The footy world has fallen into greater confusion after both Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford had their three-week bans thrown out by the AFL Appeals Board on a legal technicality.

Cameron was first to have his suspension overturned due to an “error of law” under the 18.7.1 in Laws of Australian Football, which states: “Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player which is likely to cause injury.”

The Appeals Board essentially deemed the Tribunal found Cameron’s act to be unreasonable, but didn’t explain it was likely to cause injury. Therefore, had the Tribunal made the finding that Cameron’s conduct was likely to cause injury, Brisbane’s appeal likely would’ve failed.

Watch every game of every round this Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >

The Giants then won the Bedford appeal directly after for the same reason.

It means both players are free to play this weekend on a procedural technicity, much like when Patrick Cripps was cleared from his suspension in his 2022 Brownlow winning season.

Speaking on Fox Footy’s Midweek Tackle, Herald Sun journalist Jon Ralph labelled the tribunal an “embarrassment” and suggested the Cameron case would only create more confusion amid recent uproar surrounding the state of the game.

“Cameron’s case was thrown out over the rule of law — not whether her did it or didn’t do it,” Ralph explained.

“No matter whether you believe he’s guilty or otherwise, we wanted the case to stand for itself — not legal mumbo jumbo.

“Instead he got off because of a technicality over law 18.7.1 about rough conduct and whether that was rule was applied.

“What the hell does that mean!? We’ve got less clarity than we started with. How in god’s name does the average punter have any idea what’s going on … everyone’s confused.”

Fellow Herald Sun journalist Glenn Macfarlane belies that uncertainty will extend to the playing cohort some 24 hours out from Round 19.

“Forget about the average punter, what about the player that’s got to go out there — we are 25 hours away from players going out there and competing again for this next round of matches,” he said.

“They’ve got every right to be confused and angry and not knowing what’s going to happen, they’re going to be second guessing themselves.

“It is an embarrassment we’ve got to this stage. We’ve got to get through to the end of the year and do something really serious and correct this problem.”

Colleague Lauren Wood added: “It wasn’t essentially the tackle that was argued tonight, it was the legalities of the rule and how it was argued and how it was not argued on Tuesday night (at the Tribunal).

“We’re no clearer and all the coaches seem confused and players even moreso.”

Ralph thinks Cripps’ case in 2022 differs in that it was more based around interpretation of whether or not he “bumped” Callum Ah Chee, suggesting the Cameron scenario was a law loophole.

“At least if you felt like Patrick Cripps might not have been able to get off, you thought at least that’s the failsafe here,” he said.

“This one looks like a pure technicality, pure legalese, and pure lawyers at $5,000 an hour arguing over stuff the average punter has no idea about.”