Edmund: Shocking language sets "dangerous Tribunal precedent"

If it's been an eyebrow-raising couple of weeks for the AFL Tribunal, it reached an all-new level of bizarre on Thursday.

That's saying something given we've had panel members driving during hearings and barking dogs walking into the offices of silks and disrupting appeals.

This is where we remind you the AFL is a $1 billion industry.

Yet last night (Thursday) we had the AFL Appeals Board - chaired by Will Houghton KC - upholding the Lance Collard guilty verdict while slashing the forward's suspension to the point that he's walked away with a lighter penalty for the second use of homophobic language than the first.

If that's not a little odd, consider the explanation.

“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," the reasoning read.

"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."

Translation? If you're roughed and cop some verbal in a game, you're of a certain heritage and have had a difficult background, then sexist, racist and homophobic language won't be viewed as seriously.

St Kilda last night presented a 16-page submission carrying 10 grounds of appeal based on an error of law.

The Saints went after the Frankston players Darby Hipwell and Bailey Lambert, saying they had “colluded” and that their testimony was “unreliable”.

Failing that, the St Kilda argued the penalty was manifestly excessive.

Collard and St Kilda have long maintained innocence, but the Appeals Board didn't find Collard innocent.

Instead, they took less than 20 minutes to find him guilty, but to also cut his suspension from nine matches - two suspended - to four matches - two suspended.

The ability to argue a penalty is manifestly excessive puts a sanction reduction in their remit, but the reasoning provided by the Appeals Board is hard to reconcile.

Does this set a dangerous precedent?

Is it acceptable that background comes into play? Or whether the target of any abuse is offended or not?

Where do we go from here?

The AFL in February confirmed an overhaul to its judicial process, formalising several changes.

There's been a glaring omission. We'll call it the "football is a hard game" clause.