David Zita@DavidZita1
The Appeal Board upheld the charge, but below are the reasons they downgraded sanction.
Reasons:
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.
