15 fines from 21 charges. I thought the fine was available as a minor sanction for first and second time offenders. 

By the time you are on your 22nd charge, you should be getting suspended for even looking at someone the wrong way.

Contact with an umpire of that magnitude needs to be at least four weeks even for someone with a clean record. For Greene it should be closer to eight weeks.

 

2 hours and 40 minutes. That strikes me as ridiculously overblown. The AFL going all legalistic in their tribunal hasn't made things any better.

19 minutes ago, Damo said:

Toby should have had more caution. Toby waddles when walking like Leigh Matthews. No excuse and he was angry. But I cant believe the hatred.

This is not a mountain it is a molehill. I wouldnt be surprised if all those Demonlanders who are civil all the time except on the game day thread, are the ones baying for blood. If it was Hawkins or Danger he wouldnt be charged. It doesnt matter but I did 2 years as an umpire years ago. It also doesnt matter that I like Toby Green and I believe a repremand and 1 week is enough. Lochie Neal got off lightly.

Do you honestly think if it was Danger or Hawkins he wouldn't be up at the tribunal??? I don't know you, so I don't want to say anything offensive, but to think that only because it is Toby Greene that this is going on is a crazy statement.

Any player would be up at the tribunal right now for this - the hatred and vitriol might be different - but all players would be up for this action.

If his name wasn't Toby Greene and was another lower ranked player he would get 6 weeks (such ANB and his suspension), so this might help him.

29 minutes ago, monoccular said:

What takes place in the stands, and on line is totally different to even verbal abuse by players on the field, let alone aggressive contact, which is what occurred.  

FCS if the AFL are serious about 'defending umpires' and 'the integrity of the game' then they must stop any contact with umpires (other than the truly accidental in play) AND also start penalising on field abuse and even questioning - start with an automatic free kick, and add an immediate 50 meters each time it continues.  It would stop almost instantly.

I somewhat disagree with your first paragraph. The people on these forums who abuse umpires and the constant accusations of cheating etc. are no doubt, in a number of cases, passing this attitude on to their kids or grand kids, who may be playing in school comps or Auskick etc. Kids do tend to emulate their parents and develop attitudes accordingly. When I read game day threads, I sometimes do find myself wondering if any of those posting comments about the umpiring standards, are ever guilty of abusing the umpire’s from the sidelines at their kids’ games. The example has to be set early on and begins at home.

One thing is clear, if a non-star player had done that, regardless of the outcome, it would not take the tribunal almost 3 hours to hear the case.

 

Edited August 31, 20214 yr by sue

16 minutes ago, BW511 said:

I think the footpath example is all the evidence we need, Toby Greene does not have respect for anyone else and he certainly did not show any to the umpire. 

The footpath question was clever. Had he answered “yes, I would apologise” that begs the question: then if it was unintended why didn’t you apologise? Had he answered “no, I wouldn’t apologise” that paints him as a person who has zero regard for others. So, TG answered exactly how Gleeson would’ve wanted, ie, ambiguity that betrays his real feelings. Gleeson is a very clever man. 

Edited August 31, 20214 yr by WalkingCivilWar

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

What a bad bloke. 

 

"Greene: I think that's hard to say."

No. No it's not. Not at all. In that circumstance an apology should be reflex. Quite a telling comment that one.

The AFL really have a way of dragging this kinda stuff out hey

GUILTY!

Unfortunately, the AFL and the Tribunal probably have no choice but to make this a long and drawn-out process.  With the legal avenues that are available to clubs and their willingness to appeal to the courts, the AFL needs to make these hearings as comprehensive as possible.

It's 'modern', 'professional' and unfortunate.

 

Edited August 31, 20214 yr by TeamPlayedFine39
spelling

Would rather an old weary Geelong than a young GWS probably a good outcome for us.

56 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

2 hours and 40 minutes. That strikes me as ridiculously overblown. The AFL going all legalistic in their tribunal hasn't made things any better.

There's a lot at stake here for GWS and Greene. Perhaps the AFL is trying to avoid potential Supreme Court action on questions of procedural fairness. 

Edited August 31, 20214 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
typos x2

 

 

1 minute ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Unfortunately, the AFL and the Tribunal probably have no choice but to make this a long and drawn-out process.  With the legal avenues that are available to clubs and their willingness to appeal to the courts, the AFL needs to make these hearings as comprehensive as possible.

It's 'modern', 'professional' and unfortunate.

 

Well there is some truth in that because for such a star player, it is more likely there would be appeals.  But it's not soley that.  This will take almost 4 hours (or more) and would have been over in 30 minutes if it was an unknown player.   I still believe it shows the AFL has no notion of fairness, just showtime.

 

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There's a lot at stake here for GWS and Greene. Perhaps the AFL is trying to avoid potential Supreme Court action on questions of procedural fairness. 

If Toby had avoided making contact with the umpire then they would have not had anything at stake.

2 minutes ago, sue said:

 

Well there is some truth in that because for such a star player, it is more likely there would be appeals.  But it's not soley that.  This will take almost 4 hours (or more) and would have been over in 30 minutes if it was an unknown player.   I still believe it shows the AFL has no notion of fairness, just showtime.

If it was Tommy Bugg they would have told him to stay in bed and then posted him his torn-up registration papers.

I'd also ask, why should the AFL be so wary of appeals?  Make a statement without hours of bum covering which they would not do for any bog-standard player.  Is GWS really going to sue the AFL?  And if they did, so what.  Draw a line in the sand and dare anyone to step over it.

 

6 minutes ago, FritschyBusiness said:

If Toby had avoided making contact with the umpire then they would have not had anything at stake.

A player is not even allowed to approach an umpire and question them. That is only for the Captain.

At least thats how it always was...

7 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

If it was Tommy Bugg they would have told him to stay in bed and then posted him his torn-up registration papers.

Disgusting the preferential treatment that 'stars' of the game get

14 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

6-8 Weeks would be appropriate. And as iterated If I was GWS coaches and hierachy I would be livid with Toby Greens actions which have just probably torpedoed their season

Edited August 31, 20214 yr by picket fence

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

A player is not even allowed to approach an umpire and question them. That is only for the Captain.

At least thats how it always was...

That was my belief as well.  

So adjusting for different pay scales how much should amateurs be paid to belt an umpire? 🤦‍♂️

51 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I assume they’ll give him a big suspension on the assumption of an appeal where the number of weeks will be slightly downgraded. 
Either way, what great preparation for finals for GWS. Greene is such a wonderful leader. 

You have hinted at the next issue Jaded , surrounding GWS as a club.

If they appeal, and don't cop it, it says something about their culture.

Green is rightly gone, GWS next move will be the issue now. I suspect / hope Gil will pick up the blower to Tony Shepherd and say don't even think about it.

And can posters and others(Luke Hodge) stop quoting the Lachie Neale decision. Two wrongs don't make a right.