GWS will appeal after Toby Greene's one-match ban was sensationally upheld by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night in a decision questioned by several former AFL players.
Jay Clark
3 min read
September 17, 2019 - 4:33PM
Toby Greene's one-match ban was upheld by the tribunal.
GWS Giants have swiftly confirmed they will appeal Toby Greene’s one-match ban tomorrow night after his suspension was sensationally upheld at the AFL Tribunal.
Greene was banned for the preliminary final against Collingwood at the MCG on Saturday in a massive blow to the Giants’ premiership hopes.
Greene is one of the Giants’ most potent weapons in the forward half and was arguably the club’s best player in the semi-final win over the Lions.
Toby Greene's one-match ban was upheld on Tuesday.
The four-man tribunal panel last night ruled he made unnecessary and unreasonable contact to Lachie Neale’s eye region when they tangled in the second-term of the semi-final win over the Lions on Saturday night.
The verdict dismissed evidence from Neale who said last night he felt contact to his nose and face rather than his eye region in the second-term tangle on the wing.
A shattered Greene did not speak to the media upon leaving the tribunal.
But GWS football manager Wayne Campbell said an appeal could be on the cards tomorrow night in last-ditch bid to secure his place against the Pies.
“We thought we presented a really good case,” Campbell said.
“We need to consider our options now. So we will have a look at whether we take it any further.”
Richmond forward Jack Riewoldt said he had expected Greene to "get off", while Graham Cornes tweeted the tribunal decision "was the most unjust one game suspension in the history of the game".
Tigers great Matthew Richardson tweeted "give me a spell" while Daniel Harford tweeted it was "manifestly unjust".
Collingwood great Mick McGuane said the Giants had to appeal, which the club confirmed it would shortly after the verdict was announced.
Regarded as one of the league’s bad boys for his lengthy rap sheet, Greene was cleared of a similar serious misconduct charge last week after pulling Marcus Bontempelli’s hair.
Greene’s player advocate Adrian Anderson last night said there was enough doubt in the tangle of arms and legs with Neale to be unsure of the intention or force of the contact.
The Toby Greene suspension is embarrassing for the Match Review system. Not enough courage to make a call last week and gets sent to tribunal. Less evidence, poor vision this week but the MRO can hand out 1 week? Whether you love or hate the way Greene plays, that’s unjust.
Anderson rejected “outright” that it was an attempt to rake Neale’s eye.
“The number of times in a game of football that you might experience some incidental contact in the eye region is a common occurrence in terms of what happens unintentionally in a game of football,” Anderson said.
Tribunal appeal only costs five thousand bucks and could be on the grounds of the decision being manifestly excessive. Could be Thursday appeal. Wayne Campbell says the Giants will consider their options. https://t.co/irZg59T7sapic.twitter.com/GQcPx9cLPS
Greene was adamant he made contact with Neale’s face as part of an attempt to reach for the bobbling ball.
“I use my left hand in an attempt to snatch the ball,” Greene said.
“I try to grab the ball as I see it bobbling, but then it goes under Lachie Neale’s face, which I can’t get to.”
The incident involving Toby Greene and Lachie Neale which was referred to the tribunal.
But AFL legal counsel Nick Pane QC said it was clear Greene clawed at Neale’s eye region with his left arm and delivered a jolt to his nose with his right hand from underneath the pack.
Pane said Greene’s evidence was totally inconsistent with the video footage.
“You see a rake from Toby Greene over Lachie Neale’s eye region with his left hand,” Pane said.
“Neale’s immediate reaction is to put his hand horizontally over his eyes. In my submission that is suggestive of the point of contact, as opposed to forceful contact just to the nose.
“He (Neale) was vulnerable, he was being held down, tackled by two players, and unable to defend himself whatsoever. Any contact to the eye region has the potential to cause serious injury.”
This seriously must be the most unjust one game suspension in the history of the game. Yes, he can be a serial pest but surely you have to commit a crime to do the time. One game for a swinging round arm... one game for... who knows what? Who benefits most I wonder? https://t.co/Bbrt047v9m
Earlier, Neale said he was unsure if he felt any contact to the eye region.
“I can’t really recall anything to my eye region, it all happened pretty quick,” Neale said.
“I remember grabbing my face afterwards, my nose was little bit sore, and took a few seconds to gather myself.
“I got up and kept playing. I felt something on my face, my eyes pulled up fine from the incident.”
Updates
AFL great Cornes furious about Greene ban
Tim Michell
Graham Cornes has lashed the decision to uphold Toby Greene's suspension, tweeting: "This seriously must be the most unjust one game suspension in the history of the game."
This seriously must be the most unjust one game suspension in the history of the game. Yes, he can be a serial pest but surely you have to commit a crime to do the time. One game for a swinging round arm… one game for… who knows what? Who benefits most I wonder? https://t.co/Bbrt047v9m
The AFL tribunal has upheld Toby Greene's one-match ban.
The GWS star will miss Saturday's preliminary final against Geelong.
However, GWS will consider appealing.
Tribunal appeal only costs five thousand bucks and could be on the grounds of the decision being manifestly excessive. Could be Thursday appeal. Wayne Campbell says the Giants will consider their options. https://t.co/irZg59T7sapic.twitter.com/GQcPx9cLPS
The AFL tribunal has upheld Toby Greene's one-match ban.
The GWS star will miss Saturday's preliminary final against Geelong.
However, GWS will consider appealing.
Tribunal appeal only costs five thousand bucks and could be on the grounds of the decision being manifestly excessive. Could be Thursday appeal. Wayne Campbell says the Giants will consider their options. https://t.co/irZg59T7sapic.twitter.com/GQcPx9cLPS
As Toby Greene waits to learn whether he will feature in Saturday's preliminary final, here's our expert jury's verdict on his one-game ban.
MICK MALTHOUSE
It was said it was determined “on the balance of probabilities”. It should be conclusive. If you’re going to go by probabilities, anything could take place. I feel he has been harshly done by and I think he’s been overscrutinised.
MARK ROBINSON
It should have seen a free kick paid for head-high contact. Move on. Now, Toby — best you pull your head in because you know the AFL is coming for you. And why they’re coming for you is because you inviting them to.
DERMOTT BRERETON
The decision makers in whatever department you call it now eventually caved in to the voices of the easily-shocked. There is nothing in that video evidence that he should be suspended for.
Wilful contact above the shoulders can result in a free kick reversal and that is the full extent of it.
Each case should be treated on its merits with no prior record playing a part in determination of any wrongdoing.
MANNY (punter’s view)
Toby Greene plays on the edge, but the fact we are debating it means it most likely wasn’t a punishable offence.
If they told him it was OK last week, that would be the defence.
Explain what he’s actually done. Haven’t we sanitised the game enough?
Michael Christian at his best again.
Not sure he’s unfairly dealt with, but he’s an interesting character who keeps drawing attention.
He’s a gun and he makes me watch.
Let him play.
Jay Clark
Player advocate Adrian Andrerson has begun his final submission to the AFL Tribunal panel as Toby Greene's hearing heads toward the 90-minute mark. He said the contact from Greene was not to the eye region and, in any case, was careless and not intentional.
"I reject outright it is some form of raking (from Greene)," Anderson said.
"There is insufficient evidence you could be satisfied there was contact to the eye region.
"If I’m wrong about that, if there was some form of contact, enough to satisfy you – to the eye region – then it was careless (not intentional)."
He also added: “The number of times in a game of football that you might experience some incidental contact in the eye region is a common occurrence in terms of what happens unintentionally in a game of football.
“To say any contact to the eye region no matter how slight, that a player should be suspended and miss a preliminary final or whatever it is, is not a fair or genuine representation of what the guideline is getting at.”
Anderson: Greene's actions careless
Tim Michell
Jay Clark
Player advocate Adrian Andrerson has begun his final submission to the AFL Tribunal panel as Toby Greene's hearing heads toward the 90-minute mark. He said the contact from Greene was not to the eye region and, in any case, was careless and not intentional.
"I reject outright it is some form of raking (from Greene)," Anderson said.
"There is insufficient evidence you could be satisfied there was contact to the eye region.
"If I’m wrong about that, if there was some form of contact, enough to satisfy you – to the eye region – then it was careless (not intentional)."
He also added: “The number of times in a game of football that you might experience some incidental contact in the eye region is a common occurrence in terms of what happens unintentionally in a game of football.
“To say any contact to the eye region no matter how slight, that a player should be suspended and miss a preliminary final or whatever it is, is not a fair or genuine representation of what the guideline is getting at.”
Jay Clark
AFL counsel Nick Pane is making his final submission.
“You see a rake from Toby Greene over Lachie Neale’s eye region with his left hand. Neale’s immediate reaction is to put his hand horizontally over his eyes. In my submission that is suggestive of the point of contact, as opposed supposed to forceful contact just to the nose,” Pane said.
“He (Neale) was vulnerable, he was being held down, tackled by two players, and unable to defend himself whatsoever. Any contact to the eye region has the potential to cause serious injury.”
Pane also questioned Neale's evidence as "vague".
AFL: Neale's evidence 'vague'
Tim Michell
Jay Clark
AFL counsel Nick Pane is making his final submission.
“You see a rake from Toby Greene over Lachie Neale’s eye region with his left hand. Neale’s immediate reaction is to put his hand horizontally over his eyes. In my submission that is suggestive of the point of contact, as opposed supposed to forceful contact just to the nose,” Pane said.
“He (Neale) was vulnerable, he was being held down, tackled by two players, and unable to defend himself whatsoever. Any contact to the eye region has the potential to cause serious injury.”
Pane also questioned Neale's evidence as "vague".
Jay Clark
AFL legal counsel Nick Pane is examining Toby Greene.
Pane says Greene was trying to rake Neale’s eye region with his left hand.
“You were trying to impact the ball with your right arm and use your left arm to make contact with Mr Neale’s face,” Pane said.
Greene says he thought he had hit teammate Josh Kelly and not Neale.
"I think I actually hit Josh Kelly's face on the way down," he said.
After 22 minutes of questioning, Greene's turn as a witness is over.
Greene thought he'd hit teammate Kelly
Tim Michell
Jay Clark
AFL legal counsel Nick Pane is examining Toby Greene.
Pane says Greene was trying to rake Neale’s eye region with his left hand.
“You were trying to impact the ball with your right arm and use your left arm to make contact with Mr Neale’s face,” Pane said.
Greene says he thought he had hit teammate Josh Kelly and not Neale.
"I think I actually hit Josh Kelly's face on the way down," he said.
After 22 minutes of questioning, Greene's turn as a witness is over.
