Live Chat Toby Greene fronts the tribunal - Suspension appeal

Status
Not open for further replies.

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
19,529
20,580
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Yes, because you don’t have to be a doctor to know that eyes are delicate and you only get two of them.

Didn’t your parents ever explain to you how important your sight is?

You can get shoved in the chin 20 times a game by an opponent and walk off without injury, yet direct contact to the eye once from a fingernail could damage your sight for life.

If you lose your sight your life is irreversibly changed forever.

Greene should’ve got 5 weeks last week if the AFL had done the right thing.
So why didnt they call it eye gouging?

Instead of the mental gymnastics of saying it was probably something bad, they couldnt prove it was something bad, but it looked something bad, and lots of people got upset so it was worth a week.

BTW: we have king hit laws in NSW for the exact same sort of reason. People have died from a single punch.

Maybe the AFL should have 5 weeks as the minimum for punching. 1 week for when it looks like a punch but they cant actually prove that it was a punch.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SSwans2011

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 7, 2011
18,671
23,135
Brisbane
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
West Coast Wonders, Crystal Palace
Ummmmmm, really? here let me help;
"unnecessary contact with the eye region"
Lets break that down, unnecessary (3rd man into the tackle, reaches under and through team mates to reach Neals face - UNNECCESSARY
Contact - proven by the video
Eye region (note, not the eye), Neal came up clutching his nose and admitted contact to the nose.
Guilty as charged.

He chose to attack another players face, second week in a row in fact he chose to attack the oppositions leading midfielder. Hes a coward who only ever attacks smaller or helpless opponents, does it way too often and keeps getting fined where others would go a row. He got something of what he deserves.

Im hoping he sees his team beaten from the sidelines, feels like s**t, vows never to place his teammates in the same position and gets this s**t out of his game. Hes too good a player, doesn't need to do this s**t. I hope Im wrong but I think hes a serious psycho and will never change.
The point is he got off last week because the tribunal said they couldn't categorically state he had made contact with the eye region. Not sure what they define as "the eye region" but they have the same level of evidence this week, yet suspend him for it.

He deserves the suspension, but in light of the precedent set by the AFL last week, it makes very little sense.
 

JoeHawk

Norm Smith Medallist
May 19, 2008
7,129
10,361
Templestowe
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If it's any consolation for GWS they probably would've lost on Saturday even with Greene playing, the umpires will be doing their best to get Collingwood across the line to set up the blockbuster GF with Richmond.
Not so sure. AFL would be hell bent on seeing their latest franchise succeed. A lot can still happen.....albeit unlikely
 

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
972
800
AFL Club
Collingwood
So he's had two avenues of appeal—this one FILLED with legal professionals. And it's still a Collingwood conspiracy? Spare me.

Maybe you Pie-haters should just admit that the only reason why you wanted him off was because he'd be playing the mob you hate the most.
The footage is there, the charge was correct, Neale's testimony was ambiguous. The pedanticism surrounding the semantics of the 'eye-region' in this thread was just a bunch of you clutching at straws because the thought of Pies making another GF annoys the sh*t out of you.

Admit it. Or don't. Your hatred for us only unites us even more.
Yes, represented by the best legal minds in the country.
 

Smoky

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2006
10,569
6,741
Lilyfield
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood VFL
For the record, whoever Toby Greene played against this week is immaterial. I was rapt he got off last week, and think he should have been free to play this week (even if was against The Suns, hypothetically speaking)


I could very well be wrong in this, but I honestly felt the punishment didn't fit the crime in this instance, and it has nothing to do with Collingwood (As I said, I doubt the Giants would win even if Toby played)
Why were you so "Wrapped" he got off last week after gouging Bonts face?

Let's celebrate, a defencless man on the ground gets scratched around the eyes, hair pulled, head pummeled into the ground, whilst his team mates hold all his limbs.

At this point... I'm gunna throw it out there. I reckon you're a troll.
 

Smoky

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2006
10,569
6,741
Lilyfield
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood VFL
The point is he got off last week because the tribunal said they couldn't categorically state he had made contact with the eye region. Not sure what they define as "the eye region" but they have the same level of evidence this week, yet suspend him for it.

He deserves the suspension, but in light of the precedent set by the AFL last week, it makes very little sense.
you do realize at this point, they were 2 different charges?

afl let him off the first one.

the law didnt on the second
 

luthor

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 13, 2001
12,736
14,096
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
It absolutely sh!ts me that that dirty grub played against my team and almost certainly cost us a PF.

It would also normally sh!t me that bloody Collingwood are the lucky beneficiaries.

But it would have sh!t me even more if he had "got off"

Bugger the club enmities.....I've put all that aside . The greater good is more important and justice has prevailed, even if it has come about by a circuitous rout.

Rough justice is better than none at all so good on the Appeals Committee for not bowing to the considerable pressure put on it :thumbsu:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rubber Snake

Senior List
Sep 9, 2016
164
127
AFL Club
St Kilda
It absolutely sh!ts me that that dirty grub played against my team and almost certainly cost us a PF.

It would also normally sh!t me that bloody Collingwood are the lucky beneficiaries.

But it would have sh!t me even more if he had "got off"

Bugger the club enmities.....I've put all that aside . The greater good is more important and justice has prevailed, even if it has come about by a circuitous rout.

Rough justice is better than none at all so good on the Appeals Committee for not bowing to the considerable pressure put on it :thumbsu:
Absolutely how I feel !
 

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
972
800
AFL Club
Collingwood
Your version of events differs from mine.

