Toby Greene… again.

Remove this Banner Ad

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
41,712
35,250
AFL Club
GWS
General Giant before you go off - you do realise the Giants were actually successful in their appeal in some way:

The Giants - while unsuccessful in having Greene’s ‘careless’ conduct charge thrown out - successfully argued ‘high’ impact down to ‘medium’ for the high fend off on Patrick Dangerfield, reducing the sanction to one match.

So based on the above, how could anyone argue that the impact wasn't at least medium based on the below?

Dangerfield was substituted out of the match and spent Friday night in hospital, before scans on Saturday morning revealed bruising to his larynx but no fracture. He is resting up at home after being discharged from hospital, with his availability for next week's game still unknown.

-Subbed off, spends a night in hospital, bruised throat and might not play next week. There's no way in hell that is "low impact"....
So even though players such as Buddy, Dangerfield etc got off for worse if not the exact same thing, we should be happy he got 1 week? Lol fmd.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
28,010
30,212
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It’s blatantly wrong compared to previous punishments this year and last.
Completely. But the thing is its probably the only one which was right.

The AFL should have fixed the fend off rule in Round 1. A fend off is an open palm below the neck and above the groin. Anything else is an illegal action and the player takes the risk of what injuries are caused. And any high contact is looked at.

They also need to set in stone the "potential to cause injury" instead of keeping it vague. But they never will because they dont want Brownlow favourites getting done.
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
26,103
34,557
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
So even though players such as Buddy, Dangerfield etc got off for worse if not the exact same thing, we should be happy he got 1 week? Lol fmd.
No you wouldn't be "happy" per se. But Toby has form, it's his own fault, it seems multiple times a year he's doing something questionable. To expect it won't catch him out a few times is naïve.

Based on the charge, careless and medium, I don't think any balanced person could argue it wasn't careless or medium. So if you want to be "happy" - you'll have to wait for Toby to stamp this constant crap that he does out of his game.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
28,010
30,212
AFL Club
Hawthorn
No you wouldn't be "happy" per se. But Toby has form, it's his own fault, it seems multiple times a year he's doing something questionable. To expect it won't catch him out a few times is naïve.

Based on the charge, careless and medium, I don't think any balanced person could argue it wasn't careless or medium. So if you want to be "happy" - you'll have to wait for Toby to stamp this constant crap that he does out of his game.
Buddy doesnt have form ?!? Or Selwood ?!?!

They both should have got weeks this year but were protected.
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
26,103
34,557
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
Buddy doesnt have form ?!? Or Selwood ?!?!

They both should have got weeks this year but were protected.
Buddy was suspended initially too, and it was downgraded from medium to low, that's the difference here based on the review.
There's no way Greene's hit was low impact.
 

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
41,712
35,250
AFL Club
GWS
No you wouldn't be "happy" per se. But Toby has form, it's his own fault, it seems multiple times a year he's doing something questionable. To expect it won't catch him out a few times is naïve.

Based on the charge, careless and medium, I don't think any balanced person could argue it wasn't careless or medium. So if you want to be "happy" - you'll have to wait for Toby to stamp this constant crap that he does out of his game.
All those other players have form as well. Danger, Selwood, Buddy. List goes on.

Bont broke someone’s larynx and got off.
 

KissKiss

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 26, 2012
5,448
4,805
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
They also need to set in stone the "potential to cause injury" instead of keeping it vague. But they never will because they dont want Brownlow favourites getting done.
Its one of the stupidest rules they have. There just seems to be zero consistency in when they do or dont apply it
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PenfoldsFan

All Australian
Mar 4, 2015
925
1,332
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Central Districts
Saga needs more Eddie McGuire calling for supreme court injunctions.

Oh wait...GWS, nothing to see here.
 

anchor man

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2001
1,863
901
Success WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Dynamic Dockers &South Fr
Toby Greene will go down as the only footballer to have a judicial ruling made under his name.
The Toby Greene rule of penalty.Toby gets time others get JS.
The judiciary are a totaljoke.
 

