The AFL has sensationally rebuked its own appeal board in the wake of the Lance Collard trainwreck.
Code Sports first reported on Friday afternoon the league is set to take action after the appeal board reached a staggering conclusion toxic language is “commonplace” in football.
Watch every match of every round of the AFL Premiership Season LIVE and ad-break free during play on FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
It comes after footy commentators vented fury about the reasons the appeal board gave for its decision to slash the punishment handed down to the St Kilda footballer.
The Saints on Thursday night successfully trimmed Collard’s nine-match suspension for his use of a homophobic slur towards an opponent down to four matches, with two of those suspended.
Reports emerged on Friday morning league officials are not happy about the ruling and “high level meetings” will happen on Friday.
Football journalist Tom Morris reported on X: “Senior AFL figures aren’t happy (to put it lightly) with William Houghton KC, following his remarks at the appeals board hearing for Lance Collard last night”.
An AFL tribunal earlier found Collard guilty of “conduct unbecoming” by calling Frankston opponent Darby Hipwell a “f***ing f*****” during a VFL clash on March 27.
In a statement released on Friday aftenroon, AFL Andrew Dillon said the league firmly “rejects” the Appeals Board’s reasoning which stated, “it is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field”.
He reiterated the league had a zero tolernance stance towards “racist, sexist, or homophobic” language and stated: “Let’s be clear: homophobia has no place in Australian football.”
AFL CEO Andrew Dillon’s full statement
“The AFL has reflected further on the outcome and reasons of the AFL Appeals Board in the matter involving St Kilda player Lance Collard last night.
“At the Disciplinary Tribunal that first heard the matter, the AFL sought a 10-week suspension for Collard, noting that Collard had in 2024 admitted and been sanctioned (by a six-match suspension) for using the same slur. Ultimately a nine-week suspension was imposed.
“That suspension reflected the seriousness of using a homophobic slur on the field and was intended to set a clear standard for our game, particularly given it was a second offence.
“The Appeals Board last night imposed a four-week suspension, with two matches suspended until the end of next year. In the AFL’s view, stronger action was not only warranted – it was necessary.
“Let’s be clear: homophobia has no place in Australian football. Not at any level. Not under any circumstances.
“The AFL specifically rejects the Appeals Board’s reasoning which stated, “it is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field”. The AFL strongly rejects the statement not only that such language is commonplace, but also any implication that may be a factor in determining the severity of the sanction.
“We will not accept, excuse or normalise behaviour and language that demeans, discriminates or vilifies people based on who they are.
“We acknowledge there are always broader considerations in these matters, and they must be handled with care. But they do not override the responsibility everyone has to meet the standards of the game.
“We are clear on where we stand.
“Respect and inclusion are not optional in our game – they are fundamental.
“The AFL has communicated its concerns in relation to these matters to the Appeals Board members.”
Sports reporter Marnie Vinall wrote on X in response to Dillon’s statement: “What a mess this saga has been from the start.”
Collard, 21, argued he called former Sandringham teammate Darby Hipwell a “maggot”.
After a marathon hearing, the AFL appeals board upheld the charge, but reduced the punishment, ruling the sanction imposed by the judiciary panel was “manifestly excessive”.
According to Code Sports, the AFL has a view the use of homophobic slurs should carry a base sanction of five weeks.
The appeal board clearly was not on the same page.
In a staggering statement that emerged on Thursday night, the appeal board gave five reasons for why it reduced the suspension.
Among many explanations that have sparked fierce debate, the appeal board said Collard’s age as a 21-year-old, “difficult background” and identity as an “indigenous” Australian were taken into account.
A second eyebrow-raising detail of the board’s statement was that the board took into account that Hipwell said he was not “offended by the comment”.
The most staggering statement shared by the appeal board — made up of Will Houghton KC, Stephen Jurica and Georgina Coghlan KC — was that toxic language was commonplace in football.
“We observe that football is a hard game,” the appeal board said in a statement.
“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.”
Commentators on Thursday night were scathing of the reasons provided.
