6 minutes ago, Pates said:

Yeah I would rather him say nothing, particularly hinting that certain players who bring people through the gate basically get a bit of special treatment. 

and  especially because as a top player himself, it looks like self-interest.  If he was charged with something, it wouldn't help him at any tribunal I sat on.  Of course the AFL doesn't have my personal level of integrity. (I like to keep the bar low).

Should get weeks (min 4). It was a deliberate, provocative and gratuitous act of a seemingly spoilt brat but just as likely to be an out of control dimwit. Either way he must pay.

The reversed free kick should also attract attention. A deliberate elbow/forearm in the neck should cost weeks too.

 

45 minutes ago, Pates said:

Yeah I would rather him say nothing, particularly hinting that certain players who bring people through the gate basically get a bit of special treatment. 

In the end, the take on this by players and ex-players who can't see the problem, or want the tribunal to be lenient because he's a star, just proves that a lot of them are not the brightest tools in the shed. Petracca is obviously, shall we say, tool-less...

I'll predict the Tribunal will suspend him for two weeks which will be appealed. On appeal, it will be downgraded somehow and he'll be fined a large sum, maybe $20,000, which will be donated to a community cause, with a suspended sentence of three weeks should he transgress in this particular way again.  

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'll predict the Tribunal will suspend him for two weeks which will be appealed. On appeal, it will be downgraded somehow and he'll be fined a large sum, maybe $20,000, which will be donated to a community cause, with a suspended sentence of three weeks should he transgress in this particular way again.  

So in effect the AFL is happy for some players to pay their way out of a suspension - hope they haven't stooped that low

Personally I find it very difficult to see much consistency with the Tribunal but with this incident I can't see how he doesn't get weeks - lined him up and basically walked straight into him with a shoulder - no damage done but allow that and its a very dangerous precedent they are setting 

1 minute ago, Sydee said:

So in effect the AFL is happy for some players to pay their way out of a suspension - hope they haven't stooped that low

Personally I find it very difficult to see much consistency with the Tribunal but with this incident I can't see how he doesn't get weeks - lined him up and basically walked straight into him with a shoulder - no damage done but allow that and its a very dangerous precedent they are setting 

To be fair, although they appoint people to the Tribunal and appeals board, the decisions aren't those of the AFL. And I don't support Greene getting off by paying a fine. I just think it will be a way for the appeals board to look like they're trying to be tough on umpire contact. It won't work, though. They'll look weak, instead.

If it were up to me, he'd be suspended for 4 weeks and be required to pay a fine of $20,000 to a community group.

Apparently the jungle drums were already beating.
 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/umpire-treatment-was-in-spotlight-before-greene-incident-20210830-p58n3a.html

41 minutes ago, tiers said:

Should get weeks (min 4). It was a deliberate, provocative and gratuitous act of a seemingly spoilt brat but just as likely to be an out of control dimwit. Either way he must pay.

The reversed free kick should also attract attention. A deliberate elbow/forearm in the neck should cost weeks too.

 

If it was round 2 it would be 4 weeks, and no one would argue against it except Greene of course

1 hour ago, faultydet said:

Even in the country leagues the players call the ref "sir" when approaching them. And there is almost zero abuse such as we saw from Mitch Robinson as it results in penalties.

I know some will think I've become all soft and woke but it's something I really would like to see creep into AFL football at all levels.

Is this true? Is it something that used to happen, or currently is happening?

PS: I personally like the “soft and woke” version of Faulty. 🙂

need to give toby a bit of latitude......after all this is only his 22nd charge to date

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

need to give toby a bit of latitude......after all this is only his 22nd charge to date

And this guy is meant to be their captain and spiritual leader. How [censored] would you be with his ridiculous ongoing behaviour?

Lucky he plays for a club with no supporters, or the backlash would be massive. He has missed so many games due to his downright stupid behaviour. 

Edited August 30, 20213 yr by Jaded

2 hours ago, faultydet said:

Say what you will about our sporting cousins in Rugby League, but they are all over us when it comes to referee (umpire) respect.

Even in the country leagues the players call the ref "sir" when approaching them. And there is almost zero abuse such as we saw from Mitch Robinson as it results in penalties.

I know some will think I've become all soft and woke but it's something I really would like to see creep into AFL football at all levels.

I'd like to see Mitch Robinson get a fair whack in the hip pocket also.

