MRO Michael Christian disagrees with Appeals Board verdict, defends original Bedford & Cameron calls

Michael Christian’s findings as the AFL’s Match Review Officer have garnered plenty of headlines in recent weeks, none more than after Round 18 with the bans for GWS’ Toby Bedford and Brisbane’s Charlie Cameron.

Both players were originally handed three-week bans from the MRO, which was then held up at the Tribunal for dangerous tackles on Richmond’s Tim Taranto and West Coast’s Liam Duggan respectively.

Christian ruled that both tackles were careless conduct, severe impact and high contact as both Taranto and Duggan were left concussed, but many footy fans felt that the pair’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and were even examples of perfectly executed tackles.

As both Bedford and Cameron eventually had their bans thrown out at the AFL Appeals Board on Thursday, Christian was asked by Gerard Whateley and Tom Morris in a sit-down interview with SEN’s AFL Nation whether he agreed with that verdict.

While Christian’s job is to simply assess incidents and find a verdict according to the guidelines, he didn’t feel that either player should have had their bans tossed aside.

“I do (disagree) because I graded it differently to that at my level,” Christian told SEN’s AFL Nation.

“My function revolves around looking at a video looking, we often get as many as 10 different camera angles.

“So, my responsibility is to analyse those camera angles and make a determination and that's ratified by the AFL and then that finding and grading is released.

“As far as my function goes, the critical element is to look at the conduct of an incident.

“There are effectively three outcomes - no action to be taken, there's careless conduct or there's intentional conduct.”

Christian explained how he assesses tackles according to the guidelines as the MRO, with the main factors for careless tackles being whether the player in possession of the ball is vulnerable and whether or not the tackler uses excessive force.

In both Bedford and Cameron’s cases, Christian felt they both used excessive force against opponents who were in vulnerable positions, leading to the original bans.

“In assessing that particularly in regard to tackles, there are four main factors that the guidelines identify with respect to tackles,” Christian said.

“The first one is we don't see very often anymore. It's a double action, it's where the tackler holds and then there's a clear double action.

“Then there's a spear tackle, which we don't see much of anymore.

“Then the two critical elements, the other factors are vulnerability and force.

“So, the determination is to assess whether the person being tackled is in a vulnerable position and I considered in both these cases that the Liam Duggan and Tim Taranto were highly vulnerable.

“They had both arms pinned all the way to the ground and probably you could argue in Charlie Cameron's case, if not pinned (the arms were) trapped.

“Then it's a question of force and the guidelines talk around whether a player is slung, driven or rotated with excessive force … I considered that both players were highly vulnerable and that they were driven in this case to the ground with excessive force.

“Once that conduct assessment is made, I determine based on those factors that it was careless.

“We have incidents at the lower end of carelessness and at the higher end of carelessness and that's reflected I suppose in the penalties that are handed down.

“For example, I sought and graded both Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford as low-end careless because that was the three weeks.”

Looking at the Appeals Board decision, Christian’s understanding is that both bans were thrown out due to an error of law at the original Tribunal hearings, not in his MRO findings.

“I don't want to get into the details of the appeal because that's not my function,” Christian said.

“But what I will say is that my understanding and having read what happened last night is that it was there was an error of law from the Tribunal.

“My function tucked away watching video - hour after hour - I've been given the guidelines as my reference point to make adjudications on whether a tackle in this example was careless or not.

“I used those guidelines, and around vulnerability and force, I determined that I certainly can see they were low and careless and that was reflected in the penalty.”

Christian, a former player himself having played 131 games including the 1990 premiership for Collingwood, understands that he and the AFL are asking a lot from players to not tackle in situations that they feel are dangerous.

Despite this, he disagrees that the Cameron and Bedford incidents were just split-second decisions gone wrong given how high the skill level and decision-making in modern AFL footy.

“I know we ask a lot of players, I get that,” Christian said.

“But these are the same players that in an absolute split second can deliver a handball under extraordinary pressure or can halfway through the kicking motion alter the ball drop onto the outside of the boot because they've just seen someone in their peripheral vision.

“These players are just elite, and I know we're asking a lot of them but they're capable.

“They've already shown with what's happened over the last 24 months how tackling behaviour has changed for the better.

“Full credit to the players because with the number of tackles that have occurred this year, the players have been phenomenal.”

Watch the full extended chat with MRO Michael Christian on the SEN YouTube page