Toby Greene -- what... again?

[jonbe54]

I rate this right up there with NicNat's he touched my hair so I am allowed to throw him into the fence.

Yes there are a number of soft apologists here that don't understand that thuggery is not to be condoned - especially by the sports ruling body.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

I haven't really taken an interest in the Nic Nat side of things , but are there any rules in regards to hair? What if he grows his dreads down to his waist? At what point does it become fair game? I would've thought that if you elect to have your hair below the neck of your jumpers then it's your problem.

 

[jonbe54]

I haven't really taken an interest in the Nic Nat side of things , but are there any rules in regards to hair? What if he grows his dreads down to his waist? At what point does it become fair game? I would've thought that if you elect to have your hair below the neck of your jumpers then it's your problem.

Not really sure of the rules but I'm bloody sure even if the action was provocative it doesn't justify hurling someone headfirst at a fence. I would also imagine that the appropriate rule guidlines would underline that provocation is irrelevant.

 

[sideswipe]

Not really sure of the rules but I'm bloody sure even if the action was provocative it doesn't justify hurling someone headfirst at a fence. I would also imagine that the appropriate rule guidlines would underline that provocation is irrelevant.

Reading the rules usually a better policy than trusting your imagination. Rule 4.4(E) of the AFL Tribunal Guidelines addresses Exceptional and Compelling Circumstances which might reduce or cancel a sanction, specifically one of these circumstances might arise when,

"(ii) A Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation."

 

[Kirby]

Reading the rules usually a better policy than trusting your imagination. Rule 4.4(E) of the AFL Tribunal Guidelines addresses Exceptional and Compelling Circumstances which might reduce or cancel a sanction, specifically one of these circumstances might arise when,

"(ii) A Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation."

Uh oh..............

 

[Kappa]

You said this: “... both players confirm there was no eye gouging.” Show me?

You're the one talking about a court of law, show me 1 single piece of evidence that Greene touched Bontempelli's eyes? Innocent until evidence proves otherwise? In this case, the victim hasn't even accused Greene of what you said happened, and the medical report backs up Greene's defence that no contact was made to the eyes...

I'm not sure what you're really trying to argue when it's been proven what happened already.

 

[60 Yards Out]

You're the one talking about a court of law, show me 1 single piece of evidence that Greene touched Bontempelli's eyes? Innocent until evidence proves otherwise? In this case, the victim hasn't even accused Greene of what you said happened, and the medical report backs up Greene's defence that no contact was made to the eyes...

I'm not sure what you're really trying to argue when it's been proven what happened already.

So you can’t show me.

 

[Gabbo64]

Not really sure of the rules but I'm bloody sure even if the action was provocative it doesn't justify hurling someone headfirst at a fence. I would also imagine that the appropriate rule guidlines would underline that provocation is irrelevant.

Agree I don't believe it has anything to do with rules. If you tackle me around the neck, it is against the rules. Does that in turn allow me to throw you into the fence? I think not. 2 weeks minimum.

 

[johncitizen]

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

Hoping Luke Hodge flattens him this weekend.

Isn't this evidence?

 

[Kappa]

So you can’t show me.

You're the one saying Greene eye gouged someone. Show me that proof? Or is it guilty until proven innocent for you? Despite the fact no one has even accused Greene of that.. But anyway, who cares about facts when being outraged is easier..

 

[jackcass]

Hoping Luke Hodge flattens him this weekend.

Isn't this evidence?

View attachment 744174

Well it's evidence the upper portion of his cheek may have been scratched OR that he might have gotten a knock sometime during the game.

 

[Kirby]

Well it's evidence the upper portion of his cheek may have been scratched OR that he might have gotten a knock sometime during the game.

It doesn't look like a scratch. It looks like a bruise to me.

 

[Mooresome]

Why are you guys defending this turd ,he is a sniper no doubt,that picture clearly shows scratching and bruising around bonts right eye .
The video footage shows him trying to get his fingers into the eyes and rubbing his forearm back and forth in the same area.

 

[Markfs]

What happens before something gets to a hearing is that "an accuser" reviewed the "evidence" and decided it was insufficient.

