AFL: Magpies likely to appeal Holland's six-game ban AFL Tribunal Nightlead By Roger Vaughan
MELBOURNE, Sept 12 AAP - Collingwood onballer Brodie Holland has the unwanted distinction of suffering the biggest penalty yet under the new AFL tribunal system.
The tribunal tonight handed him a six-game suspension after finding him guilty of charging Western Bulldogs forward Brett Montgomery.
Holland made contact with Montgomery near the centre circle with a heavy front-on hip and shoulder bump, immediately after the opening bounce of Sunday's elimination final.
He had run past the ball to make the contact, which threw Montgomery backwards onto the ground.
The Bulldog has no memory of the first half of the game because of mild concussion, although he is expected to be fit for Saturday night's semi-final against West Coast.
But the severity of the penalty was as much to do with Holland's poor tribunal record as the incident itself.
While Collingwood officials were tight-lipped as they left the tribunal, the Magpies appear certain to appeal the penalty.
``We've got no comment to make, so we'll consider our options,'' said Collingwood football manager Neil Balme.
Holland cannot serve his suspension in the pre-season, putting him out of action until round seven, and he also effectively has a further one-game ban hanging over his head once he returns.
His final demerit points total was 691.88, with each 100 points worth a one-game suspension, so Holland has a carry-over total of
91.88.
The highest previous points total was Byron Pickett's 660 for the controversial rough-conduct report during last year's pre-season competition.
Pickett was playing for Port Adelaide when he made contact with then-Adelaide player James Begley and it was the first major case of this tribunal system, which had just been introduced.
The Power appealed, but Pickett's six-game ban stood, with one of those matches served in the pre-season.
Holland's poor tribunal record over the last five seasons contributed dramatically to his penalty.
For example, had a player with a clean record taken an early guilty plea on exactly the same charge, he would only have received a two-game ban.
Holland could have accepted a five-game suspension with a guilty plea, but the Magpies decided to fight the whole matter.
They also tried to argue against two classifications of the offence, saying the incident was not intentional and that the contact was to the body, rather than high.
While Holland was always likely to be found guilty, it was perhaps surprising that at least one of those challenges to the classifications did not succeed.
The argument that the contact was to the body, rather than high, appeared to receive a major boost during Montgomery's evidence.
Speaking via telephone, Montgomery testified he did not suffer any soreness or bruising to the face during the match.
Collingwood argued Montgomery suffered concussion when the back of his head hit the ground, not when Holland hit him.
They produced frame-by-frame printouts of the video footage to support their argument that Holland mainly made contact with his hip to Montgomery's body.
Holland could have escaped with a four-game ban had one of the arguments on classification succeeded and that was probably his best-possible result.
