By SHAYNE HOPE, JUSTIN CHADWICK and  ANNA HARRINGTON

Brisbane forward Charlie Cameron is free to play this week after having his three-match ban for rough conduct overturned on appeal.

In a sensational appeals board hearing, the Lions successfully argued the league’s Tribunal had made an error of law when upholding the ban two days earlier.

Cameron, who was initially charged over the tackle which left West Coast’s Liam Duggan concussed, is now free to play in Brisbane’s clash with ladder-leaders Sydney on Sunday.

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.”

AAP