Get out of jail free card: A new rule that would've let Toby Greene play

I initially thought this was a wind-up. I mean, it had to be, surely. But no. Apparently it’s a serious suggestion. Serve your suspension at a time that suits you?!!

Rule of Thumb: NEVER agree with Kane Cornes.

I'd like to know why my comment about a G.R.U.B was not allowed yet a G.R.U.B is allowed to bring the game into disrepute? Yet the AFL has done the research in how to win young minds, and the consent of parents, to play the game. And then shoots itself in the foot by handing TG this way. ------ Do an act of low sportsmanship is ok. But don't dare call it out? What is wrong with this picture? ----- And by doing it you only embolden the miscreant. He mocked the AFL two weeks ago then defiantly says nothings wrong this week.

We should expect these professional athletes to play as hard as they can within the rules. We should also expect the AFL to be fair, transparent and consistent in the best interests of the game, not the best interests of the dollar. Neither are happening. The AFL does not behave as a professional league and its infuriating. Stealing someone elses line here: 'The AFL now is an entertainment business that produces football content.' And it is so true.

I didn't say that the AFL shouldn't worry about comparisons or previous incidents. I say they I'd rather they take a stance on non-footy acts than worry about comparisons with previous incidents. My reasoning is twofold. Firstly, no two incidents are the same, and a judgement call is still made each time as to each component of the MRO's points system - intent, location of impact and severity of impact. The reality is that no matter what the verdict, there are going to be people who think the grading was wrong and point to other similar (in their opinion) incidents that were graded differently as incontrovertible proof of their claim. There is no clear line delineating low impact from negligible impact, or intentional from reckless. For that reason alone, comparisons only get you so far. Secondly, worrying too much about how other similar (but not necessarily identical) incidents are graded puts you at risk of missing important context or repeating mistakes. It becomes about trying to put incidents in boxes where they might not quite fit. In a system that involves so much subjective judgement I think the most important thing the MRO can do is just look at each incident as it comes and try to reach what he feels is a fair verdict. As for me - you're damned right I've already formed my judgement of Greene. He's used up his chances. But if you want me to put that into a more relevant context, how about this: a key component of the MRO's job is to determine intent. This is nothing more than an educated guess based on the available evidence because no judge can get inside a player's head. The fact is that if a player has prior history of committing these kinds of sneaky acts then it rightfully becomes much harder to classify behaviour as reckless, and a finding of intentional becomes more likely. That's not about having a particular preconception, it's just a sensible assessment of the available evidence. The AFL made a song and dance last year about getting rid of 'little' strikes - gut punches, jumper punches, etc - becausae they aren't footy acts. As far as I'm concerned, something like this should be in the same boat. You've got a guy coming in late and intentionally grabbing at a defenceless player's face, his only intent to antagonise and/or cause his opponent pain. If you want to discourage that behaviour (and I'm clearly not alone in wanting that) then a suspension is the only sensible way to do it. Fines have had zero impact on Toby's behaviour.

So if you're retiring, you essentially have carte blanche to whack someone?

I’m always happy to discuss potential options outside the box, but in this instance I really think it’s a case of someone bringing it on themselves and just having to suck it up. We can argue all day about inconsistencies, Collingwood conspiracies and inconclusive evidence. The fact is, however serious the actual contact ended up being, Greene committed a(nother) dog act and paid the price. I’d rather see the AFL take a stance on non-football conduct like this than worry about comparisons with previous incidents. I’d argue that the tribunal got it wrong the first time and his suspension last week was a correction of a mistake, but even that doesn’t really matter. The fact remains that Toby Greene put himself in this situation and deserves no sympathy. You can look at say, Trent Cotchin in 2017 and think he was lucky. Maybe he was. However, at least his act was in the heat of the moment, going in hard at the ball. Greene’s conduct in this finals series has been indefensible. In both cases, his opponent was wrapped up in a tackle and lying on the ground. In both cases, his pre-determined intent was the man, not the ball (his BS excuses notwithstanding). Whether it’s grabbing someone’s hair and shoving their head into the turf, or reaching between your teammates to gouge at someone’s face, it’s just garbage behaviour. Go hard. Crash into opponents’ bodies and leave them reeling. Nail them in a tackle. Jump on their heads to take a mark. Be as physical as you want in the contest. But get this rubbish out of the game. I’d rather see a gun player miss a final than see that sort of stuff go effectively unpunished. The last thing Toby Greene needs is a licence to keep it up.

Ridiculous idea. If you deserve to get rubbed out you deserve to get rubbed out now.

Apparently calling TG a pupae moth is hurtful. The politburo are checking the veracity of statement and the disdain l hold for such pupaic moths.

Toby Greene obviously used his card the week before

I'm not sure about this, but good to see people thinking outside the box.