If he did that in public, he'd either get the daylights belted out of him or scare the living suitcase out of someone. To do it in a place of employment is absolutely irresponsible

36 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Is this true? Is it something that used to happen, or currently is happening?

PS: I personally like the “soft and woke” version of Faulty. 🙂

According to World Rugby Law 6.4.A(a) "The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match." The referee is traditionally addressed as "sir", and besides the captains, all other players, coaches, and spectators should not address the referee during a match except to say "yes sir".

Should get at least 8 weeks

2 for making contact

2 for being a deekhead

2 for bringing the game into disrepute

2 for arrogantly thinking he can do what he pleases without thought or consequence

If I was Leon Cameron, footy hierachy and players at GWS I would be totally livid that he has comprimised the club with his actions which could torpedo their season

2 hours ago, faultydet said:

Say what you will about our sporting cousins in Rugby League, but they are all over us when it comes to referee (umpire) respect.

Even in the country leagues the players call the ref "sir" when approaching them. And there is almost zero abuse such as we saw from Mitch Robinson as it results in penalties.

I know some will think I've become all soft and woke but it's something I really would like to see creep into AFL football at all levels.

For me the only sport in the world that treats the officials with less respect is football (hate calling it soccer). When their players get a penalty/free kick they don’t agree with it’s not uncommon for the ref to be surrounded by close to 10 players all getting in his/her face. It’s disgusting, it’s disrespectful, and it’s pathetic. 

AFL is only marginally ahead because I think they have a little bit more of a laugh, the 50m penalty exists as a deterrent, and there’s more transparency with the umpires mic’d up (the players also know this so they know they have to bite their tongue). 

But I would gladly have the tribunal come down hard on Greene if it makes the players show the proper respect the officials deserve. 

Jack Riewoldt should’ve been given a massive fine for his comment to the umpire after the game say that he cost the tigers the win. Pathetic from someone who only a couple of weeks earlier was on his high horse about Pickett’s attitude. 

2 hours ago, sue said:

and  especially because as a top player himself, it looks like self-interest.  If he was charged with something, it wouldn't help him at any tribunal I sat on.  Of course the AFL doesn't have my personal level of integrity. (I like to keep the bar low).

Agree it was disappointing, but this is where i think the AFL have shot themselves in the foot by introducing the concept of outcome over intent. If we were to measure this on outcome, then there is nothing to look at and this is where Trac's opinion makes sense - not saying its right, but im doing my best to understand this.

He is young and probably a bit naive to understand the broader implications at play here. Do we know whether there is a personal friendship at play here? is it possible he is just trying to stick up for his mate?

32 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

need to give toby a bit of latitude......after all this is only his 22nd charge to date

I seem to recall that in olden days (I mean 1970s), players with a previous guilty record were given harsher sentences by the then Tribunal. When we first moved to the MRP where the points system was put in place (1990s? 2000s?), there was a discount for first offences* (which is the nicer way of saying previous offenders were given tougher penalties). If I recall correctly, the past behaviour provisions no longer exist. Toby Greene is the perfect example (albeit an imperfect footballer) of why repeat offenders should be prenalilsed more harshly.

That's pretty much the way most law enforcement works. Increasing penalties for repeat offenders with the intention of getting the offenders' attention.

*Edit: Actually, maybe there wasn't a discount for first offences. Rather, I think it was a discount for accepting the penalty without troubling the Tribunal. 

Edited August 30, 20213 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia

2 hours ago, faultydet said:

Say what you will about our sporting cousins in Rugby League, but they are all over us when it comes to referee (umpire) respect.

Even in the country leagues the players call the ref "sir" when approaching them. And there is almost zero abuse such as we saw from Mitch Robinson as it results in penalties.

I know some will think I've become all soft and woke but it's something I really would like to see creep into AFL football at all levels.

I was surprised that the Robinson outburst didn't result in a free, + 50 as he kept on and on.  Have seen this sometime this year and the umpire let himself and his colleagues down by not acting.

1 hour ago, Sydee said:

So in effect the AFL is happy for some players to pay their way out of a suspension - hope they haven't stooped that low

Personally I find it very difficult to see much consistency with the Tribunal but with this incident I can't see how he doesn't get weeks - lined him up and basically walked straight into him with a shoulder - no damage done but allow that and its a very dangerous precedent they are setting 

There is no consistency at all, other than their inconsistency.   

