Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

On the vision I've seen, last week's act looked worse and he should have been suspended then. Even the pathetic hair pulling is enough for me. All were non footy acts and should always be treated more harshly than contact that occurs as part of play.

I reckon the MRO expected him to be suspended last week but handballed to the tribunal because it's a final and there were a few things going on without clear vision. This week they decided to step up and make the decision. Less going on and with supposedly clearer vision of contact to the face/eye area.

It will be interesting to see how the tribunal deals with it. I don't believe in the "protection" of GWS players by the AFL, let's not forget that Steve Johnson was suspended for a Prelim as a Giant.

Last week he miraculously got off. This week he will miraculously lose his appeal.

AN_Inkling wrote:On the vision I've seen, last weeks act looked worse and he should have been suspended then. Even the pathetic hair pulling is enough for me. All were non footy acts and should always be treated more harshly than contact that occurs as part of play.

I reckon the MRO expected him to be suspended last week but handballed to the tribunal because it's a final and there were a few things going on without clear vision. This week they decided to step up and make the decision. Less going on and with supposedly clearer vision of contact to the face/eye area.

It will be interesting to see how the tribunal deals with it. I don't believe in the "protection" of GWS players by the AFL, let's not forget that Steve Johnson was suspended for a Prelim as a Giant.

The tribunal can only make a decision based on the evidence presented to it. If the evidence is not presented, it can't be considered. Last week Greene pleaded guilty, and the AFL's own prosecuting legal counsel, Jeff Gleeson QC, refused to call witnesses or offer video evidence to press for a suspension. He just said he thought the infringment deserved a fine, so that's what the tribunal gave Greene. It had no other choice.

It is Gleeson QC who holds all the aces.

greene lived near me. the apple did not fall far from the tree. oh for days of magro

Woods wrote:

AN_Inkling wrote:On the vision I've seen, last weeks act looked worse and he should have been suspended then. Even the pathetic hair pulling is enough for me. All were non footy acts and should always be treated more harshly than contact that occurs as part of play.

I reckon the MRO expected him to be suspended last week but handballed to the tribunal because it's a final and there were a few things going on without clear vision. This week they decided to step up and make the decision. Less going on and with supposedly clearer vision of contact to the face/eye area.

It will be interesting to see how the tribunal deals with it. I don't believe in the "protection" of GWS players by the AFL, let's not forget that Steve Johnson was suspended for a Prelim as a Giant.

The tribunal can only make a decision based on the evidence presented to it. If the evidence is not presented, it can't be considered. Last week Greene pleaded guilty, and the AFL's own prosecuting legal counsel, Jeff Gleeson QC, refused to call witnesses or offer video evidence to press for a suspension. He just said he thought the infringment deserved a fine, so that's what the tribunal gave Greene. It had no other choice.

It is Gleeson QC who holds all the aces.

Yeah understand that it was the AFL not seeking a suspension. When I say "tribunal" I mean the whole tribunal process.

Last week, the MRO hands a charge of "serious misconduct" to the tribunal, one which it thinks warrants a suspension, only for the AFL to not even seek one. This week they hand out the one week suspension, fully knowing the Giants will appeal, but at least this time suspension will be on the table for the tribunal.

The above may be a bit fanciful. It's wholly possible that the different MRO verdict is simply down to different facts. The look of last week's act was worse to my eyes, but maybe this time there was either clear footage of fingers making contact with the eye area or a medical report indicating the same.

Last week he was fined because he did not dispute the charge and was remorseful. Bit hard to use those reasons again.

Bucks5 wrote:Last week he was fined because he did not dispute the charge and was remorseful. Bit hard to use those reasons again.

I watched it in slowmo....2 actions....first action was forearm to the head of the brisbane player while he was on the ground. 2nd action was reaching under and messing with the players face but you cannot see what he does. Brisbane player ends up holding his sore face so he clearly did something that hurt.

He is gone.

colin_wood wrote:

Bucks5 wrote:Last week he was fined because he did not dispute the charge and was remorseful. Bit hard to use those reasons again.

I watched it in slowmo....2 actions....first action was forearm to the head of the brisbane player while he was on the ground. 2nd action was reaching under and messing with the players face but you cannot see what he does. Brisbane player ends up holding his sore face so he clearly did something that hurt.

He is gone.

Even more damning in my mind, both time he looks up and around to see if he is being watched!

Toby Greene is not charged with eye gouging. He's charged with inappropriate contact to the eye area.

Will the Tribunal consider that warrants a suspension? I doubt it. Neale wasn't injured. He wasn't incapacitated in any way. The role of the Tribunal isn't to judge Greene's character, or to take into account what happened last week.
Greene won't be suspended.

Harrysz wrote:Toby Greene is not charged with eye gouging. He's charged with inappropriate contact to the eye area.

Will the Tribunal consider that warrants a suspension? I doubt it. Neale wasn't injured. He wasn't incapacitated in any way. The role of the Tribunal isn't to judge Greene's character, or to take into account what happened last week.
Greene won't be suspended.

He is charged with "serious misconduct" so he is gone if there is any "potential to cause serious injury".

I think there is in this case (eye injury). Then there is the forearm to the head while the player is on the ground to compound his problems.

Then there are the legal problems for the AFL....if he does it again and permanently damages someones eye the AFL are can potentially get sued for not taking reasonable action against him since he now has a history.

The AFL need to make it perfectly clear to this grub, that is his appeal fails,he will miss 2 weeks.We will then see how cocky and confident people are .

Greene will get off. Brisbane coach Fagan was interviewed on SEN this morning & said Lachie Neale said he was contacted in the nose, not the eye.

Regardless, we will win!

All that tell,s us Greene,s aim was off

Went for the pork pies ,missed then grabbed the snoze

Ev5Magpies wrote:Greene will get off. Brisbane coach Fagan was interviewed on SEN this morning & said Lachie Neale said he was contacted in the nose, not the eye.

Sadly, I fear you are on the money. The most heavily fined player in AFL history has become so good at his craft, he can now play outside the spirit of the game to the extent of correctly judging the difference between drawing a fine and doing time.
The mistake they made was not adding in some penalty clauses for a repeat offence. They should have done this with that germ years ago. We all know he’s not far away from doing it again.

He targets team,s main play generator !! So if he is allowed to play Prelim
Week one The Bont
Week two Lachie Neale
Week three ???????