Charlie Cameron cleared by AFL Appeal Board after challenging three-week suspension over Liam Duggan tackle

Brisbane forward Charlie Cameron has been sensationally cleared to play this weekend after the AFL Appeal Board overturned his three-game ban.

The decision came on a landmark night for the league as Greater Western Sydney forward Toby Bedford also had a three-game suspension for a tackle that caused concussion overturned.

Cameron was suspended for a fierce front-on tackle on West Coast co-captain Liam Duggan on Sunday that forced the defender to be subbed from the game with a concussion.

No free kick was paid at the time of the incident, but after scrutiny from the Match Review Officer, Michael Christian, the goal sneak was handed a three-match suspension.

Brisbane took their case to the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday but failed to have the case dismissed or even downgraded.

However, a last-ditch argument before the Appeal Board has overturned the ban in its entirety, meaning Cameron is free to play against premiership fancies Sydney on Sunday.

As part of their argument, the Lions cited Cameron having no legitimate alternatives in the moment and the fact that Duggan contributed to the impact by fighting the tackle.

Brisbane argued the Tribunal “put the cart before the horse” during Cameron’s initial hearing by focusing on the Tribunal guidelines before determining whether the player had actually committed a reportable offence when tackling Duggan.

“The Tribunal reasoned backward from the conduct to conclude the conduct had a certain character to it,” Lions lawyer Chris Winneke said.

“We say it should’ve started by considering for itself what amounted to rough conduct.”

Winneke described Cameron’s actions as a “lawful tackle” according to the rules of the game, disputing the Tribunal’s assertion Cameron had driven Duggan back with “excessive force”.

Winneke said Cameron didn’t drive Duggan backwards at all, and it’s “simply wrong” Cameron’s actions turned a legal tackle into a dangerous one.

Both grounds for appeal were disputed by AFL lawyer Lisa Hannon.

“There really was no prioritisation of the guidelines,” Hannon said.

“Those aspects of the guidelines to which the Tribunal averted in its reasons were entirely consistent with the test required to establish, under the laws and regulations, having regard both to the charge of rough conduct and its proper characterisation.”

The appeals board agreed with the Lions.

“The Tribunal made a finding that the conduct of Cameron was unreasonable in the circumstances, however, what the Tribunal did not do was deal with the elements of the charge which is set out in the laws of Australian football,” appeals board chair Will Houghton said.

“Whilst we accept that the Tribunal found the conduct to be unreasonable, which is one element of the offence, it completely failed to consider the second critical element of the offence: that is, whether the conduct was likely to cause injury.

“Absent that consideration ... we consider that the Tribunal did fall into an error of law that had a material impact on its decision.”

The Board also decided there was an error of law in Bedford’s case, dismissing his suspension for a tackle against Richmond’s Tim Taranto.

- With AAP