?

I want to see a workflow!

And I agree with SaintPav - Michael Christian is alerted to incidents to review - either by a staff member - or by just looking at the Media reports.

I also re-iterate - Michael Christian needs the sack.

[SaintPav]

I suspect it’s done live by an AFL official assigned to a game who then reports back to Christian using a standard template. Official then probably uploads template to share point on the AFL cloud and the link is emailed to Christian who reviews the incident.

Up until this stage, all clear and good but then Christian goes through his thought processes, applies the criteria in his little table and then makes a decision.

This is when things appear to go off the rails, or using the well worn meme:

[samuraisaint]

And another one

[Yorkeys]

Well AFL GHQ have at least realised MC cannot be allowed to be interviewed any more. Each time he did speak he just reinforced that his has no logic or consistency to his work and he may be as nutty as a fruit cake.

And now they can't sack him because it would indicate he messes up. And AFL GHQ never messes up.

[Scollop]

No consistency. No logic.

Compromised by betting sponsorship and ad revenue

Protecting players and changing behaviour is secondary

[Devilhead]

And another one

King is right - if that was Jimmy Webster it's multiple weeks

Ben Long copped weeks for a very similar incident when he went to play the ball but got Sean Darcy's head with his arse .... verdict 3 weeks

[D.B.Cooper]

And another one

King is right - if that was Jimmy Webster it's multiple weeks

Ben Long copped weeks for a very similar incident when he went to play the ball but got Sean Darcy's head with his arse .... verdict 3 weeks

WTF, King being logical and making sense???
What has the media come to when King is the agent of reason?

The StKilda tax is hilarious, thanks for the chuckle Curly. The thought that the Tribunal looks at the fixture to see when ‘said player plays the Saints’ before deciding the penalty is genius, I love it.

However as King rightly points out and we have seen consistently over the years is there is a different interpretation for so called star players like Dangerfield, Rozee, Fife, Judd etc when they have been involved in an incident in which a low profile player like Webster would cop multiple weeks.

[SaintPav]

There was Scott Pendlebury earlier this season which should have been a week.

The list goes on.

[Sainter_Dad]

There was Scott Pendlebury earlier this season which should have been a week.

The list goes on.

This is the worst of the 'nothing to see here' situations - this was a deliberate - non football act - behind play!!!!

SMH!

[saynta]

Was there that much difference between the Cameron and Greene tackles? Didn’t look too dissimilar.

Greene tackle was actually worse.

[saintsRrising]

As part of the Tribunal Ruling, Cameron deemed a Good Bloke and gets off as a result!!!!!!!!!!

AFL officially acknowledges that now that they make biased rulings based on their view of the player, and not just the action.

[Sainter_Dad]

As part of the Tribunal Ruling, Cameron deemed a Good Bloke and gets off as a result!!!!!!!!!!

AFL officially acknowledges that now that they make biased rulings based on their view of the player, and not just the action.

I read the decision - this is beyond a joke

He gets off an on field incident because of the work he does with indigenous youth??

Lower range of careless. (So was Windhagers)

Charlie knew Lever had an arm free. (The arm that was free was the furthest from the ground)

Charlie is much smaller and lighter than Lever. (It wasn't a collision with each other, it was a collision with the ground, the earth is far heavier than either player. (and gravity was doing all the work))

There was a guilty plea. (What does pleading guilty have to do with impact?)

Lever suffered no injury. (But was put in the position of POTENTIAL to cause injury)

Character references showed impressive work in the indigenous community, is a role model with impressive AFL career which is something for those he connects with to inspire to.

First suspendable offense. (Not really - the others just made it to fines (so they were suspendable - just did not quite meet the threshold) - so this one will as well and he remains Unsuspended)

However - Impact remains Medium - he was not downgraded in the Matrix - it was just chucked out the window....

Spare Me

Line up and do the Royal Children's Hospital Telethon - then whack a guy into next week - Time Off for Good Behaviour your honour??

THE FARKING AFL ADMITTED IT IS A JOKE IF IT DOES NOT APPEAL THIS!!!!!!

Disclaimer - [because with the way people get flamed here] Before you all get in your high horse about me referring to his work with indigenous youth and calling me racist - it was what was quoted - if he got off for work with the intellectually challenged I would have quoted the same thing. It is the downgrading of the charge 'under exceptional circumstances' I have an issue with - not the work he did

[Otiman]

I can't believe what I'm reading and seeing today. This is huge for the credibility of the tribunal.

