Source :- THE AGE NEWS
The AFL Appeals Board is copping severe backlash for handing down a judgment that says it is commonplace that players can use racist, sexist or homophobic language in “highly competitive” levels of football.
The appeals board made the claim after upholding St Kilda youngster Lance Collard’s appeal against a nine-week ban (with two weeks suspended) for using a homophobic slur in a VFL game.
The penalty was reduced to four weeks (with two weeks suspended).
Collard was found to have used homophobic language in a match against Frankston, but the player claimed he had said “maggot” and had not used the phrase “f—ing f—-t”. The appeals board did not overturn that finding.
The AFL disciplinary tribunal’s original decision to ban Collard for nine weeks was found to be “manifestly excessive”.
But the appeals board, led by Will Houghton KC, has come under fire for parts of its Judgment.
AFL Appeals board judgment
The Appeal Board is required to deal with every case before it on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, Collard suffered a sanction of nine weeks, which was cumulative to the two-week suspension he had already suffered for a strike to an opposing player in the same game.
Two weeks of that penalty was suspended. The Tribunal had regard to a number of matters in coming to that decision. There had been a number of previous decisions which suggested a range of penalties for players using the term f*****t, which was between three and six weeks.
However, in none of those prior decisions did the Tribunal have any role, because the AFL and the player had come to an agreement. There was also reliance placed by the tribunal upon a prior conviction of Collard in 2024 when he received a six week sanction using the term f*****t a number of times during the course of the game to several opposing players, and that he was warned about using that term.
Again, it was an agreed sanction between the AFL and the player. That conduct though was clearly in a worse category than the present incident, where the phrase was said once to two players who recollected.
We observe that football is a hard game. It is highly competitive, particularly at its higher levels. It is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field.
We observe that it’s to the credit of the AFL and the Tribunal that its efforts to eliminate these comments appear to be succeeding.
However, that cannot be at the price of imposing what this board considers to be a crippling penalty on the appellant of this case. We describe it as crippling because there was evidence before the Tribunal in the sanction in both hearings that a penalty of this extent would finish him off as a player of professional football.
We note the following in regard to Collard. First, his previous misconduct in 2024 was more serious, and probably far more serious than the present offence. Secondly, his age. He’s a young man and he’s indigenous.
Thirdly, his difficult background, of which evidence was led.
Fourthly, the fact that the recipient of the remark, Hipwell, was not offended by the comment. Fifth, he had at that time struck an opposing player, given away a free kick and had been jostled, roughed up and verbally challenged by a number of his opponents.
We’ve also had regard to the fact of general and specific deterrence in coming to our own view on the penalty.
Ultimately, the Appeal Board has come to the view that the sanction imposed on player Collard by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive.
In lieu thereof, we would impose a sanction of four weeks, with two weeks suspended for the remainder of this VFL/AFL season and the 2027 VFL/AFL season, cumulative to Collard’s two-week suspension for striking.
Critics have questioned why the appeal board considered “the fact the victim was not personally offended” by Collard’s abuse. Two Frankston players gave evidence in the case.
“I am genuinely speechless that this is in print … Absolutely baffled,” retired AFLW star and Seven commentator Kate McCarthy posted on social media.
“It gets worse,” McCarthy then says on her X account.
She refers to another paragraph in the Judgment that says: “We observe that football is a hard game. It is highly competitive, particularly at its higher levels. It is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field.” The appeals board did not say that this should be an excuse, and it did not condone that language in any way.
McCarthy doubled down on her criticism, posting on Instagram: “There is absolutely NO CONTEXT as to where a statement like this from the AFL appeals board is acceptable.
“What the hell? I have no way to describe this. It is actually baffling. So much for every policy in the AFL saying there’s zero tolerance – ‘there’s zero tolerance for racism, there’s zero tolerance for sexism, there’s zero tolerance for homophobia’.
“This decision and this explanation of this decision go against everything that the AFL has claimed to stand for. This is disgusting.”
The appeals board finding goes on to say: “We observe that it’s to the credit of the AFL and the tribunal that its efforts to eliminate these comments appear to be succeeding.
“However, that cannot be at the price of imposing what this board considers to be a crippling penalty on the appellant of this case.
“We describe it as crippling because there was evidence before the Tribunal in the sanction in both hearings that a penalty of this extent would finish him off as a player of professional football.”
It is the second time in two years Collard, 21, has been found to have used homophobic language in a match.
He was suspended for six matches after admitting to using the slur “f—-t” in a VFL match in 2024.
In reducing the penalty, the appeals board considered Collard’s age, that fact he was Indigenous and had a difficult background, and that the Frankston player at the centre of the abuse was not offended by the comment.
“He [Collard] had at that time struck an opposing player, given away a free kick and been jostled, roughed up and verbally challenged by a number of his opponents,” the appeal board found.
Collard was also suspended for two weeks for the hit that triggered the incident.
The appeals board noted that Collard’s six-week ban in 2024 for using a homophobic slur was an agreed penalty between the AFL and the player, and did not involve the AFL tribunal.
“That conduct though was clearly in a worse category than the present incident, where the phrase was said once to two players who recollected,” the appeal board found.
The appeals board said it “had regard to the fact of general and specific deterrence in coming to our own view on the penalty”.
“Ultimately, the appeal board has come to the view that the sanction imposed on player collard by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive,” the Judgment said.
The AFL has been contacted, and was expected to respond to the criticism later on Friday.
The league released an initial statement on Thursday night.
“The AFL acknowledges the decision of the AFL Appeals Board tonight to uphold the appeal brought by St Kilda’s Lance Collard against the sanction of the AFL Disciplinary Tribunal last week,” the statement said.
“This matter is otherwise at a close. The AFL reiterates that it has no tolerance for the use of homophobic language in our game and its expectations have been made extremely clear to all of our players, including by education that all AFL and VFL players receive.”
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