My research was reading today's newspaper. Would you settle for a former teammate saying "I love him"?

answering the first part, i think it's the prosecution....although it's not a criminal matter so i think they would refer to the body that made the charge...the AFL tribunal or maybe it was michael christian...

at any rate, as you would know, this not being a criminal matter and relying on his past history and the fact that he was digging away on the bont's face, I would say that " on the balance of probabilities" Toby was as guilty as sin. No need for a smoking gun

as for your last question, I would prefer to see the reference to loving him in quotation marks to try to tie the journo down to the specifics.

in fact, i'd be happy for you to get a quote of anyone saying that they love him, although his mother doesnt count....

 

[sideswipe]

answering the first part, i think it's the prosecution....although it's not a criminal matter so i think they would refer to the body that made the charge...the AFL tribunal or maybe it was michael christian...

at any rate, as you would know, this not being a criminal matter and relying on his past history and the fact that he was digging away on the bont's face, I would say that " on the balance of probabilities" Toby was as guilty as sin. No need for a smoking gun

as for your last question, I would prefer to see the reference to loving him in quotation marks to try to tie the journo down to the specifics.

in fact, i'd be happy for you to get a quote of anyone saying that they love him, although his mother doesnt count....

past history doesn't come into guilt/innocence. Only penalty.

And because you asked, here it comes,

‘I love the bloke’: Collingwood midfielder Taylor Adams says there is no bad blood between him and GWS Giants star Toby Greene

Wild swing, awkward shake: Pie explains tense scenes with Greene

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[johncitizen]

Well it's evidence the upper portion of his cheek may have been scratched OR that he might have gotten a knock sometime during the game.

Bruising just above and below the bloodshot eye. You blokes are defending a dead set dickhead Greene.

 

[Markfs]

past history doesn't come into guilt/innocence. Only penalty.

And because you asked, here it comes,

‘I love the bloke’: Collingwood midfielder Taylor Adams says there is no bad blood between him and GWS Giants star Toby Greene

Wild swing, awkward shake: Pie explains tense scenes with Greene

www.foxsports.com.au

that was a setup.....a drive-by

I cant explain it. I can only think that Toby introduced the girl who "captured" Adams's virginity when he first got to Sydney. Either that, or they are very close in a previously illegal way and Taylor is blind to Toby's failings ..... or Adams is mad of course...

lots to sift thru...

 

[jonbe54]

Why are you guys defending this turd ,he is a sniper no doubt,that picture clearly shows scratching and bruising around bonts right eye .
The video footage shows him trying to get his fingers into the eyes and rubbing his forearm back and forth in the same area.

There are some here with a lawyer like attitude - too busy pushing the technicalities to see the plain bald facts of the truth staring them in the face.

None are as blind as those who refuse to see.

There is no middle ground on this issue - Green is a slimy little sniper who is protected by the AFL itself.

It must end before some young man is blinded or worse.

And those of you defending him are not making the situation better with your bullsh!t technicalities.

Coming from a sporting family myself as I'm sure others here are you know how this is going to end don't you?

Sooner or later this little turd is going to push it too far and someone is going to say enough is too much!

Then the little sh1t will find out what it means to be on the receiving end.

 

[Markfs]

Geez I'm sitting here wondering who would win a popularity contest between Toby and Goodes...

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

Neroli Meadows fawns all over him - does that count?

 

[sideswipe]

that was a setup.....a drive-by

I cant explain it. I can only think that Toby introduced the girl who "captured" Adams's virginity when he first got to Sydney. Either that, or they are very close in a previously illegal way and Taylor is blind to Toby's failings ..... or Adams is mad of course...

lots to sift thru...

It was a low hanging peach. Sorry


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Cyclops]

Err... In a courtroom it would be something like... There is no accusation of eye gouging, the video evidence shows no eye gouging, a medical practioner and both players confirm there was no eye gouging... Case closed

Listen up. Greene scratched Bontempelli's face which was bleeding after he got up, and his eye was swollen.