Former Collingwood AFLW captain Steph Chiocci posted on X: “This is cooked. Let’s call it what it is — a joke. A sad, backwards, disappointing joke”.
Channel 7 commentator Kate McCarthy on X shared an image of the appeal board’s explanation and highlighted the words “the fact the victim was not personally offended”.
She posted: “I am genuinely speechless that this is in print”.
Sharing another screenshot of the explanation that found the use of toxic comments was “commonplace” in football, she posted: “It gets worse”.
Fox Footy journalist David Zita posted: “This is honestly one of the most staggering reasons transcripts I’ve seen over the journey and not in a good way”.
Code Sports journalist Lachlan McKirdy wrote: “This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen.
“Excusing racism, sexism and homophobia because football is a “hard game” and “competitive”.
“Spare me. This sets a disgusting precedent.”
Fox Footy AFL 360 host Gerard Whateley said on SEN: “It makes no sense whatsoever.
“That’s not the remit of the appeal board to do that. That is a gross overreach on what that panel’s role is.
“To dismiss the appeal but then reduce the sentence from seven to two… still guilty, but two weeks? That doesn’t line up with anything that the AFL has done.
“This feels outside the remit of the appeal board, frankly, in the way it has operated traditionally.
“That’s a very odd verdict. It’s been an incredibly difficult space, and I haven’t envied anyone’s involvement in it from beginning to end, but that is incredibly unsatisfactory.”
Collard has previously been suspended for six matches when he admitted to using a homophobic slur in a 2024 match.
He underwent Pride in Sport training following the incident.
Collard was adamant throughout the saga that he used the term “maggot”. Hipwell said he “could not be more confident” Collard used the word “f****t”.
Michael Borsky KC – Collard’s legal defence – originally said Collard had been “jostled, roughed up and verbally abused” by Frankston players.
He went on to call a suspension of that magnitude “unfairly punitive” and a potentially “sliding doors” decision that could ruin Collard’s life.
Throughout both appeals, Borsky said the punishment was excessive compared to other incidents in the game.
While Thursday night’s ruling was supposed to be the end of the matter, it has only poured fuel on the burning issue of homophobia in Australian sport.
Full AFL statement following Collard appeal
The AFL acknowledges the decision of the AFL Appeals Board tonight to uphold the appeal brought by St Kilda’s Lance Collard against the sanction of the AFL Disciplinary Tribunal last week, following a finding he breached AFL Rule 2.3(a) (Conduct Unbecoming) in a VFL match on March 27.
Mr Collard’s sanction was reduced to a suspension of four weeks, of which two weeks are suspended until the end of the 2027 season, to be served cumulatively to the suspension that Collard received for a striking charge from the same match.
This matter is otherwise at a close.
The AFL reiterates that it has no tolerance for the use of homophobic language in our game and its expectations have been made extremely clear to all of our players, including by education that all AFL and VFL players receive.
We thank all parties involved for their co-operation in this process.
Full St Kilda statement following Collard appeal
St Kilda Football Club acknowledges the outcome of the AFL Appeals Board hearing, which tonight upheld the Tribunal’s finding but reduced the sanction imposed on Lance Collard to a four-week suspension (two suspended).
The AFL Disciplinary Tribunal last week imposed a nine-week suspension on Lance (two suspended) following a finding of guilt under AFL Rule 2.3(a) (Conduct Unbecoming).
While the club is disappointed the charge was upheld, it welcomes the reduction in sanction and thanks the Appeals Board for their time and consideration on the matter.
The club’s legal team, led by Michael Borsky KC, successfully argued that the original penalty was manifestly excessive.
The club remains focused on supporting Lance throughout what has been a challenging period and asks for his privacy as he makes his return to play.
Despite the reduction in sanction, St Kilda remains disappointed with how the matter was assessed and believes greater consistency and clarity in the AFL’s Tribunal process is important moving forward.
We also acknowledge the impact this prolonged and public matter has had on members of the LGBTQIA+ and First Nations communities.
AFL appeal board explains five reasons for ruling
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.
— with NewsWire