"Potential to cause injury" is out the window
"Past records and character references are not admissible" is out the window

I also strongly believe any pleas or 'remorse' should not count towards or against the ruling. Players have enough media training to say what they need to say.

I've got no issue with Cameron being free to play, but the reasoning puts the future of any tribunal result in doubt. It makes a mockery of the AFL, MRO, and the tribunal system.

The AFL was scared to say that the action did not warrant suspension, because a similar action will happen next week, that the AFL will decide needs to have weeks.

The ruling should be about the immediate action on field, and only the action.

Every MRO result this year should have been upheld by the tribunal - then clubs will start to think it's not worth appealing - we certainly did with Windhager after seeing a run of 3 or 4 tribunal challenges upheld. Now it's game back on.

[Yorkeys]

This ongoing farce is a big problem for the AFL GHQ even if it does not appreciate it or acknowledge it.
Its penalty system, like its drug policy, is shockingly flawed. There is no general application of equity/justice.

Christian needs to go asap. The system needs a complete overhaul, tacking on pieces to Adrian Anderson's silly matrix is a foolish waste of band-aids, making bad worse

It is bound to cause a major, and I mean major, crisis when it comes to deciding a grand final or knock out final between powerful clubs (lesser Clubs protests will be summarily dismissed). BNE were unlucky Collingwood could lobby to get Maynard exonerated because the system is so porous an administrative decision can be made to get the guy off then you look for/manufacture justification. The trade off and conscience cleanser was a dubious rule change, another, rather than just applying existing rules properly.

Imagine if there was an entity that could appeal decisions not to prosecute/suspend or let Maynard go unpunished. It is almost certain there would be a couple of players suspended from just last week's round of ad hoc-ery, including that Port star now in the judicial untouchable category.

Worse than farcical it is a blight on the game and the alleged/mythical even competition aspiration. An ongoing head in the sand position by the GHQ is going to end in a flood of tears for some club and maybe the competition. Certainly there is a big credibility problem right now.

I refuse to recognise Collingwood as last years premiers because Maynard played. So there, GHQ.

[Bin Chicken]

I stopped watching ages ago even free to air games. I just check the Saints score on my phone and my fantasy team. Don’t watch any highlights unless we win. All my ‘news’ about this s*** embarrassing ‘competition’ is from this message board.

[saynta]

As part of the Tribunal Ruling, Cameron deemed a Good Bloke and gets off as a result!!!!!!!!!!

AFL officially acknowledges that now that they make biased rulings based on their view of the player, and not just the action.

I read the decision - this is beyond a joke

He gets off an on field incident because of the work he does with indigenous youth??

Lower range of careless. (So was Windhagers)

Charlie knew Lever had an arm free. (The arm that was free was the furthest from the ground)

Charlie is much smaller and lighter than Lever. (It wasn't a collision with each other, it was a collision with the ground, the earth is far heavier than either player. (and gravity was doing all the work))

There was a guilty plea. (What does pleading guilty have to do with impact?)

Lever suffered no injury. (But was put in the position of POTENTIAL to cause injury)

Character references showed impressive work in the indigenous community, is a role model with impressive AFL career which is something for those he connects with to inspire to.

First suspendable offense. (Not really - the others just made it to fines (so they were suspendable - just did not quite meet the threshold) - so this one will as well and he remains Unsuspended)

However - Impact remains Medium - he was not downgraded in the Matrix - it was just chucked out the window....

Spare Me

Line up and do the Royal Children's Hospital Telethon - then whack a guy into next week - Time Off for Good Behaviour your honour??

THE FARKING AFL ADMITTED IT IS A JOKE IF IT DOES NOT APPEAL THIS!!!!!!

Disclaimer - [because with the way people get flamed here] Before you all get in your high horse about me referring to his work with indigenous youth and calling me racist - it was what was quoted - if he got off for work with the intellectually challenged I would have quoted the same thing. It is the downgrading of the charge 'under exceptional circumstances' I have an issue with - not the work he did

The AFL and it's Tribunal are an effing joke. So much bulls*** is hard to take. Think I will go and have a quiet spew. Blame it on the joke that the AFL has become.