OnlyPowerForever

Cancelled
Mar 22, 2021
2,682
3,816
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Toby Greene will go down as the only footballer to have a judicial ruling made under his name.
The Toby Greene rule of penalty.Toby gets time others get JS.
The judiciary are a totaljoke.
Complete and total and running joke.

This is not about the impact, or the injury. Neither of those can be argued.

This is about how players approaching each other at speed can be in this relative position, that the player who didn't get the ball slips down in height (how this was argued that he didn't), and then argue that the player who got the ball should be suspended for high contact, is a mind-boggling in my opinion.
1628676521042.png
1628676544973.png
1628676561146.png



1628676817644.png
1628676882395.png
 

westie

All Australian
Jul 9, 2009
647
414
Perth
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Punjab Kabaddi Team & McLaren F1
I think that the AFL is exactly like any ruling government, they don't give **ck what the average person thinks or how much those people are inconvenienced. Greene gets pinged for bumping a bloke whilst winning possession of the the ball whereas Sellwood intentionally strikes the opponent intentionally in the head with his elbow and gets fined? The game and everything about it is irretrievably **cked.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
28,010
30,212
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I think that the AFL is exactly like any ruling government, they don't give **ck what the average person thinks or how much those people are inconvenienced. Greene gets pinged for bumping a bloke whilst winning possession of the the ball whereas Sellwood intentionally strikes the opponent intentionally in the head with his elbow and gets fined? The game and everything about it is irretrievably **cked.
If Bont had tackled Brayshaw it wouldnt have even been a fine.
 

hoianbulldog

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 2, 2006
5,168
5,614
Hoi An, Vietnam. I am off the grid.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
We show previous cases that were the same but got off then surely he does.
Still stunned Giants were banned from showing previous cases, yet Buddy could.
They didnt ask foor permission to show the case from earlier in the year involving the melbourne player. Buddy's wig asked for and was granted permission to show cases from earlier in the year.
 

OnlyPowerForever

Cancelled
Mar 22, 2021
2,682
3,816
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Complete and total and running joke.

This is not about the impact, or the injury. Neither of those can be argued.

This is about how players approaching each other at speed can be in this relative position, that the player who didn't get the ball slips down in height (how this was argued that he didn't), and then argue that the player who got the ball should be suspended for high contact, is a mind-boggling in my opinion.
View attachment 1202992View attachment 1202993View attachment 1202994


View attachment 1203004View attachment 1203006
Adrian Anderson (representing Toby Greene at the Tribunal appeal). Pretty much as per my post above (except for the mind-boggling opinion bit).

Argument #1
Anderson reiterates how short the time was between gathering the ball and fending off (3 frames = 0.12 seconds).

Argument #2
"For the entire duration that Greene picks up the ball and makes contact, Dangerfield is slipping on the right foot. You can also see from this angle how low Dangerfield is. An issue at the Tribunal hearing was Mr Gleeson said the slip made no difference to Dangerfield's position; I put it to you he would've not been in the same position had he not slipped. He would've pushed off the right foot and his angle of impact would've been different."

Argument #3
The Giants' second argument is about the conclusion - that there was a realistic probability there would be high contact. Anderson: The question for the jury is not whether there was a risk of high contact. It's that it was realistically foreseeable that there would be a reportable offence. They are not the same thing. "It's not careless because contact is high - high contact occurs in tackles, spoils and knees in a marking contest".
 

OnlyPowerForever

Cancelled
Mar 22, 2021
2,682
3,816
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Gleeson stating Dangerfield's "so called slip" made no difference to the point of contact. He says Dangerfield's head does not lower at any stage.

Clearly incorrect as shown a few posts up. An amateur observation befitting the AFL.
 
Last edited:

DT_35

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 14, 2010
12,834
9,606
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Denver, Liverpool
Gleeson stating Dangerfield's "so called slip" made no difference to the point of contact. He says Dangerfield's head does not lower at any stage.

Clearly incorrect as shown a few posts up. An amateur observation befitting the AFL.
the bloke is a f****** moron
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad