Live Event Toby Greene fronts the tribunal - Suspension appeal

[DAlembert]

Nope. There's more grounds for appeal than new evidence.

(E) AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
A Player or the AFL General Manager – Football Operations may appeal the decision of the Tribunal to the Appeal Board on one or more of the following grounds:
»»An error of law has occurred;
»»The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;
»»The classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate; or
»»The sanction imposed by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;
I think that says it all.

 

[HahnPremium]

Isnt the charge 'contact to the eye region' not eye-gouging?
The reason is that "contact to the eye region " is a charge is saying dont go anywhere near the face, there is no reason to do so.
Accidental facial contact can happen but Greene's was premeditated. What were his fingers probing for around the face?
No go zones.
Is it ok to not grab a players testicles but pinch around the shaft and scrotum?
No.
No go zones.

 

[Credit2thaB0is]

Reiwoldt and Treloar On Fox now saying they have never ever come across ‘face palming’ in AFL. There goes that defence and the equally ludicrous ‘subtle niggling’ assertion.

Ree Wall can’t tal

Isnt the charge 'contact to the eye region' not eye-gouging?
The reason is that "contact to the eye region " is a charge is saying dont go anywhere near the face, there is no reason to do so.
Accidental facial contact can happen but Greene's was premeditated. What were his fingers probing for around the face?
No go zones.
Is it ok to not grab a players testicles but pinch around the shaft and scrotum?
No.
No go zones.

That might make sense if they didn’t change the original charge of contact to the face to contact to the eye region. If they meant face why not stick with face in the charge.

 

[Mick F]

S

I don’t believe them.

So everyone is a fool and/or liar except for you. Numerous people here have indicated that face massaging is not part of AFL, and some of us have played a lot of games at a high level. But you dismiss that because your gut feel tells you something different. Don’t mind me but I’ll stick to evidence based decision making.

 

[BarcusMontempelli]

Love it!
Part of me hopes they appeal and Toby actually gets off. Then GWS will have spent precious time, energy and money and when they lose on the weekend they won’t even have an excuse.
And if he doesn’t his suspension is sweet enough.
How good is living?

 

[Adz]

The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;
I think that says it all.

On what grounds can they argue that. GWS used the footage to plead their case and were able to construct from that footage, details like De Boer etc.

They can only go down the corrupt route which will land them in a lot not trouble.

The appeal process will also hear a full reason from the AFL perspective of why he was suspended. It’s not going to be a one way show for GWS like it was tonight.

They are going to be dragged through the mud.

 

[Mick F]

On this logic the tribunal won't ever be able to suspend anyone, because 2d video isn't perfect. In fact all of our senses are also fallible. How can we be sure what we're seeing is even real? Sorry guys we can't be sure, let everyone off!

Exactly. It’s reasonable doubt, not no doubt. If we both walk into a room and I walk out and you are found dead - my defence that Santa Claus did it, entering and exiting via the chimney, may throw doubt on my culpability but it is not reasonable.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

An appeal is a must, basically this circus will continue but it should have rightfully been put aside based on all the evidence against the charge

The most brief, softest hand movement

A touching gesture for sure. Symbolic, perhaps.

 

[thedank]

weak as water, but i expect nothing less from the kangaroo court that is the tribunal. Hope he appeals and gets off

 

[DAlembert]

On what grounds can they argue that. GWS used the footage to plead their case and were able to construct from that footage, details like De Boer etc.

They can only go down the corrupt route which will land them in a lot not trouble.

The appeal process will also hear a full reason from the AFL perspective of why he was suspended. It’s not going to be a one way show for GWS like it was tonight.

They are going to be dragged through the mud.

None of the evidence I have seen makes him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The player he is supposed to have raked his fingers over denied that that was the case..yada yada yada. Taken into consideration makes the suspension seem unreasonable.

 

[Bay Giant]

S
So everyone is a fool and/or liar except for you. Numerous people here have indicated that face massaging is not part of AFL, and some of us have played a lot of games at a high level. But you dismiss that because your gut feel tells you something different. Don’t mind me but I’ll stick to evidence based decision making.

You might be spot on. I might be right. Nothing we say changes the result either way.

 

[Outback Footy]

A 2d video does not show that. Ever heard of false perspective.
The victim even confirmed it.

Lol.

 

[Blueboys11]

Who Would of thought Brisbane loved Toby Greene that much that not only would they take the stand on Tuesday at the trial, but they would also create fabricated backstories of private conversations between player and coach on the Sunday that also totally exonerate Greene.

Or the more likely scenario they were telling the truth

 

[windyhill]

So it's Rich v Coll.

