AFL faces decision on whether to appeal Cameron case

The AFL faces a decision on whether to appeal the tribunal’s downgrading of Charlie Cameron’s rough conduct suspension to a fine as the call looms as a precedent for future cases.

On Tuesday night, the Brisbane Lions star fronted the tribunal to challenge his one-match ban for a dumping tackle on Melbourne’s Jake Lever at the MCG last Thursday.

The tribunal dismissed Cameron’s argument that the impact of the incident should have been graded as “low” rather than “medium”.

Match review officer Michael Christian graded the tackle careless conduct, medium impact and high contact – which draws a one-match ban.

But the tribunal – led by chairman Jeff Gleeson – found exceptional and compelling circumstances to use its discretion to turn the ban into a fine, citing Cameron’s clean record throughout his 207-game career.

It frees the gun forward to play in Brisbane’s huge clash with Geelong on Saturday night.

Steven May and Charlie Cameron watch the ball over the boundary line during the Demons-Lions clash. (James Ross/AAP PHOTOS)

Character references from Adelaide and Carlton champion Eddie Betts and an Indigenous elder also helped sway the tribunal, but they were most taken by his previous disciplinary record.

Cameron has never been suspended, but had been fined five times prior to the tribunal case – including for three rough conduct charges.

“His 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority … only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games,” Gleeson said.

“Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more. Mr Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.”

While Lever was uninjured and able to continue playing, his head bounced on the MCG turf due to the tackle.

The tribunal’s decision to give Cameron special consideration was intriguing, given the AFL has focused heavily on suspending actions that could cause head knocks or concussion.

The case could potentially be used as a precedent, with clubs attempting to draw upon character references or disciplinary records for similar situations.

AAP has contacted the AFL for comment regarding whether it will appeal the tribunal’s decision.

The AFL notably appealed the tribunal’s decision in 2017, when now-retired Richmond gun Bachar Houli was initially only handed a two-match ban for knocking out former Carlton player Jed Lamb.

The tribunal had reduced Houli’s ban to only two matches on account of his character – the AFL counsel had wanted four – and the lighter penalty sparked uproar.

Houli had received character references from the likes of then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and media commentator and academic Waleed Aly.

The AFL appealed the sanction on the grounds it was “manifestly inadequate” and the appeals board agreed, taking just 10 minutes to uphold it and giving Houli a four-game ban.

In handing down the ban, board chairman Peter O’Callaghan QC praised Houli further but said the tribunal had erred in law.

“A blow from a person of exemplary character has the same effect as a blow from a person of bad character,” he said.