Justice must be done and SEEN to be done.

If the AFL had any integrity it would try to find a Chair of the AFL Tribunal who isn't so clearly tied to a club as Gleeson is. Admittedly it may be difficult to find someone with a feel for the game who hasn't some sort of ties to a particular club. But Gleeson is too involved. Maybe an ex-player who played for several clubs?

46 minutes ago, sue said:

Justice must be done and SEEN to be done.

If the AFL had any integrity it would try to find a Chair of the AFL Tribunal who isn't so clearly tied to a club as Gleeson is. Admittedly it may be difficult to find someone with a feel for the game who hasn't some sort of ties to a particular club. But Gleeson is too involved. Maybe an ex-player who played for several clubs?

Alternatively have a panel of Tribunal Chairmen, and of MROs, on rotation, but redacted if a decision would make, or potentially make, an advantage to their affiliated club.

The old adage of justice needing to appear to be done does not apply to the AFL.

55 minutes ago, sue said:

Justice must be done and SEEN to be done.

If the AFL had any integrity it would try to find a Chair of the AFL Tribunal who isn't so clearly tied to a club as Gleeson is. Admittedly it may be difficult to find someone with a feel for the game who hasn't some sort of ties to a particular club. But Gleeson is too involved. Maybe an ex-player who played for several clubs?

Mark Jacko Jackson comes to mind 😜

7 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Alternatively have a panel of Tribunal Chairmen, and of MROs, on rotation, but redacted if a decision would make, or potentially make, an advantage to their affiliated club.

The old adage of justice needing to appear to be done does not apply to the AFL.

Totally agree. If there was any form of integrity, they would have people stepping aside due to potential conflicts of interests.

It's standard practise on most boards. The AFL is not an ethical organisation though I guess

29 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Mark Jacko Jackson comes to mind 😜

Or Phil Carmen

Look we knew he'd get off. May have been different if he actually concussed him.

I thought it was bit of a stretch to go back as far to bring up his good record in his junior basketball days.

15 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Jeff Gleeson, the current Chair of the AFL Tribunal, is a 35-year member and coterie member of the Collingwood Magpies Football Club. That’s true.

He is BIASED.

The tribunal is a JOKE. 🤬

Maynard incident. Free to play

May incident. Suspension

Pendlebury. Free to play

It was off the ball, careless bump, high contact, medium impact. The ball was well away when he made contact. That deserved suspension, at least 1-2 weeks.

As we know with something like Kozzy bump on Moore, it’s 3 weeks instantly!!!

Surely not? if that doesnt scream conflict of interest ,then i dont know what else to say.

Didn't look much in it for me and especially he wasn't concussed, so the fine over a week seems OK. Not sure good behaviour should be a big factor as if there is no malice in the action ( which it didn't appear to my eyes) then not sure it should count.

The biggest issue in the consistency moving forward. This should be the model for 2026 for similar incidents but of course it won't be.

54 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

Surely not? if that doesnt scream conflict of interest ,then i dont know what else to say.

The AFL don't care about conflicts of interest. See: the MRO, the tribunal chair and whoever the bloke who worked for Geelong and then investigated their salary cap breaches was.

7 minutes ago, biggestred said:

The AFL don't care about conflicts of interest. See: the MRO, the tribunal chair and whoever the bloke who worked for Geelong and then investigated their salary cap breaches was.

nick mckenzie is coming HARD for ol mate nguyen

Is there another sport in the world that lets a player off something illegal because he is a nice guy?

what a farce

18 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Is there another sport in the world that lets a player off something illegal because he is a nice guy?

what a farce

Im not against this rule - there are genuine circumstances for a rule such as this applies. And i think if you have played 400+ games and not been suspended, you are entitled to a downgrade.

It should be like the demerit point system. Perhaps a downgrade (of X points only) for every 200 games you play (or 10 years, whatever comes first). So if its a sligh indiscretion - a one weeker - we'll let you off with a warning.

The issue is having a legal representative in the AFL system, representing AFL HQ, being a 35+ year special member of one of its clubs.

On 15/03/2026 at 12:46, whatwhat say what said:

what's the bet the 'good bloke clause' gets enacted to ensure he doesn't get a week?

So obvious this was going to happen

What a joke

Was pretty funny Eddie hijacked FC last night to sook about his favourite player getting un-suspended.

3 hours ago, MoreFreesForTheDees said:

Didn't look much in it for me and especially he wasn't concussed, so the fine over a week seems OK. Not sure good behaviour should be a big factor as if there is no malice in the action ( which it didn't appear to my eyes) then not sure it should count.

The biggest issue in the consistency moving forward. This should be the model for 2026 for similar incidents but of course it won't be.

Even the media use the big influence factor, that isn't.

"He looked and braced"

5 hours ago, GS_1905 said:

Surely not? if that doesnt scream conflict of interest ,then i dont know what else to say.

4 hours ago, biggestred said:

The AFL don't care about conflicts of interest. See: the MRO, the tribunal chair and whoever the bloke who worked for Geelong and then investigated their salary cap breaches was.

Conflict of interest is the “core value” of the AFL.

MRO

Tribunal

Scheduling

Draft exceptions