'Dangerous and stupid': Toby Greene accused of 'serious misconduct' as AFL fast-tracks case

Greater Western Sydney star Toby Greene will learn tonight if he will continue to feature in his team's finals campaign, after the AFL brought forward a tribunal hearing to deal with his serious misconduct charge.

www.abc.net.au

Under the rules of Australian Rules football what Greene did can reasonably be considered either Rough Conduct (p.52) or high contact (p.50)

If its deemed serious enough (and scratching the face of a pinned player in a dead-ball situation is pretty shit behavior) it could be considered serious misconduct. If serious enough any and all of these are grounds for a report either at the time or by the match review committee. Thats what they decided. Its not just high contact or rough conduct, its Serious Misconduct.

He was not charged with eye gouging, why is this even being mentioned?

Either he was scratching the face of a pinned player because he's some sort of little bitch, or he was trying to get one of the game's best players dragged under the blood rule.

2 weeks, with an extra week because he's a campaigner.

This result is a travesty. You can bet if this little scumbag had his face scratched the scratcher would be spending a week or two on enforced holidays. The AFL is playing favourites. Phil Carman, Jason Cloke and Tony Rocca were not shown this sort of favouritism, why is this serial pest?

 

[jonbe54]

Listen up. Greene scratched Bontempelli's face which was bleeding after he got up, and his eye was swollen.

'Dangerous and stupid': Toby Greene accused of 'serious misconduct' as AFL fast-tracks case

Greater Western Sydney star Toby Greene will learn tonight if he will continue to feature in his team's finals campaign, after the AFL brought forward a tribunal hearing to deal with his serious misconduct charge.

www.abc.net.au

Under the rules of Australian Rules football what Greene did can reasonably be considered either Rough Conduct (p.52) or high contact (p.50)

If its deemed serious enough (and scratching the face of a pinned player in a dead-ball situation is pretty s**t behavior) it could be considered serious misconduct. If serious enough any and all of these are grounds for a report either at the time or by the match review committee. Thats what they decided. Its not just high contact or rough conduct, its Serious Misconduct.

He was not charged with eye gouging, why is this even being mentioned?

Either he was scratching the face of a pinned player because he's some sort of little bitch, or he was trying to get one of the game's best players dragged under the blood rule.

2 weeks, with an extra week because he's a campaigner.

This result is a travesty. You can bet if this little scumbag had his face scratched the scratcher would be spending a week or two on enforced holidays. The AFL is playing favourites. Phil Carman, Jason Cloke and Tony Rocca were not shown this sort of favouritism, why is this serial pest?

Expansion club mate - the AFL are desperate to prove their expansion bullshit works with an expansion club flag.

 

[sideswipe]

Listen up. Greene scratched Bontempelli's face which was bleeding after he got up, and his eye was swollen.

'Dangerous and stupid': Toby Greene accused of 'serious misconduct' as AFL fast-tracks case

Greater Western Sydney star Toby Greene will learn tonight if he will continue to feature in his team's finals campaign, after the AFL brought forward a tribunal hearing to deal with his serious misconduct charge.

www.abc.net.au

Under the rules of Australian Rules football what Greene did can reasonably be considered either Rough Conduct (p.52) or high contact (p.50)

If its deemed serious enough (and scratching the face of a pinned player in a dead-ball situation is pretty s**t behavior) it could be considered serious misconduct. If serious enough any and all of these are grounds for a report either at the time or by the match review committee. Thats what they decided. Its not just high contact or rough conduct, its Serious Misconduct.

He was not charged with eye gouging, why is this even being mentioned?

Either he was scratching the face of a pinned player because he's some sort of little bitch, or he was trying to get one of the game's best players dragged under the blood rule.

2 weeks, with an extra week because he's a campaigner.

This result is a travesty. You can bet if this little scumbag had his face scratched the scratcher would be spending a week or two on enforced holidays. The AFL is playing favourites. Phil Carman, Jason Cloke and Tony Rocca were not shown this sort of favouritism, why is this serial pest?

As obi-wan might say, these aren’t the rules that you are looking for. It isn’t the rules, it is the tribunal guidelines. Under them the available charge was serious misconduct, which can’t be determined by the mro. Has to go to the tribunal. The fact that the afl counsel sought a fine is pretty telling.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app