Live Event Toby Greene fronts the tribunal - Suspension appeal

[GROTTO]

No chance he doesn’t challenge it.
Brushing someone’s face is not a suspension no matter what the player has a history of, there was no force or intention.

You can’t just make up rules to give a player a week.

And that's the point.

I'm not saying he hasn't got history.

But to make s**t up just to ban someone because of his past is ridiculous.

He is getting penalised because he is Toby Greene.

The rules committee must love Greene keeps inventing new rules and laws of the game.

I guess next we may see Greene go full Hopoate on his opponent. Pretty sure that isnt in the rules either.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Saying that this bloke has got issues is an understatement. One week after being let off, the second week in a row and the second final he has played in....he does it again. This is not my opinion this is the finding of the tribunal. If you have any doubts also take a look at the replay after his wrestle with Hodge where Hodge is seen rubbing his eyes after he gets up off the ground. Greene just doesn't seem to have any sense of self. I would hate to see him after a few drinks. GWS needs to stop pretending there isn't a problem.

You call it being let off. I call it the AFL decided last week was not worthy of suspension (and rightly so).

There's even less evidence this week than there was last week. They set the precedent last week that this act wasn't worthy of a suspension so they can't depart from that precedent. I expect giants to challenge this and win. Once you take personal feelings about toby greene out of the equation the decision to overturn is an absolute no brainer.

 

[Demontim275]

But the MRO has a table that they apparently must use to classify an incident in isolation.

The sooner they ditch the table of charges the better. They just contrive it to get the result they want anyway.

Of course they do. But the table is completely subjective in parts

“Oh **** we graded Toby insufficient force last week. And he’s done it again.
**** him. Call it low. This time and give it a week”

Works similar with umpiring and blokes staging. Technically each decision should be based on its own merit
But if you know someone has been staging their entire career, you’re going to look at them more closely

 

[Blueboys11]

What an idiotic post

“It’s not worth fighting. But I’ll continue being a twat”

You corrected someone. And f’ed up. Own it like a grown up.

Curious though. On what grounds do you argue the suspension is wrong? Unnecessary contact to the eye region, are you saying it was necessary?

When is any contact with an opposition player necessary in a scuffle??

If it’s proven there is a gouge then fine he cops his suspension. But I see nothing on the footage to indicate that. Looks more like a small insufficient force strike if anything

 

[Demontim275]

When is any contact with an opposition player necessary in a scuffle??

If it’s proven there is a gouge then fine he cops his suspension. But I see nothing on the footage to indicate that. Looks more like a small insufficient force strike if anything

There’s obviously different rules for different areas mate. And so there should be. A smack on someone’s arm during a scuffle is nothing.
Even a soft smack on the **** and the bloke should be suspended

Here’s an idea, maybe just don’t paw at your opponents face. Can’t say I know a sport that has an acceptable tactic of randomly groping at your opponents eye

 

[GROTTO]

When is any contact with an opposition player necessary in a scuffle??

If it’s proven there is a gouge then fine he cops his suspension. But I see nothing on the footage to indicate that. Looks more like a small insufficient force strike if anything

This is all I found, not even sure if its conclusive.



The player at the bottom is Neale, his eye region is where you see Greene's hand which is blurred.

 

[AFLboys club]

It is all rubbish. Michale Christian of whatever his name is Collingwood through and through. Eddie told him to do it. The AFL boys club is back.

 

[JackBero]

Surely GWS will appeal to get it overturned, ridiculous that he misses a prelim for that, stupid that he put himself in a position like this again though.

Ridiculous that Hawkins is missing a prelim for what he did

 

[The Filth]

This is all I found, not even sure if its conclusive.

View attachment 746627

The player at the bottom is Neale, his eye region is where you see Greene's hand which is blurred.

I don't think he's wiping his nose for him.
Not even part of the original tackle, third man in on a bloke already pinned to the ground.
Reaches in with his hand into the face of his opponent who is helpless to fight back and push him away. Unnecessary and premeditated.
Neale isn't a dirty player either so it's not payback or retribution.
What a gutless dog act.
!7 offences but only a total of 6 weeks in suspensions. Must be an AFL record.
This guy is just taking the piss.
There is no reason for his hands to be anywhere near Neales face.

 

[The Filth]

It is all rubbish. Michale Christian of whatever his name is Collingwood through and through. Eddie told him to do it. The AFL boys club is back.

The same Michael Christian that only gave him a fine for last weeks dog act...
Eddie wasn't even president at Collingwood when Christian was playing btw....

 

[WestCoast05]

You can’t just make up rules to give a player a week.

This.

I can understand if ppl think he's a thug.
But you can't suspend a guy for his fingers touching a face with very little force.
I know it's bizzare why he would do it again after last week - but it's not a proper eye gouge.
A proper eye gouge deserves weeks, what TG did does not deserve weeks or a week.

I actually understand the outrage (even if I don't agree with it) but I'm sick of the AFL making it up as they go along. He has either done something that deserves suspension or not.
There is no 'all round pest' suspension in AFL which is what some people seem to be calling for.
And I'm sick of trial by media/trial by commentary team, which if course favours some clubs over others due to the persons involved in setting the narrative.

I like how he plays on the edge - so suspend him when he actually crosses the line according to the rules, like perhaps when he boots a guy in the face studs up on purpose (if it is within the rules to suspend for this).

 

[The Filth]

Whatever happened to suspended sentences?
If you are found guilty of a minor infraction or an offence where a warning or a fine was issued, there should be a suspended sentence attached to the penalty.
A rider attached that if you re-offend in any way afterwards within a given period of time that the suspended sentence comes into play and you get given a week or weeks off.
I heard one commentator today (sorry, I can't remember who it was) saying that the Tribunal only wants to issue suspensions for serious offences and prefers to issue fines where possible as a penalty. Thats fine, everyone want to be able to watch players play each week. However there should be a simple mechanism in place for those who don't take heed of the warning or fine issued under these circumstances and continue to flaunt the laws and effectively thumb their noses at the Tribunal.
The AFL has a 3 strike drug policy, why don't they have an incremental system of Tribunal penalties for repeat offenders?

 

[sprockets]

This.

I can understand if ppl think he's a thug.
But you can't suspend a guy for his fingers touching a face with very little force.
I know it's bizzare why he would do it again after last week - but it's not a proper eye gouge.
A proper eye gouge deserves weeks, what TG did does not deserve weeks or a week.

I actually understand the outrage (even if I don't agree with it) but I'm sick of the AFL making it up as they go along. He has either done something that deserves suspension or not.
There is no 'all round pest' suspension in AFL which is what some people seem to be calling for.
And I'm sick of trial by media/trial by commentary team, which if course favours some clubs over others due to the persons involved in setting the narrative.

I like how he plays on the edge - so suspend him when he actually crosses the line according to the rules, like perhaps when he boots a guy in the face studs up on purpose (if it is within the rules to suspend for this).

Nah if he was guilty last week without actually eye gouging (although he probably did) he's guilty this week, regardless of the words used in the charge, remembering it's not a court of law, so the wording/charge doesn't necessarily need to be the same. A harsher penalty is justified this week for exactly the same thing because penalties get tougher the more often you're found guilty of them.

Having said that, the AFL will get the outcome they want, which could be a let off on appeal (same for Hawkins).

 

[sprockets]

Whatever happened to suspended sentences?
If you are found guilty of a minor infraction or an offence where a warning or a fine was issued, there should be a suspended sentence attached to the penalty.
A rider attached that if you re-offend in any way afterwards within a given period of time that the suspended sentence comes into play and you get given a week or weeks off.
I heard one commentator today (sorry, I can't remember who it was) saying that the Tribunal only wants to issue suspensions for serious offences and prefers to issue fines where possible as a penalty. Thats fine, everyone want to be able to watch players play each week. However there should be a simple mechanism in place for those who don't take heed of the warning or fine issued under these circumstances and continue to flaunt the laws and effectively thumb their noses at the Tribunal.
The AFL has a 3 strike drug policy, why don't they have an incremental system of Tribunal penalties for repeat offenders?

The penalty tells us it's probably a suspended sentence (apart from financially) from last week without it being stated at the time.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

R U OK?

That's the best you've got?

Hiding one's team allegiances in the hope of deceiving anonymous internet participants into believing your views as a supporter are actually unbiased views of a non-supporter is pretty pathetic, don't you think?

Hey, this is only the internet and a bit of fun about footy, but you leave yourself open to be called on being fake. In this (unimportant) context, you're pretty much a coward.

 

[mcgleereturns]

Is he actually a victim of trial by media though? Most of the feeds I’m getting are supporting him. Most shows I watched last week didn’t want him suspended. Most articles I read were similarly defending him. Fox Footy are angry about his reports. Trial by SOCIAL media - absolutely. But trial by football mainstream media? I’m not so sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Filth]

The penalty tells us it's probably a suspended sentence from last week without it being stated at the time.

I heard somewhere that the Tribunal last week didn't even review the footage of the offence in the Bulldogs game due to the the guilty plea and merely applied the $7500 fine recommended by the AFL 'prosecutor' not even considering issuing a suspension.
If as you say there is a 'suspended sentence' approach to the penalty for this weeks misdemeanor then it should have been clearly outlined last week.
Maybe then Greene might have thought twice before a repeat performance of a similar dog act this week.
It may not have stopped Greene from offending again (I believe he cant help himself) but at least then there would be limited or no grounds for an appeal to be made as he would be clearly advised of what action the Tribunal would take if he re-offended.

 

[sprockets]

I heard somewhere that the Tribunal last week didn't even review the footage of the offence in the Bulldogs game due to the the guilty plea and merely applied the $7500 fine recommended by the AFL 'prosecutor' not even considering issuing a suspension.
If as you say there is a 'suspended sentence' approach to the penalty for this weeks misdemeanor then it should have been clearly outlined last week.
Maybe then Greene might have thought twice before a repeat performance of a similar dog act this week.
It may not have stopped Greene from offending again (I believe he cant help himself) but at least then there would be limited or no grounds for an appeal to be made as he would be clearly advised of what action the Tribunal would take if he re-offended.

He may well have been warned that future similar offences are likely to result in suspension. Just because the media didn't report it doesn't mean it wasn't suggested, but either way, it's common practice with multiple offences, ie, good or bad record.

 

[NonPhixion]

even if he plays Maynard will give him a bath again.

 

[Sedat!]

I still firmly believe Toby Greene is the victim of a witch hunt and has been treated very unfairly/misunderstood for a long time now.

He previously deliberately kicked a player in the head, in play, drew blood, and he got off any suspension. What should have been a 4 week incident ended up being nothing more than a fine. But yeah witch hunt, lol

He's also dumb as a box of hammers for even having his hands anywhere near an opponent's face and eyes after getting a generous hearing last week, not to mention being extremely selfish towards his teammates and club for significantly compromising their preparation for a prelim. There have been 88 players playing in the last 2 GWS matches and only 1 player has (twice) had their hands anywhere near an opponents face and eyes. But yeah, witch hunt lol



On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Filth]

He may well have been warned that future similar offences are likely to result in suspension. Just because the media didn't report it doesn't mean it wasn't suggested, but either way, it's common practice with multiple offences, ie, good or bad record.

Sentencing usually involves reviewing the antecedent report of the offender.
With that in mind if they were aware of Greenes track record, he should have been suspended last week instead of a fine.
The AFL has been caught in a trap of its own making.
The AFL wants Greene to play, they don't want to penalise their beloved GWS who they want to succeed, so last week their own prosecutor only called for a fine not a suspension and advised the Tribunal accordingly.
Little did they know that Greene would be stupid enough, or arrogant enough, to commit a similar offence the following week.
(Even though he once re-offended a week after he was given a fine for dropping his knees into Sydneys Isaac Heeneys back)
GWS will have grounds to appeal the suspension issued this week - if last weeks offence only warranted a fine (and it was probably a worse incident) after taking into account Greenes history, then why does a similar offense warrant a suspension a week later?
It is also difficult where the prosecutor is the AFL and the defendant belongs to a club that in effect is currently being administered directly by the AFL.
Conflict of interest.

 

[WestCoast05]

Nah if he was guilty last week without actually eye gouging (although he probably did) he's guilty this week, regardless of the words used in the charge, remembering it's not a court of law, so the wording/charge doesn't necessarily need to be the same. A harsher penalty is justified this week for exactly the same thing because penalties get tougher the more often you're found guilty of them.

Having said that, the AFL will get the outcome they want, which could be a let off on appeal (same for Hawkins).

He was fined $7500 for pushing a man's head into the ground and applying pressure with the foreatm to the back of the head.
The eye-gouging certainly was not proved by any measure and if anything was disproved by Bont's honour code ststement (good on him, props).

Many have allowed the fact it's Toby Greene determine their outage level.
If Pendelbury did this same act after a team mate was heavily sling-tackled noone would bat an eyelid.

And now on the back of this excessive fine (which many fair minded media types have called out) he should be suspended for the slightest of face touches this week?
Completely bizarre Toby would even do that again after last week's outrage, but it really is not enough to call it an eye gouge because in reality a real eye gouge deserves weeks off and what he did is no way worth weeks.

End of the day you can clearly see 2 different points of view on this issue - but I think both sides agree that the AFL needs to fix this whole mess of an area up concerning the MRO/Tribunal/finals discount/celebrity discount - and F Michael Christian off for a start and ban Lingy and other commentary team members from commenting on suspension issues, some of those dropkicks are so one-eyed it's a joke.

 

[Bald]

What other alternative did they have? A $10,000 dollar fine?

He currently sits at 7 weeks total in suspensions and over $25,000 in fines. Unreal.

 

[sprockets]

Sentencing usually involves reviewing the antecedent report of the offender.
With that in mind if they were aware of Greenes track record, he should have been suspended last week instead of a fine.
The AFL has been caught in a trap of its own making.
The AFL wants Greene to play, they don't want to penalise their beloved GWS who they want to succeed, so last week their own prosecutor only called for a fine not a suspension and advised the Tribunal accordingly.
Little did they know that Greene would be stupid enough, or arrogant enough, to commit a similar offence the following week.
GWS will have grounds to appeal the suspension issued this week - if last weeks offence only warranted a fine (and it was probably a worse incident) after taking into account Greenes history, then why does a similar offense warrant a suspension a week later?
It is also difficult where the prosecutor is the AFL and the defendant belongs to a club that in effect is currently being administered directly by the AFL.
Conflict of interest.

Maybe, maybe not, but it happened this week. Last week's offence makes this week's worse. It's an established protocol.

 

[sprockets]

He was fined $7500 for pushing a man's head into the ground and applying pressure with the foreatm to the back of the head.
The eye-gouging certainly was not proved by any measure and if anything was disproved by Bont's honour code ststement (good on him, props).

Many have allowed the fact it's Toby Greene determine their outage level.
If Pendelbury did this same act after a team mate was heavily sling-tackled noone would bat an eyelid.

And now on the back of this excessive fine (which many fair minded media types have called out) he should be suspended for the slightest of face touches this week?
Completely bizarre Toby would even do that again after last week's outrage, but it really is not enough to call it an eye gouge because in reality a real eye gouge deserves weeks off and what he did is no way worth weeks.

End of the day you can clearly see 2 different points of view on this issue - but I think both sides agree that the AFL needs to fix this whole mess of an area up concerning the MRO/Tribunal/finals discount/celebrity discount - and F Michael Christian off for a start and ban Lingy and other commentary team members from commenting on suspension issues, some of those dropkicks are so one-eyed it's a joke.

But Pendlebury wouldn't do it, that's the point. Which part of 'making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Brisbane's Lachie Neale ' don't you get?

Superstar Giant banned for unreasonable contact to eye region

Toby Greene has been hit with a one-match ban

www.afl.com.au