Toby Greene -- what... again?

[jonbe54]

I agree someone needs to take a stand but you know what will happen the minute Maynard touches him...........weeks.

Completely agree, not necessarily saying we should send Maynard to him with orders but sooner or later some coach will.

Anyone can see what is going to happen except Green - drunk on the power of the AFL to protect him - and the AFL who believe they are all knowing.

I can see it happening in an early game next season - Green will savage another helpless victim and someone will snap.

 

[johncitizen]

When asked if he would continue playing on the edge following the 17th charge of his career, Greene smiled and said: "I don't know, we'll wait and see what happens."

 

[jonbe54]

When asked if he would continue playing on the edge following the 17th charge of his career, Greene smiled and said: "I don't know, we'll wait and see what happens."

Smirking little turd, the AFL can protect him off the field but sooner or later someone is going to say enough is enough.

 

[Kilmo]

I'm glad Greene wasn't suspended.

Maynard needs to wear his favourite glove in the Prelim.

 

[Kappa]

You don’t need that. You have a long sequence of video that shows with a high level of probability that that is what he was doing or attempting to do. So you go after other evidence to corroborate or rebut. That evidence would include Bontempelli’s and Greene’s testimony, at the very least. An investigation.

The Bulldogs medical report came back that he never touched Bontempelli's eyes, and at no point in the video can you ever see Greene touching Bontempelli's eyes. He clearly presses his hand into Bont's face, but stays clear of the eyes.

Yes he did. it was so obvious. He was grinding away at Bonts face. What makes it even worse is I love Bont. Twice the player Greene could ever hope to be.

Why were Bont's eyes completely fine after the incident if he was eye gouged?

TRS that is a weak post mate - it was very obviously and clearly intent to gouge - the fact that he failed is simply good luck for his intended victim.

Green is a grub of the worst kind and that type of willful blindness only empowers his behavior.

I don't think he was planning to do anything, it was a split second incident in which he lost his cool and tried to hurt Bont. He clearly didn't touch his eyes though so it's a big hard to charge him with eye gouging...


Rough conduct was the appropriate charge.

 

[76woodenspooners]

76 whether the eye gouge actually happened should be irrespective of the CLEAR INTENT to eye gouge.

There seems to be a pattern of willful blindness going on here.

Green spent an extraordinary amount of time CLEARLY attempting to eye gouge, his actions should not be validated by our softness compounding the AFL's intent.

I’m just offering an explanation, not advocating a position. FWIW my position is ...

(1) I’m no fan of Toby Greene either.

(2) I reckon he should have gotten suspended. I think general societal expectations are that he get suspended.

(4) Given our own experience at Collingwood, I can see the reticence to suspend players during finals. I would hope the leniency would apply to our own players.

(5) I would hope that if one of our players acted the way Toby did, that I would think that’d be deserving of a suspension.

 

[sideswipe]

Greene went to Wesley, Maynard went to DLS, not even in the same comp.

My bad. Thought they were both de la.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jonbe54]

I’m just offering an explanation, not advocating a position. FWIW my position is ...

(1) I’m no fan of Toby Greene either.

(2) I reckon he should have gotten suspended. I think general societal expectations are that he get suspended.

(4) Given our own experience at Collingwood, I can see the reticence to suspend players during finals. I would hope the leniency would apply to our own players.

(5) I would hope that if one of our players acted the way Toby did, that I would think that’d be deserving of a suspension.

No argument with any of your points 76.

Nevertheless the clear implication with this round of non suspensions of both Nik Nat and Green . . expansion club players are a protected species.

They all know this and act accordingly, feeling both protected and empowered by the FKIN AFL to indulge their spite.

Look at how close Coxy came to being permanently blinded in one eye due to an accidental poke in the eye.

Tragedy is hovering and the AFL are rolling the dice on players welfare by continuing to interfere with their own judicial process.

Nik Nat to an extent and Toby Green have clearly demonstrated form and the AFL continues to protect them from the consequences.

It's only a matter of time before some unfortunate young man is blinded (Green) or suffers a broken neck (Nik Nat) and the AFL will disavow all responsibility, wiping their hands of the whole tragedy and leaving the players family and loved ones to clean up their - the AFL's - mess.