 

[Bay Giant]

Exactly. It’s reasonable doubt, not no doubt. If we both walk into a room and I walk out and you are found dead - my defence that Santa Claus did it, entering and exiting via the chimney, may throw doubt on my culpability but it is not reasonable.

It does if it’s December 24....

 

[Shaq attack]

I find it interesting they even allowed Neale to comment on it. When Harris Andrews went to the tribunal, they wouldn’t allow that North fella to make a statement. Different rules for different people.

 

[McOrist]

Nope. There's more grounds for appeal than new evidence.

(E) AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
A Player or the AFL General Manager – Football Operations may appeal the decision of the Tribunal to the Appeal Board on one or more of the following grounds:
»»An error of law has occurred; -laws of the game are clear -no error here
»»The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it; video shows Greene's hand reaching over Neale's face/eye region. Neale clearly shows pain/discomfort after incident. Not unreasonable for the Tribunal to come to the decision it made.
»»The classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate; the charge was correctly worded and classified
»»The sanction imposed by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate. one week for this offence is hardly 'excessive'. He may be risking receiving a longer sentence at the appeal.

 

[Adz]

Who Would of thought Brisbane loved Toby Greene that much that not only would they take the stand on Tuesday at the trial, but they would also create fabricated backstories of private conversations between player and coach on the Sunday that also totally exonerate Greene.

Or the more likely scenario they were telling the truth

Neale will he sent a please explain.
Swann should tell him and Fagan to pull their heads in.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Only the AFL could be stupid enough to have one of the jury members in this case on TV just 2 weeks ago talking about how he wants Collingwood to win. Whether there’s bias or not this just looks really poor and should be grounds for appeal

 

[Adz]

Yep May end up with two.
Rocca, Patterson, Burke and Gasper on the appeals board.

 

[Adz]

Only the AFL could be stupid enough to have one of the jury members in this case on TV just 2 weeks ago talking about how he wants Collingwood to win. Whether there’s bias or not this just looks really poor and should be grounds for appeal

You’re not allowed to appeal on that basis.

 

[Didak_attack]

I personally have no issue with this resulting in cases like last week that were in a grey area being weighted into future cases. Sure in this case Collingwood are the beneficiaries in this case, but Maynard was ready he has been squashing his peas, snapping his beans and staring at his broccoli until it turned into cauliflower (then three that trash away)

I absolutely love Greene as a player (indiscretions aside) and while having a great player out in a big game benefits my team, I'd prefer to beat the best rather than be knocked. Regardless GWS, like Geelong, like any team that makes a prelim has the cattle to stand up on the day. Hell, Collingwood almost fell last year with our undermanned backline against a forward line that has two of the bigger body KPF forming a setup going around.

Ultimately the fact he has clearly checked if the ump is looking at him the last 2 weeks before clearly doing something above the shoulders of Bont and Neale is systematic enough for a ban. The Elim final vision was worst imo but the consistency between the events made them not independent variables IMO.

This mixed with his clear history of pushing the rule boundaries in regards to potential for injury is enough grounds for atleast a game. Imagine if they kept letting this slide and he damaged the vision of one of Pendleburys eyes, aside from the fact it would make him a true One eyed pie, it could harm his evasive skills. In case you didn't know, I think he played basketball

 

[Blueboys11]

On what grounds can they argue that. GWS used the footage to plead their case and were able to construct from that footage, details like De Boer etc.

They can only go down the corrupt route which will land them in a lot not trouble.

The appeal process will also hear a full reason from the AFL perspective of why he was suspended. It’s not going to be a one way show for GWS like it was tonight.

They are going to be dragged through the mud.

I think everyone wants to hear this reason from the AFL perspective. Because based on available evidence on this case in isolation it is not a suspendable offence.

Would Pendlebury be getting a suspension for this exact same one off incident (yes I know he wouldn’t do it etc etc, but that’s not the question)

This case as directed by the judge was to be viewed in pure isolation by the jury

 

[Mick F]

Could go quite easily with the 2nd,3rd or 4th. Particularly no.2

TF you are only entrusted with shopping trolleys and nothing requiring more nuanced jusdgement.

 

[HahnPremium]

Ree Wall can’t tal

That might make sense if they didn’t change the original charge of contact to the face to contact to the eye region. If they meant face why not stick with face in the charge.

To better and more accurately depict the proximity of greene's hand and fingers? Upon closer viewings?
The charge is now what it is. If its defensible as some suggest, the game doesnt change with this slight alteration of the charge.
The charge is contact not gouging.