Live Event Toby Greene fronts the tribunal - Suspension appeal

[Outback Footy]

Huh? He could have been suspended for the same thing last week on arguably a greater weight of evidence:

However, the tribunal cleared him on the basis that the footage didn't clearly indicate eye-gouging or scratching. That was the precedent they set. How can you suggest that there is greater evidence this week? Neale said he felt contact near his nose, but Bontempelli literally had a black eye last week. On precedent the judgement makes no sense. The tribunal made their bed last week and are now simply choosing not to sleep in it. It's a farce.

Again, no they didn't see the evidence because the AFL offered him a fine, and of course he accepted it. That meant no evidence shown.

 

[The 747]

Does it even matter what they called it?


They’ve made a stand against a grub clawing at opponents eyes. It’s a good thing.

Some convoluted logic required to get there but the result was correct. Can't fine a bloke for something, have him come out and be all like I won't do it again and then go do it again next time. Has to go.

 

[Smoky]

I am a fan of the player actually, I have explained my reasoning numerous times in this thread in the past 2 weeks, I stand my views 100 percent. Not my problem that your an intolerant person who cannot accept another person's point of view. I might be very well wrong, but it's what I honestly believe. Nothing to do with trolling at all.

Cool man.

Wrapped he got off for assaulting Bonts face and head and got off for it.

p.s. you are in the minority.

assault should be assault.

 

[Hoops]

So he's had two avenues of appeal—this one FILLED with legal professionals. And it's still a Collingwood conspiracy? Spare me.

Maybe you Pie-haters should just admit that the only reason why you wanted him off was because he'd be playing the mob you hate the most.
The footage is there, the charge was correct, Neale's testimony was ambiguous. The pedanticism surrounding the semantics of the 'eye-region' in this thread was just a bunch of you clutching at straws because the thought of Pies making another GF annoys the sh*t out of you.

Admit it. Or don't. Your hatred for us only unites us even more.

I'm a Pie hater and am happy with the verdict. Hope the Giants tear you a new one

 

[SSwans2011]

Again, no they didn't see the evidence because the AFL offered him a fine, and of course he accepted it. That meant no evidence shown.

Jeff Gleeson, AFL's legal counsel did though, and he recommended the financial sanction. Hence, no precedence. They either had to re-write the law, or admit they got it wrong for this to make sense. They've done neither.

 

[Outback Footy]

So, you're acknowledging this judgement makes no sense given precedence? Cool, I agree. Doesn't matter whose fault it is, the fact of the matter is that given precedence, this decision leaves you scratching your head. I wonder if the AFL will acknowledge that fact.

Realistically he should have been suspended last week, but given he wasn't, it's borderline nonsensical for him to be suspended this week.

Absolutely. No precedent followed. But the AFL isn't bound by the rules of law, so hey, its a crapshoot and anythings possible. In this case Christian learnt not to trust the tribunal, so he did what he should have done the week before. The previous week was more severe and I wouldn't be surprised if Christian had his time over hed have done greene for 2-3 weeks.

 

[romeohwho]

Didn’t think it deserved a week. Harsh punishment for inconclusive incident.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Well that is the purpose of discipline, to correct undesired behaviour. If you felt it couldn’t be corrected he would be dismissed/sacked/moved on.

Agreed, but let's be honest, what Toby has done or alleged to have done in the past 2 weeks, whilst a bit unsavoury, does not constitute being sacked/banned from the AFL altogether (like a few in this thread have suggested), not by a long chalk.

Some people need to call off their Dogs (so to speak) and give the lad a chance to try clean up his act. And I admit he does have a problem with his temper, nothing that I honestly think cannot be fixed with Toby, but it is all up to him..

 

[SSwans2011]

Absolutely. No precedent followed. But the AFL isn't bound by the rules of law, so hey, its a crapshoot and anythings possible. In this case Christian learnt not to trust the tribunal, so he did what he should have done the week before. The previous week was more severe and I wouldn't be surprised if Christian had his time over hed have done greene for 2-3 weeks.

That's the problem though. Brisbane and the Bulldogs inadvertently get completely screwed over and nobody will take any ownership for the mistake.

 

[RupertPupkin]

I am a fan of the player actually, I have explained my reasoning numerous times in this thread in the past 2 weeks, I stand my views 100 percent. Not my problem that your an intolerant person who cannot accept another person's point of view. I might be very well wrong, but it's what I honestly believe. Nothing to do with trolling at all.

I'm not really sure why anybody would like what Toby Greene did. I'm not even sure why anybody would defend him, even if you barrack for GWS. To be sure, the tribunal is a joke but why waste your keyboard demanding a different outcome. He was a grub. He didn't learn. If the pathetic AFL finals tribunal system rubs him out, so what? You're never going to getting perfection out of the AFL in umpiring or the tribunal. Given that, accept the decision (unless you like the idea of deliberately, repeatedly grabbing somebody's face in the pack) and move on.

 

[Plugger35]

Not so sure. AFL would be hell bent on seeing their latest franchise succeed. A lot can still happen.....albeit unlikely

Well the umpires didn't do GWS any favours in their prelim against the Bulldogs, the free kick count was 23-13 in the Bulldogs favour.

The AFL would want GWS playing finals but I'm not sure they would be that keen on them making the GF when they are one of the lowest drawing clubs.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Bit stupid to leave 1 spot free to a non-Collingwood person, why make us sweat like that?

 

[luthor]

Realistically he should have been suspended last week, but given he wasn't, it's borderline nonsensical for him to be suspended this week.

Not at all.

