Lloyd's confusion over Tribunal act

The specifics of the Cameron situation was studying in in how it was worded and the reference there to you can see references there too. It was a lower range of careless so we’ve now got a subset of careless when it comes to adjudication on these matters where there’s a reference there it’s a one players weighed against another players weight. I felt you book itself did not allow the referencing of players weights in this so that last line it was careless but not grossly careless it it just does not make sense. And then then comes the character aspect of this situation where Cameron was cleared last night to play football this weekend and the character referencing there by Eddie Berts and Gregory Egot. I was under the impression that the character references were not allowed and. They were allowed last night under Adrian Anderson’s defence of Charlie Chaplin, who was said to have had a good conduct record and then we find this when we analyse what he has had happened to him over his journey in the AFL in this space. So that’s not a clean record, it hasn’t been a suspension. But it’s not a clean record, Matt. Is it as simple as this, that the tribunal didn’t think he should have been rubbed out? I don’t think he should have been rubbed out. I think it was. It was. I think it was so soft that it shouldn’t have been anywhere near it. Did they actually have to come up with something to try and get him off because it just didn’t fit into the rules that they have? Well I think don’t bring in the character aspect of it then. And I think it’s great because all of the Collingham Football Club get into Meg Pioneers to look after the homeless. So we should be right for a few. Yeah. Well Jack Crisp was mentioned today. I think he’s played over 212 games or something like that and he’s never had a suspension. Does a lot for charity so and he bit the loophole will be closed though any?