2 minutes ago, monoccular said:

I was surprised that the Robinson outburst didn't result in a free, + 50 as he kept on and on.  Have seen this sometime this year and the umpire let himself and his colleagues down by not acting.

There is no consistency at all, other than their inconsistency.   

I hope I'm wrong, but this may be a sign that the umpires feel they are not being supported enough by the competition so chose not to make a point about it. 

27 minutes ago, CYB said:

Agree it was disappointing, but this is where i think the AFL have shot themselves in the foot by introducing the concept of outcome over intent. If we were to measure this on outcome, then there is nothing to look at and this is where Trac's opinion makes sense - not saying its right, but im doing my best to understand this.

He is young and probably a bit naive to understand the broader implications at play here. Do we know whether there is a personal friendship at play here? is it possible he is just trying to stick up for his mate?

re: measuring on outcome I also think the AFL is wrong.  But being aggressive to an umpire is completely different to tackling dangerously or swinging fists randomly where there is a physical outcome.   Unless a player knocks out an umpire, there is no obvious outcome - any outcome is more intangible or distant, like the number of 10 year olds who subsequently deck the 16 year old umpires.

44 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Should get at least 8 weeks

2 for making contact

2 for being a deekhead

2 for bringing the game into disrepute

2 for arrogantly thinking he can do what he pleases without thought or consequence

If I was Leon Cameron, footy hierachy and players at GWS I would be totally livid that he has comprimised the club with his actions which could torpedo their season

Plus two for that face.

Riley Beveridge made the preposterous claim that all of Greene's Tribunal issues have involved controversy. I don't see anything controversial about being rubbed out for punching, elbowing, and putting your studded boot into somebody's face. What has the world come to?

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

Should get at least 8 weeks

2 for making contact

2 for being a deekhead

2 for bringing the game into disrepute

2 for arrogantly thinking he can do what he pleases without thought or consequence

 

'If I was Leon Cameron, footy hierachy and players at GWS I would be totally livid that he has comprimised the club with his actions which could torpedo their season' on how many occasions now????'

 

Their football hierarchy  needs to be held accountable as well. In most societies repeat offenders get their comeuppance. In AFL football you get imbeciles making cases on their behalf because he's 'such a great player who brings in the crowds' so what's the problem?  They are just as stupid, in my opinion. It would be like the courts going easy on a repeat bank robber because he went to mass every Sunday and was a regular donator at the blood bank.

Some years ago, I was a member of a tribunal of a junior football league. It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise but there were a few cases that we sat on where young impressionable players sought to emulate their heroes playing league football and it landed them in trouble. Fortunately, I didn’t sit on any cases involving attacks on umpires but there were some in my time that were heard by other tribunal members. A suspension of a season or the remainder of the season plus the next were meted out.

I’ve watched the vision and listened to the pundits arguing both ways but to me, this is a no brainer. Forget the argy bargy and excuse making about whether or not there was physical contact (there was). You need to look at the entire incident from beginning to end. Start with the confrontation in Greene’s approach to Stevic, the way the contact was made and the aftermath of the contact. The look of every aspect of this incident was appalling and reeks of conduct unbecoming of a professional sportsperson in this age.

A finding of not guilty or a light sentence in these circumstances would not be well received in the community competitions, whether senior or junior that struggle year in and year out to fill umpiring places. I believe that earlier this season, a number of competitions were struggling and in many cases, umpires had to double up on games over a weekend. 

The AFL Tribunal has a duty to decide this case on its merit but it would serve the sport well if it took a strong stand tomorrow night. I personally would like to see a minimum penalty of six weeks suspension with a stern warning from the chairperson that he is fortunate to have received just that. Hopefully, a severe penalty might influence GWS to not even consider wasting everyone’s time with an appeal as they did a few weeks ago.

2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Is this true? Is it something that used to happen, or currently is happening?

PS: I personally like the “soft and woke” version of Faulty. 🙂

Very real.

I lived in Blackwater, a tiny mining town in central Qld for 8 years and watched the local teams play very often. It was the only name i heard the players call the officials in that time.

I used to chuckle whenever a penalty was paid and a crowd member would shout, "he's been doing it all night Sir" A penalty could be paid against your team if the crowd mouthed off to the Refs in country football also.

True story.