This has gone beyond the individual player indiscretions and is a disgusting stain on the game, initiated and prolonged by a demonstrably CULPABLE AFL.

 

[60 Yards Out]

The Bulldogs medical report came back that he never touched Bontempelli's eyes, and at no point in the video can you ever see Greene touching Bontempelli's eyes. He clearly presses his hand into Bont's face, but stays clear of the eyes.



Why were Bont's eyes completely fine after the incident if he was eye gouged?



I don't think he was planning to do anything, it was a split second incident in which he lost his cool and tried to hurt Bont. He clearly didn't touch his eyes though so it's a big hard to charge him with eye gouging...


Rough conduct was the appropriate charge.

Your position is that the video doesn’t prove that he eye-gouged him, therefore it proves that he didn’t eye-gouge him. Good luck with that in a courtroom.

 

[76woodenspooners]

No argument with any of your points 76.

Nevertheless the clear implication with this round of non suspensions of both Nik Nat and Green . . expansion club players are a protected species.

West Coast Eagles were founded back when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister. When do they stop being considered an expansion club?

It’s a national competition these days.

They all know this and act accordingly, feeling both protected and empowered by the FKIN AFL to indulge their spite.

What about Zach Merrett? He’s not an “expansion club” player, and he copped the same fine as NicNat?

BTW, I have no issue with how the NicNat v Merrett situation was handled. You can’t drag a bloke over the boundary line by his hair, and if you do then don’t be surprised if you get hurled into the fence. Neither player was injured.

Both copped a fine.

If Selwood had dragged Grundy over the boundary by his hair, and Grundy had reacted by flinging Selwood into the fence - would you be going as hard on Grundy as you are with NicNat?

 

[jonbe54]

West Coast Eagles were founded back when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister. When do they stop being considered an expansion club?

It’s a national competition these days.



What about Zach Merrett? He’s not an “expansion club” player, and he copped the same fine as NicNat?

BTW, I have no issue with how the NicNat v Merrett situation was handled. You can’t drag a bloke over the boundary line by his hair, and if you do then don’t be surprised if you get hurled into the fence. Neither player was injured.

Both copped a fine.

If Selwood had dragged Grundy over the boundary by his hair, and Grundy had reacted by flinging Selwood into the fence - would you be going as hard on Grundy as you are with NicNat?

Disagree again 76 provocation is NOT a defense for deliberately flinging a player head first at a fence.

And yes I would be as harsh on Grundy.

Footy is a tough sport for guys with the bark on . . .

It is NOT - or should not be - a workplace that shelters thugs and snipers.

Would you have defended Nik Nat if Merrett had crashed into the fence head first and died from a broken neck???

How does your provocation defense stand up then???

Not for me mate both Green and Nik Nat incidents were deliberate intent to harm.

Your attitude amongst many validates the AFL's stance on protecting thuggery.

I am disappointed mate.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Your position is that the video doesn’t prove that he eye-gouged him, therefore it proves that he didn’t eye-gouge him. Good luck with that in a courtroom.

Um, in a courtroom Greene would have presumption of innocence?

The burden would be on the plaintiff / prosecution to prove what happened to the appropriate evidentiary standard (eg: beyond reasonable doubt)

 

[60 Yards Out]

Um, in a courtroom Greene would have presumption of innocence?

The burden would be on the plaintiff / prosecution to prove what happened to the appropriate evidentiary standard (eg: beyond reasonable doubt)

That’s quite right. What I’m saying is that the process would be pursued to an acceptable standard and conclusion, and it wasn’t in this case.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Disagree again 76 provocation is NOT a defense for deliberately flinging a player head first at a fence.

And yes I would be as harsh on Grundy.

Footy is a tough sport for guys with the bark on . . .

It is NOT - or should not be - a workplace that shelters thugs and snipers.

Would you have defended Nik Nat if Merrett had crashed into the fence head first and died from a broken neck???

How does your provocation defense stand up then???

Not for me mate both Green and Nik Nat incidents were deliberate intent to harm.

