AFL stands by Bedford, Cameron dangerous tackle rulings

GWS have welcomed the AFL appeals board's "common sense" call to overturn Giant Toby Bedford and Brisbane Lions' Charlie Cameron's respective three-match dangerous tackle bans.

But the AFL maintains both incidents were examples of dangerous tackles.

Giants tagger Bedford and Cameron both had three-game rough conduct suspensions, for tackles that concussed Tim Taranto and Liam Duggan respectively, thrown out on Thursday night.

They argued the tribunal had made an error of law when upholding their bans two days earlier.

The initial tribunal decisions had prompted other players to express their confusion and frustration that they no longer understood what was considered a legal tackle.

GWS chief executive Dave Matthews said "common sense prevailed" in regards to the Bedford case.

Coach Adam Kingsley acknowledged the importance of protecting the head and taking actions to do so - but lamented the seemingly sudden "severe" grading of the two tackles.

"It feels like it was sprung upon, potentially that the outcome was a bit too severe and it was almost out of nowhere, given neither were really assessed as dangerous from the football public," he said.

"A little bit more clarity around what's deemed dangerous - and the goalposts shift on that, that's fine - but prior warning is important.

"Not we think we're tackling in a safe manner and all of a sudden we get penalised pretty significantly.

"I think that the gradings of dangerous tackles needs to be assessed as well. Three weeks for both of those tackles seemed a little extreme. And so that was probably a little bit of the the outcry from the public."

Western Bulldogs coach Beveridge was "relieved" when both cases were overturned, and lamented the current confusion around tackling.

"We're in a spiral now where everyone's confused," he said.

"Whether or not we just have to accept that our game carries risk, we're going to be in this constant confusion.

"I don't think anyone's any clearer. We've got to wade through the marsh, really, it's a little bit murky. We'll find our way through it together, but at the moment it's pretty grey.

"It would have been a travesty if they had have missed any footy, let alone the length of the term originally handed down.

"So I'm really happy for those boys and it's good for the game."

The AFL recognised the appeals board's decision but indicated it would look to change the system at season's end.

"In the AFL's view (shared by the independent AFL tribunal on Tuesday) the tackles by Cameron and Bedford were dangerous tackles, principally because both of the tackled players had their arms pinned (resulting in vulnerability) and were additionally brought to ground with excessive force," the league said in a statement.

"But we accept the appeal board's decisions, albeit that they were made on a legal technicality involving a perceived technical deficiency in the tribunal's reasons."The AFL will reflect on those reasons and will address the deficiency in the conduct of further tribunal hearings this season.

"The AFL will also review the system at the end of the season, as we do every year."

The league also sent around examples of both dangerous and safe tackles to its 18 clubs.