Brisbane coach Chris Fagan has snapped at a journalist after copping a grilling over the AFL tribunal’s Charlie Cameron decision.
The AFL world went into meltdown during the week when the tribunal downgraded Cameron’s one-match ban and allowed the dynamic forward to play in their clash with Geelong on Saturday.
Cameron was suspended for rough conduct due to a strong tackle on Melbourne’s Jake Lever, but Brisbane put up a ‘good bloke’ defence, leaning on Cameron’s clean record.
Stream analysis, local footy and the biggest moments free on 7plus
Much to the surprise of everyone, the tribunal — led by chairman Jeff Gleeson — then found “exceptional and compelling circumstances” to use its discretion and turn the ban into a fine.
Many, however suggested Cameron’s record was not all that clean, having copped several fines throughout his 207-game career.
Cameron has never been suspended, but has been fined five times prior to this tribunal case, including three for rough conduct charges.
Others also wondered what a ‘clean record’ had to do with anything and why the action wasn’t just judged on its own accord.
When he faced the media on Friday, Fagan said there was always debate around tribunal decisions.
“(But) if you’re asking me was I surprised (by the final verdict), no I wasn’t surprised that it was debated,” he said.
“When you go to the tribunal you use everything at your disposal to try and free up your player, which every club does, and if a bloke’s got a good record, he’s played 200 games and never been suspended for a match, you’d at least give that a mention, otherwise you’d be remiss in your duty to that player.”
Fagan also believed Cameron’s record was not the only consideration behind the tribunal’s decision, and that impact was a factor.
“I think if you look at that incident, and you look at Lever — talking about impact here — for me, impact is impact,” he said.
“Was Jake Lever hurt? No, he wasn’t. Did he go off for a concussion test? No, he didn’t. Was there a medical report from the Melbourne Football Club about his condition? No, there wasn’t.
“So, on every measure, the impact of that incident was low.”
Fagan then became frustrated at a journalist who challenged his take on the impact.
Fagan bristled as the journalist said the low end of medium impact “was still medium impact”.
“They talked about it was at the low end of medium impact,” Fagan said.
“I’m arguing to you that it was low impact.
“Oh well. Mate, interview the tribunal. Don’t interview me. I didn’t make the decision, OK?”
More to come …