Source : ABC NEWS
Lance Collard, a St Kilda forth, received a nine-week restrictions and two-week suspension for slurs he used against a VFL opposition.
The AFL Tribunal deliberated for more than 90 days before passing down its decision, with Tribunal Chair Jeff Gleeson calling homophobic obscenities” completely unacceptable” after hearing data from both the AFL and St Kilda.
According to his story and the fact that he displayed no shame, Collard was never given a discount on his expulsion.
Over the next two AFL and VFL times, Collard’s two held days will be suspended.
Even though St Kilda requested that Collard been fined more than suspended, the Tribunal’s decision was made.
St Kilda cited Collard’s disturbed culture and the absence of a positive male role model during his early years as points in his defense.
The proposed 10-week sanction from the AFL, according to Michael Borsky Houston, may be “unfairly disciplinary” and “potentially career-ending” for Collard.
Borsky, who is also a St Kilda committee member, said,” This is one of those sliding door events that may set Lance Collard up on the wrong trail and ruin his life.”
said.
We politely request that the Tribunal use some kindness and cues to assist the AFL in its course-correction.
Borsky also compared the proposed punishment to Jaidyn Stephenson’s 10-week ban for betting on sports and Zak Butters ‘ decision to simply ask for a great for his weekend altercation with a field umpire.
The Saints even referenced instances in which Dane Rampe and Dale Thomas have previously been fined more than subjected to a ban for rhetorical judge abuse.
According to Borsky,” Punishment in the order of 10 weeks have generally been reserved for more serious misconduct.”
St Kilda attempted to use the AFL’s fine to Zak Butters for umpire abuse as a part of its defence for Collard. (7 Sport)
That appears to be taking the group seriously.
When others are receiving charges, the Tribunal needs to consider how the group will resolve these decisions.
The AFL argued that Collard’s new punishment, which would have been a six-match restrictions, needed to be more significant than his previous one, adding that this was necessary because he is a repeat offender.
Andrew Woods, the AFL’s attorney, said,” I think there needs to be an increased punishment for repeat insulting.”
Instead of a fine, there should be more punishment for games than for what happened the last time.
St. Kilda has five days to decide whether to challenge the Tribunal’s decision.  ,