Your attitude amongst many validates the AFL's stance on protecting thuggery.

I am disappointed mate.

I’m not condoning what NicNat did ...

... which is why it’s appropriate that he got fined.

No damage was done. Obviously if damage was done then it’d be a very different matter.

That’s entirely consistent with the way our society works:

If somebody gets busted texting while driving should they go to jail? No.

What if that action causes the death of somebody? Yes.

 

[jonbe54]

That’s quite right. What I’m saying is that the process would be pursued to an acceptable standard and conclusion, and it wasn’t in this case.

And in others before it - the AFL interfered with its own due process that it itself set down because it suited their purpose.

 

[jonbe54]

I’m not condoning what NicNat did ...

... which is why it’s appropriate that he got fined.

No damage was done. Obviously if damage was done then it’d be a very different matter.

That’s entirely consistent with the way our society works:

If somebody gets busted texting while driving should they go to jail? No.

What if that action causes the death of somebody? Yes.

So if the victim gets lucky the defendent walks with a slap on the wrist eh?

No due process as set down in the AFL drafted rules eh?

No 76 this was a whitewash to suit the AFL's purposes.

A tragedy is hovering over the sport and you are spouting technicalities?

Not disappointed now just disgusted and shocked.

 

[Kirby]

There's some fine old tin foil hat melts going on in this thread.

 

[jonbe54]

There's some fine old tin foil hat melts going on in this thread.

And some fine old burying heads in the sand in this thread too - don't forget to shake your ears clear when you look up.

 

[76woodenspooners]

So if the victim gets lucky the defendent walks with a slap on the wrist eh?

Merrett And NicNat shook hands at the end of the game. I’m not sure either victim/defendant would be feeling any sense of injustice in this case?

AFL is a risky game. Players get injured playing within the rules of the game. Can’t knee a bloke in the head in normal society, but it’s OK to knee him in the head in a legitimate AFL marking contest. Surely you’d be amongst the first to cry foul if the AFL banned ‘speccy’ marks because of duty of care?

Obviously tossing a bloke into a fence is not within the rules of the game - which is why he got fined.

And FWIW, NicNat’s fine was much more than what people get for texting while driving, or for speeding ... actions that have far greater risk of harm to innocents.

 

[Kirby]

And some fine old burying heads in the sand in this thread too - don't forget to shake your ears clear when you look up.

Do you walk around in the real world this angry?

 

[jonbe54]

Do you walk around in the real world this angry?

Do you walk around the real world with your head in the sand?

Anger has nothing to do with it and I'm far from angry.

The facts of long running AFL interference with due practice when it suits them are a matter of public record.

Your refusal to accept this premise is just a statement on your attitudes and changes the facts not one iota.

In other words FKIN LOL.

 

[jonbe54]

Merrett And NicNat shook hands at the end of the game. I’m not sure either defendant would be feeling any sense of injustice in this case?

AFL is a risky game. Players get injured playing within the rules of the game. Can’t knee a bloke in the head in normal society, but it’s OK to knee him in the head in a legitimate AFL marking contest. Surely you’d be the amongst the first to cry foul if the AFL banned ‘speccy’ marks because of duty of care?

Obviously tossing a bloke into a fence is not within the rules of the game - which is why he got fined.

And FWIW, NicNat’s fine was much more than what people get for texting while driving, or for speeding ... actions that have far greater risk of harm to innocents.

Forget it 76 it's pointless trying to discuss serious issues with someone intent on hiding behind technicalities.

Tragedy is hovering over this sport and some young man is going to pay dearly for those technicalities.

Moving on.

 

[Kirby]

Do you walk around the real world with your head in the sand?

Anger has nothing to do with it and I'm far from angry.

The facts of long running AFL interference with due practice when it suits them are a matter of public record.

Your refusal to accept this premise is just a statement on your attitudes and changes the facts not one iota.

In other words FKIN LOL.

 

[jonbe54]

Goodbye Kirby enjoy your life mine is just about to get a lot better.

 

[Kirby]

Goodbye Kirby enjoy your life mine is just about to get a lot better.