Live Event Toby Greene fronts the tribunal - Suspension appeal

[Demontim275]

Settle down. I clearly said before that his intention is not to harm when he does his niggling. So I’m completely rejecting the idea he was trying to hurt Bontempelli or Neale. He was niggling them - annoying and provoking them and not trying to cause harm. You think that is his intention but it doesn’t make my post idiotic or disingenuous in the slightest.

Your post is idiotic and disingenuous because you claimed that if he intended to harm players he couldn’t be one of the best players

Leigh Matthews intended to hurt a lot of blokes and is one of the best of all time. The two things are unrelated. You can go on field and want to hurt your opponents AND still be a great player.

 

[compact72]

 

[Blueboys11]

Fagan has come out on radio this morning and said Neale advised him there was no contact to the eyes. He felt contact to his nose.

This should be thrown out in 2 seconds

 

[Credit2thaB0is]

Your post is idiotic and disingenuous because you claimed that if he intended to harm players he couldn’t be one of the best players

Leigh Matthews intended to hurt a lot of blokes and is one of the best of all time. The two things are unrelated. You can go on field and want to hurt your opponents AND still be a great player.

No I’m not being idiotic or disingenuous. I honestly don’t think he goes on the field to hurt people. I said you can’t be a great player if you’re afraid of hurting other players. There’s a difference to that and meditating on hurting blokes for the sake of it. I don’t think great players give a second thought to whether they will harm a player in play, they go in hard without worrying if they themselves or the opposition will get hurt as a result.

 

[Demontim275]

No I’m not being idiotic or disingenuous. I honestly don’t think he goes on the field to hurt people. I said you can’t be a great player if you’re afraid of hurting other players. There’s a difference to that and meditating on hurting blokes for the sake of it. I don’t think great players give a second thought to whether they will harm a player in play, they go in hard without worrying if they themselves or the opposition will get hurt as a result.

“He’s one of the best players going right now - you can’t be that if your goal is to just hurt the oppo.”

It was in response to that. It’s disingenuous to suggest he’s either:
- ONLY out there to hurt people
Or
- He’s just out there to play and sometimes niggles

No one is suggesting he’s ONLY out there to hurt people. Hence disingenuous.

Is he only out there to do it? No. Does he go out of his way to cross the line and hurt oppo players? Yes.

Doesn’t make him not one of the best players

 

[Credit2thaB0is]

“He’s one of the best players going right now - you can’t be that if your goal is to just hurt the oppo.”

It was in response to that. It’s disingenuous to suggest he’s either:
- ONLY out there to hurt people
Or
- He’s just out there to play and sometimes niggles

No one is suggesting he’s ONLY out there to hurt people. Hence disingenuous.

Is he only out there to do it? No. Does he go out of his way to cross the line and hurt oppo players? Yes.

Doesn’t make him not one of the best players

How can I be disingenuous when I just don’t agree that he goes out of his way to hurt oppo players. That’s your opinion and you might think anyone disagreeing with you is disingenuous but that’s not what it means to be disingenuous. I genuinely believe the opposite of what you’re saying.There’s no grounds for argument here, we simply disagree.

 

[Demontim275]

How can I be disingenuous when I just don’t agree that he goes out of his way to hurt oppo players. That’s your opinion and you might think anyone disagreeing with you is disingenuous but that’s not what it means to be disingenuous. I genuinely believe the opposite of what you’re saying.There’s no grounds for argument here, we simply disagree.

Sigh. It’s disingenous Because you said “He’s one of the best players going right now - you can’t be that if your goal is to just hurt the oppo.”

No one has suggested it’s his only goal. So it’s disingenous to argue against that and suggest that’s what the discussion is.

You can argue that you don’t think he’s out there to do it at all, but don’t categorise the other side of the coin as some irrational point that he’s only out there to hurt people. He’s out there to play footy, he attempts to hurt the oppo at times too. They’re not mutually exclusive.

He honestly just seems like a country footballer who made it big. There’s plenty of blokes in country leagues who play like him. They go out there to play, but they also want to smack some blokes and hurt the oppo.

He’s had 17 charges on field and charged off field for violent behaviour. It’s naive to claim he’s just niggling.

 

[hebog]

You are lying on the ground, you can’t move because of the players on top of you, you then feel someone’s hands on your face and their fingers near your eyes. How do you feel?

 

[juss]

Fagan says Neale said no contact to the eye, startled him for a few seconds but then no further impact. If he is called to testify, surely that gets Greene off? It would be hard to charge him with "contact to the face" that didn't cause any impact to the player.

 

[hebog]

Fagan says Neale said no contact to the eye, startled him for a few seconds but then no further impact. If he is called to testify, surely that gets Greene off? It would be hard to charge him with "contact to the face" that didn't cause any impact to the player.

Hearsay. Not admissible.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Hearsay. Not admissible.

Victim impact statement?

Word of the day: disingenuous

 

[Bald]

What's he being suspended for then? A cumulative record of priors? He may well be a complete grub, but that's not what should be adjudicated here - he should be judged on the action.

No way is what he did last night even close to what he did to Bontempelli. It makes no sense that he gets a week now yet only cops a fine for what he did against the Dogs.

Oh hang on, they're playing Collingwood this week. jog on then.....all makes sense now.

Making unnecessary contact to the face? Wasn't that the rule?

If he got done for the same thing last week as this week then either a larger fine or suspension is all that will suffice..

 

[Engimal v3]

Reading on the Bulldogs board in their Toby Greene dedicated thread that Toby won't be playing next week. Just the mail I've read, from those close to the incident.

 

[Credit2thaB0is]

Sigh. It’s disingenous Because you said “He’s one of the best players going right now - you can’t be that if your goal is to just hurt the oppo.”

The original comment that started that discussion lent itself to a black and white responses:

It's quite simple folks. He is out to hurt the opposition players.

I wasn’t deliberately trying to be disingenuous in any case. Because again, I got the impression people were saying he’s simply “out to hurt opposition players” where as I genuinely believe any harm he causes is incidental to playing a tough brand of footy. The niggle isn’t even necessarily part of that but people are calling it murder which I’m saying is simply wrong.

 

[Demontim275]

The original comment that started that discussion lent itself to a black and white responses:

I wasn’t deliberately trying to be disingenuous in any case. Because again, I got the impression people were saying he’s simply “out to hurt opposition players” where as I genuinely believe any harm he causes is incidental to playing a tough brand of footy. The niggle isn’t even necessarily part of that but people are calling it murder which I’m saying is simply wrong.

It’s not murder. But it’s definitely not incidental.
17 mrp charges. Shit like unnecessary contact with the face. That’s not incidental footy shit.
It’s cheap soft shit.

No one is treating it like murder. People are calling him a cheap prick and dog, which by his history is fair.

The bloke has pretty clear aggression and violence issues. Don’t know why everyone wants to talk like he’s a saint because he kick ball good.

I’d really like to know what kind of footy player paws at someone’s face “incidentally”?

 

[Credit2thaB0is]

I’d really like to know what kind of footy player paws at someone’s face “incidentally”?

That’s not what I’m calling incidental but it’s also not something I think he’s doing to hurt them. He does it as a niggle - to annoy and fluster and provoke. I wouldn’t miss it from the game either to be honest but I don’t think he’s doing that stuff to hurt oppo players, just to get them off their game.

 

[Demontim275]

That’s not what I’m calling incidental but it’s also not something I think he’s doing to hurt them. He does it as a niggle - to annoy and fluster and provoke. I wouldn’t miss it from the game either to be honest but I don’t think he’s doing that stuff to hurt oppo players, just to get them off their game.

I’m not sure pawing at someone’s face puts anyone off their game.

Doesn’t Greene give away as many frees as he gets? Sounds like it’s giving opponents a leg up.

If he keeps pulling cheap shit, they’re going to pay more against him and suspend him more, that doesn’t put anyone off.

As I said, it’s naive to call anything he does incidental. It’s not a bump gone wrong or a hard tackle knocking someone out. It’s deliberate actions that aren’t football actions.

 

[hawksalltheway]

Fagan has come out on radio this morning and said Neale advised him there was no contact to the eyes. He felt contact to his nose.

This should be thrown out in 2 seconds

i agree, if he cant be charged with "just being a dickhead"

afl is a laughing stock over all of this....

 

[SloppyJoe]

Video of this week: Inconclusive
Tribunal last week: Better video, but gets off
MRP this week: Suspended
Lachie Neale: He touched my nose
Tribunal this week: Suspension overturned
Toby Greene: Campaigner

 

[Smoky]

Fagan says Neale said no contact to the eye, startled him for a few seconds but then no further impact. If he is called to testify, surely that gets Greene off? It would be hard to charge him with "contact to the face" that didn't cause any impact to the player.

"Unnecessary contact to the Eye Region" was Chrisso's charge.

Fagan said player said no contact to the eyes more his nose.

Last time I checked your eyes are separated by your nose. If the Tribunal lets him off they are clearly saying your nose is no where near your eyes???

 

[Credit2thaB0is]

"Unnecessary contact to the Eye Area" was Chrisso's charge.

Fagan said player said no contact to the eyes more his nose.

Last time I checked your eyes are separated by your nose. If the Tribunal lets him off they are clearly saying your nose is no where near your eyes???

The nose, however near the eyes it is, isn’t the eyes

 

[sedders]

You are lying on the ground, you can’t move because of the players on top of you, you then feel someone’s hands on your face and their fingers near your eyes. How do you feel?

I would feel uncomfortable and annoyed.

More so I’d be confused as to why an AFL player is lying on top of me. I don’t even play AFL.

Not sure what my feelings had to do with this.

 

[jakson68]

Safety goggles are the AFL players new PPE for when playing the Giants

 

[Outback Footy]

The nose, however near the eyes it is, isn’t the eyes

Isnt the charge "unneccessary contact to the face"? Every face Ive seen contains a nose. In neither case did Christian cite "eye gouging". The media and fans have jumped there because its the most obvious hing to do that causes damage. And if he gets off this week, misjudges next week and gets the eye? What then? Visually damaged player purely because the AFL dont make the face sacrosanct.

But GW$ discount/AFL'$ love child - so who knows. Given the evidence from last week and the immediate tribunal referral I was sure he was gone. And disappointed the tribunal has set such a very poor precedent.

 

[Colonial]

Isnt the charge "unneccessary contact to the face"? Every face Ive seen contains a nose. In neither case did Christian cite "eye gouging". The media and fans have jumped there because its the most obvious hing to do that causes damage. And if he gets off this week, misjudges next week and gets the eye? What then? Visually damaged player purely because the AFL dont make the face sacrosanct.

But GW$ discount/AFL'$ love child - so who knows. Given the evidence from last week and the immediate tribunal referral I was sure he was gone. And disappointed the tribunal has set such a very poor precedent.

Lol says a fan of the most protected club in the game.