Regardless, I will look forward to seeing the great man back in action in 2020, now my favourite non Carlton player. Hopefully he learns from this and can try rein in his white line fever.
This incident could actually elevate him into an even better and well rounded player.
Well that is the purpose of discipline, to correct undesired behaviour. If you felt it couldn’t be corrected he would be dismissed/sacked/moved on.
 

SSwans2011

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 7, 2011
18,671
23,135
Brisbane
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
West Coast Wonders, Crystal Palace
you do realize at this point, they were 2 different charges?

afl let him off the first one.

the law didnt on the second
Huh? He could have been suspended for the same thing last week on arguably a greater weight of evidence:


However, the tribunal cleared him on the basis that the footage didn't clearly indicate eye-gouging or scratching. That was the precedent they set. How can you suggest that there is greater evidence this week? Neale said he felt contact near his nose, but Bontempelli literally had a black eye last week. On precedent the judgement makes no sense. The tribunal made their bed last week and are now simply choosing not to sleep in it. It's a farce.
 

Outback Footy

All Australian
Mar 5, 2015
764
849
West of Woop Woop
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Marconi, Arsenal, GreenEdge
The point is he got off last week because the tribunal said they couldn't categorically state he had made contact with the eye region. Not sure what they define as "the eye region" but they have the same level of evidence this week, yet suspend him for it.

He deserves the suspension, but in light of the precedent set by the AFL last week, it makes very little sense.
Lol, no, last week they chose to allow him to plead guilty without testing the evidence. Last week MRO made the mistake of believing the tribunal would test the evidence and they didn't. So this week he took that option away from them. What do you think he would have given green for the Bont shit if he had his time over again? 2 weeks? 3? Either way the karma bus has driven into town and run the grub down.
 

SSwans2011

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 7, 2011
18,671
23,135
Brisbane
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
West Coast Wonders, Crystal Palace
Lol, no, last week they chose to allow him to plead guilty without testing the evidence. Last week MRO made the mistake of believing the tribunal would test the evidence and they didn't. So this week he took that option away from them. What do you think he would have given green for the Bont s**t if he had his time over again? 2 weeks? 3? Either way the karma bus has driven into town and run the grub down.
So, you're acknowledging this judgement makes no sense given precedence? Cool, I agree. Doesn't matter whose fault it is, the fact of the matter is that given precedence, this decision leaves you scratching your head. I wonder if the AFL will acknowledge that fact.

Realistically he should have been suspended last week, but given he wasn't, it's borderline nonsensical for him to be suspended this week.
 

Elmer_Judd

#Teague2020
Jul 25, 2019
4,239
8,908
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Leeds United
Why were you so "Wrapped" he got off last week after gouging Bonts face?

Let's celebrate, a defencless man on the ground gets scratched around the eyes, hair pulled, head pummeled into the ground, whilst his team mates hold all his limbs.

At this point... I'm gunna throw it out there. I reckon you're a troll.
I am a fan of the player actually, I have explained my reasoning numerous times in this thread in the past 2 weeks, I stand my views 100 percent. Not my problem that your an intolerant person who cannot accept another person's point of view. I might be very well wrong, but it's what I honestly believe. Nothing to do with trolling at all.
 

Outback Footy

All Australian
Mar 5, 2015
764
849
West of Woop Woop
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Marconi, Arsenal, GreenEdge
Huh? He could have been suspended for the same thing last week on arguably a greater weight of evidence:


However, the tribunal cleared him on the basis that the footage didn't clearly indicate eye-gouging or scratching. That was the precedent they set. How can you suggest that there is greater evidence this week? Neale said he felt contact near his nose, but Bontempelli literally had a black eye last week. On precedent the judgement makes no sense. The tribunal made their bed last week and are now simply choosing not to sleep in it. It's a farce.
Again, no they didn't see the evidence because the AFL offered him a fine, and of course he accepted it. That meant no evidence shown.
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
13,099
15,417
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Does it even matter what they called it?


They’ve made a stand against a grub clawing at opponents eyes. It’s a good thing.
Some convoluted logic required to get there but the result was correct. Can't fine a bloke for something, have him come out and be all like I won't do it again and then go do it again next time. Has to go.
 

Smoky

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2006
10,569
6,741
Lilyfield
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood VFL
I am a fan of the player actually, I have explained my reasoning numerous times in this thread in the past 2 weeks, I stand my views 100 percent. Not my problem that your an intolerant person who cannot accept another person's point of view. I might be very well wrong, but it's what I honestly believe. Nothing to do with trolling at all.
Cool man.

Wrapped he got off for assaulting Bonts face and head and got off for it.

p.s. you are in the minority.

assault should be assault.
 

Hoops

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 30, 2004
6,606
2,968
Danger! Ive got Wood
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Vixens
So he's had two avenues of appeal—this one FILLED with legal professionals. And it's still a Collingwood conspiracy? Spare me.

Maybe you Pie-haters should just admit that the only reason why you wanted him off was because he'd be playing the mob you hate the most.
The footage is there, the charge was correct, Neale's testimony was ambiguous. The pedanticism surrounding the semantics of the 'eye-region' in this thread was just a bunch of you clutching at straws because the thought of Pies making another GF annoys the sh*t out of you.

Admit it. Or don't. Your hatred for us only unites us even more.
I'm a Pie hater and am happy with the verdict. Hope the Giants tear you a new one
 

SSwans2011

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 7, 2011
18,671
23,135
Brisbane
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
West Coast Wonders, Crystal Palace
Again, no they didn't see the evidence because the AFL offered him a fine, and of course he accepted it. That meant no evidence shown.
Jeff Gleeson, AFL's legal counsel did though, and he recommended the financial sanction. Hence, no precedence. They either had to re-write the law, or admit they got it wrong for this to make sense. They've done neither.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom