These Tribunal cases will inflame fans, but it will not ruin the game

It feels like we’re in a bit of time warp today.

Last year’s crackdown on the dangerous tackle had plenty of pain points. 32 suspensions for a total of 43 matches.

It came with all the associated angst of changing the nature of tackling and executing a duty of care.

There were moments where it felt like players simply couldn’t navigate or mitigate… and when head trauma was caused, suspensions were served.

Zach Merrett and James Sicily both come to mind. This season only five players had been suspended for dangerous tackles after 17 rounds.

You would surmise that the AFL’s actions have caused a change in on-field conduct.

Jack Higgins got the full whack of three weeks for causing concussion with Aliir Aliir.

Two cases were variously successful – Patrick Dangerfield satisfied the tribunal that he fulfilled his duty of care by attempting to lift Sam Walsh rather than driving him into the ground.

And Charlie Cameron had his one match ban downgraded to a fine on the grounds of good character… even though the dangerous tackle element was proven.

Then Round 18 delivered the two big suspensions: Toby Bedford pinned the arms of Tim Taranto and took him to ground leaving the Tiger with concussion.

There was nothing unreasonable about the tackle, but the threshold is whether Bedford exercised a duty of care to an opponent in a vulnerable position.

This is the tackle and outcome that caused so much angst last year… but was upheld time after time.

Charlie Cameron’s is different. The front on bullrush tackle that ends with Liam Duggan hitting the back of his head on the ground and suffering concussion.

This hasn’t been tested previously and had it not resulted in concussion wouldn’t have drawn a second look.

Having read back through the Tribunal Chairman’s findings throughout last year’s crackdown, one phrase stands out…

“A player who intends to tackle his opponent to the ground with momentum, in a way that means forceful head-on-ground contact is likely, and who pins the defensive arm, will likely have committed a dangerous tackle.”

That’s a high bar to clear in defence tonight. You could mount a solid defence for Bedford and Cameron on the questions:

How did each player execute the tackle? Was the method reasonable in all circumstances? Was the fact the tackled player was brought to ground inevitable and unavoidable?

It’s harder to beat the overriding proposition. I suspect the Bedford suspension would’ve been upheld in last year’s crackdown… it’ll be interesting to test the prevailing mood this year.

The Cameron case is new ground… I’m not sure where it leads. Duggan fights the tackle… Cameron wins the test of strength and the outcome is really unfortunate but was it excessive and unreasonable.

These incidents will inflame the commentariat, they won’t ruin the game, but they will illustrate how hard these tackling scenarios are to navigate in a contact sport.