Last week's incident was more prolonged, with a lot more "action" by Greene on and around Bont's head

However for all that, there was NO clear evidence of interference with the eyes or the "region" of the eyes. The MRO no doubt thought that on the balance of probabilities, there was some pretty serious shizen going on. Thus the referral to the Tribunal for a determination. Whether or not Christian "expected" the Tribunal to hand down a suspension is a moot point.

This week's case is distinctly different.

As Buckley commented to Whately during his weekly chat on SEN the other morning, this time the video footage has provided the "Money Shot".

There was clear evidence of unreasonable and unnecessary contact with the face in the region of the eyes, thus the one week suspension handed down by the MRO

Now the onus was placed squarely on Greene and GWS to disprove that accusation.

They failed twice and that they did shouldn't shock or surprise anyone who is capable of rational thought.

 

[Outback Footy]

Jeff Gleeson, AFL's legal counsel did though, and he recommended the financial sanction. Hence, no precedence. They either had to re-write the law, or admit they got it wrong for this to make sense. They've done neither.

Well you said the tribunal saw it and disregarded it. Now your saying Gleeson saw it. Maybe he did, maybe no. Maybe the verdict was preordained by Gleesons bosses. Either way it was taken out of Christians hands and I suspect he didn't think that a reasonable result was the outcome. Appropriately he fixed his mistake at the earliest opportunity. Greene didn't make him wait long.

 

[Americanpies]

Agreed, but let's be honest, what Toby has done or alleged to have done in the past 2 weeks, whilst a bit unsavoury, does not constitute being sacked/banned from the AFL altogether (like a few in this thread have suggested), not by a long chalk.

Some people need to call off their Dogs (so to speak) and give the lad a chance to try clean up his act. And I admit he does have a problem with his temper, nothing that I honestly think cannot be fixed with Toby, but it is all up to him..

can't see him ever cleaning up his act.

Been doing it since day 1, when he beat the crap out of that security guard at Zagames in Caulfield.

 

[Art Corvelay]

can't see him ever cleaning up his act.

Been doing it since day 1, when he beat the crap out of that security guard at Zagames in Caulfield.

Pies supporters shouldn’t be throwing stones about incidents like that.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Cool man.

Wrapped he got off for assaulting Bonts face and head and got off for it.

p.s. you are in the minority.

assault should be assault.

Assault ? Get real mate. This doesn't compare remotely to what Gaff did to Brayshaw last year, and he didn't get charged with assault.

Get some perspective, also what Bont did to Haynes a few weeks ago was worse, but somehow Marcus Bambipeli seems to get a free pass to do what he wants on field.

The hypocrisy astounds me.

 

[Bay Giant]

can't see him ever cleaning up his act.

Been doing it since day 1, when he beat the crap out of that security guard at Zagames in Caulfield.

He hit Neale with a crutch?

Damn, I missed that.

 

[PerthBoy86]

What a travesty the decision was. Toby is a dirty player, yes, and I think he shouldn't even have played against Brisbane, but let's just focus on the report. Apparently Neale says he didn't gouge or even touch his eyes? So they don't believe him either? Video footage doesn't show anything. Any objective assessment would clear Toby. Really damaged the credibility of the MRO and perhaps the AFL.

 

[PerthBoy86]

The tribunal is entrusted with making the correct (or most preferable) decision in each particular case. It is not aiming for consistency because that would in effect constitute bias. Each case is to be considered on its merits. The principles of natural justice (no bias and fair hearing rules) apply but not common (case) law. Hence precedent is irrelevant to the tribunal when deciding its verdict.

Consistency constitutes bias? How the hell do you figure that?

 

[Art Corvelay]

Really damaged the credibility of the MRO and perhaps the AFL.

Can you damage something that doesn’t exist?

 

[Bulldog1954]

Can anyone let me know what he was trying to do with the clear rake action in the video? Still yet to hear a reasonable argument for what he is actually trying to do other then hurt Neale.

 

[Anzacday]

Can anyone let me know what he was trying to do with the clear rake action in the video?

He was looking, (feeling) for the footy

 

[Americanpies]

He hit Neale with a crutch?

Damn, I missed that.

Just saying, that I don't believe he is the type of guy to ever change his ways. He just has a violent streak in him. Dermie never did. Sicily probably won't. And I can't see Greene doing it either. These types of guys are just rough types. Whether they way they play and things they do are good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, but people like this sure does make the game entertaining.

 

[SSwans2011]

Well you said the tribunal saw it and disregarded it. Now your saying Gleeson saw it. Maybe he did, maybe no. Maybe the verdict was preordained by Gleesons bosses. Either way it was taken out of Christians hands and I suspect he didn't think that a reasonable result was the outcome. Appropriately he fixed his mistake at the earliest opportunity. Greene didn't make him wait long.

Yeah, I misread the article I was reading. The point remains that there is no clear evidence.

Not at all.

Last week's incident was more prolonged, with a lot more "action" by Greene on and around Bont's head

However for all that, there was NO clear evidence of interference with the eyes or the "region" of the eyes. The MRO no doubt thought that on the balance of probabilities, there was some pretty serious shizen going on. Thus the referral to the Tribunal for a determination. Whether or not Christian "expected" the Tribunal to hand down a suspension is a moot point.

This week's case is distinctly different.

As Buckley commented to Whately during his weekly chat on SEN the other morning, this time the video footage has provided the "Money Shot".

There was clear evidence of unreasonable and unnecessary contact with the face in the region of the eyes, thus the one week suspension handed down by the MRO

Now the onus was placed squarely on Greene and GWS to disprove that accusation.

They failed twice and that they did shouldn't shock or surprise anyone who is capable of rational thought.

There was pretty clear evidence in the Bont video. Just as clear I'd argue. He also had a black eye allegedly from the incident.