GWS will take one last shot in their bid to have Toby Greene available for their clash with Richmond, but Docker Andrew Brayshaw will miss Sunday’s derby.
Greene was initially offered a two-match suspension by match review officer Michael Christian for his elbow to Geelong champion Patrick Dangerfield’s throat, in an apparent fend-off gone wrong.
The incident was assessed as careless conduct, high impact and high contact.
GWS successfully had the impact level downgraded to medium at the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night, but they were unable to convince the jury Greene’s action was “instinctive, natural and reasonable”.
It resulted in Greene receiving a one-match ban, and the Giants confirmed on Wednesday that they would contest that decision at the AFL appeals board.
Eighth-placed GWS are just two points clear of a chasing pack of four clubs – Essendon, Richmond, St Kilda and Fremantle – with two home-and-away rounds left to play.
Opinions are divided as to whether Greene deserves to be banned for the dangerous fend-off, and Richmond coach Damien Hardwick said it was a challenging situation.
“Like it is a football act and I probably tend to agree a little bit with GWS,” Hardwick said.
“But if they (the tribunal) go based on outcome, unfortunately that’s the nature of the result half the time.
“The raising of the elbow, it always is dangerous. But once again, if you have got the ball, if you probably look at a lot of incidents in the game, there’s a lot of those.
“The action itself probably happens 20 times a game but the fact of the matter is they base their results on the outcome, which is incredibly challenging.”
Brayshaw was charged with intentionally making “unnecessary or unreasonable contact” to the eye region of Brisbane’s Jarrod Berry.
The tribunal rejected the 21-year-old’s evidence that his contact to Berry’s face in a tackle was careless rather than intentional.
Fremantle’s executive general manager of football Peter Bell said there were no grounds of appeal that led to a realistic chance of success under the AFL’s criteria, which includes error
of law, classification of offence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, or the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.
Brayshaw will now miss Fremantle’s derby clash with West Coast at Optus Stadium on Sunday.
“I am very disappointed with the outcome of last night’s tribunal hearing,” Brayshaw said.
“As I mentioned during the hearing, making contact with an opponent’s face in that manner is never something I would intentionally do.
“However, I have to accept the tribunal’s decision and all I can do now is support our players and coaches for this week’s game and I look forward to returning for the remainder of the season.”
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
Unless it comes to chop sticks
Dave
Roar Rookie
Lol, your name clouds any comments u make.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Neither of those. Gets away with too much and best for only occasional bursts. Best PR by a long way.
DTM
Roar Rookie
Hard to argue with that Pablo - I could be wrong but I don't recall Dusty being reported. I'm guessing Dab is arguing about Dusty's fend off which does cost him a free kick from time to time but has not, to my recollection, resulted in an injury to another player. However, as a non Richmond fan, it irks me that Dusty appears to have longer arms than most and therefore successfully fends off players frequently.
Lee
Guest
Should Greene have got a week - probably. But should he have got a week considering the incidents that haven't resulted in suspension - No.
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
Plenty of non Hawks supporters agree with him, to be fair. Perhaps it is your bias getting in the way of your objectivity. Haven't heard anyone suggesting Selwood should have got off apart from 1 or 2 hard core Cats' fans.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
I feel much better after that DG. I can forgive sin (see T Greene )but not institutionalised inequity (see AFL).
Yattuzzi
Roar Rookie
Two Hail Marys...... for the last two games.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
You ok your holiness? That’s a fair little gripe you seem to have been holding. I hope you can forgive the AFL for they have Sinned
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
The AFL don't know what they want. In the old days if someone deliberately clocked someone and got caught, they were suspended, regardless of whether the recipient of the blow was forced out of the game. The simple striking charge was gradually phased out as punches lead to *tough penalties. *Unless you have a GF coming up. But for some reason now the stomach only attracts a fine though plenty of attract punches. Meanwhile the hip and should was addressed because vulnerable players were being knocked into next week off the ball, over the ball and after the ball had departed. So then you protect* the head from what previously were considered fair bumps. But then no you don't, in case someone is going to win a Brownlow (sometimes) or play in a GF. In this case you protect the player doing the bump. In order to protect your stars bumpers and thumpers, you introduce low, medium, high impact, reckless, careless but most of all, feckless. They seem to rely on outcome to greatly to determine the above. But at least be consistent. There have been several similar instances this year, yet they haven't attracted a suspension. For next year. Simply suspend players for striking an opponent in the head. Start at 1 week and then they can go up depending on the severity. No argument about deliberate or whatever. From Now. Umpires. Pay holding the ball. Poor old Saint Bont got slung hard on his noggin and the Bomber laddie got reported. He was well caught and going nowhere, yet the delayed whistle meant the Essendon player needed to dump him as nothing had happened. Really the sling report should only apply when someone has shown no duty of care. If the AFL want to discourage the sling then pay the tackler a free when they deserve it.
Fog
Guest
Above comment was a reply to Birdman
Fog
Guest
Your Hawthorn bias completely clouds your ability to view anything re Geelong objectively making your comments totally irrelevant.
O M
Roar Rookie
The mistakes were the Fristch and Selwood decisions, not the Greene decision. Danger didn’t slip into Greene’s elbow at all, his head stays at the same level. Look at the replay. Toby sees Danger coming and lifts his elbow. Pretty simple really.
Puntroad
Roar Rookie
I agree, including about liking Toby and enjoying watching him play. While GWS won't concede this, they have failed to bring Toby into line when he has sailed close to the wind on many occasions. And now he's letting them down at the business end of the season (again). He has matured a bit and this year has shown leadership credentials. He needs to decide whether he wants to try to be the best player in the AFL or a carnival sideshow. There is no Dusty incident - just a cohort out there who dislike him for reasons that elude me.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
100% agree on Selwoods bump being worse. I tend to think that a week is about right for Toby- Selwood should of got 2-3.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
If Fritsch gets off, Greene should too. Danger slipped into it at least to a contributing degree. Selwood's bump was worse for mine.
Yattuzzi
Roar Rookie
Dab, I like Toby. Like to watch him play. But he elbowed a player in the neck on purpose. One week is light. Bringing up Danger is pretty strange. He was put out for four due to what many said was an accident but was at least without intent. I don’t remember the Dusty incident.
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
Wow. Anyone who knows anything about footy would recognise that Dusty is among the fairest, and best, players going around.
O M
Roar Rookie
Did Dusty or Danger steel your Lego Set dab?
dab
Roar Rookie
Did Toby steal Gil's lego set or worse still, his marbles? Penalize Toby for that and you could give Dusty and Danger 20 years retrospectively.