1m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 8:16am

AFL defends use of Rule 2.3(a) rather than Rule 35

“I must say it’s still not quite clear to me how that submission progresses,” Woods says.

“Basically, we say there’s nothing preventing the allegation being dealt with under 2.3(a).

“It’s a long way from saying there is any indication that calling someone a f****t on a football field is not conduct unbecoming and can’t be dealt with under rule 2.3(a).”

8m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 8:09am

AFL says St Kilda’s submissions ‘really clutching at straws’

The AFL is also responding to the previous statements questioning why Hipwell and Lambert didn’t remember any details regarding the incident.

“These sorts of submissions are really clutching at straws,” Woods says.

“They don’t support there having been an error of law, failures in small insignificant failures in memory don’t really have any serious [impact] on what these gentlemen heard.”

10m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 8:07am

AFL denies that there was ‘collusion’ between Frankston duo

“It was said that Hipwell and Lambert agreed they discussed and got their story straight,” Woods says.

“They agreed that they discussed it. They certainly didn’t go anywhere near agreeing that there was any collusion of any kind or cross-contamination.”

15m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 8:02am

AFL answers the reliablity question

“It’s not the case that a finding can’t be made when you’ve got conflicting accounts,” Woods says.

“It can accept an account over another account, and that’s what really happened here.”

18m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:59am

AFL says arguments ‘ultimately don’t have any basis’

The AFL’s legal counsel, Andrew Woods SC, is now speaking.

Woods says St Kilda’s efforts to point out legal error are “certainly valiant attempts but they ultimately don’t have any basis”.

23m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:54am

St Kilda is arguing that a nine-week ban is too excessive

“If anything, a senior coach should be held to even higher standards than a young player, and we say this is further demonstration of the excessiveness of the sanction,” Borsky says.

Borsky also points to the Tribunal matrix whereby an incident of intentional high contact with high physical impact attracts a ban of three weeks.

26m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:52am

A previous Clarkson sanction is brought up

Alastair Clarkson’s name has been brought up by Borsky, who is referencing an incident from 2024 where Clarkson was handed an entirely suspended sentence for “unacceptable” verbal abuse.

Here’s the incident that Borsky is referencing.

29m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:48am

Saints point to Thomas, Rampe and Butters cases

Previous cases involving Dale Thomas, Dane Rampe and Zak Butters uttering abusive language and being fined, not suspended, is being brought up now.

“Abusive language, even completely unacceptable, abusive language, foul language, sexist and misogynistic language, including directed towards umpires, has only ever been the subject of a fine and never a suspension,” Borsky says.

33m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:44am

Tribunal chair asks ‘what is the error of law’

We’re getting into some real legal technicalities here.

The Tribunal chair, Will Houghton KC, asks Borsky: “What’s the error of law in pointing to unreliability on the part of witnesses?”

“It’s an error of law to find as the tribunal did that these were two independent sources that were consistent in all materials,” Borsky responds.

35m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:42am

St Kilda arguing witnesses to slur were ‘unreliable’

Borsky is questioning the reliability of the witnesses to Collard’s slur.

“Unreliable, not dishonest,” he says.

“Mr Lambert couldn’t remember what quarter the incident happened in, couldn’t remember the teammate Mr Collard had struck, couldn’t remember which of his teammates were struck which gave rise to the melee in which this word was allegedly uttered.

“He also couldn’t remember when he spoke to Mr Hipwell about the incident.”

40m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:37am

Borsky questions whether there were two independent sources

Frankston players Darby Hipwell and teammate Bailey Lambert spoke to the Tribunal in a previous hearing.

Borsky says they colluded on their stories, so meaning that they were actually one source, rather than two.

He says he isn’t suggesting that they colluded and came up with a false story, but rather the fact that they colluded.

“The Tribunal relied on the fact as two independent accounts, which corroborated one another, and therefore reasoned it on the basis that as we discern it, that it was sort of two verses one, and it wasn’t,” he says.

“If they get together and talk about what they think they heard and agree on what they heard and then agree on what they’re going to say, that’s not two independent accounts.”

47m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:30am

Tribunal’s reasoning called ‘frankly illogical’

Borsky says the Tribunal said Collard may have “convinced himself” he didn’t utter the slur.

He says the Tribunal’s reasoning is “unsupported conjecture and frankly illogical”.

50m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:27am

The Collard statutory declaration is shown

Borsky states that Collard has “strenuously and consistently” denied using the homophobic slur.

The hearing host is the asked to bring up the actual statutory declaration that Collard voluntarily signed where he denies using the slur.

55m agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:22am

Borsky says ‘whole process proceeded on the wrong footing’

The topic of the AFL making things public is continuing here.

“The AFL for reasons which have still not been explained decided to proceed under rule 2.3(a),” Borsky says.

Borsky says the AFL made the allegation public “before Mr. Collard was even interviewed”.

1h agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:15am

Borsky says AFL pursued the wrong charge against Collard

“Was the correct avenue for the AFL to pursue this sort of conduct, and was it the only correct avenue? And because the AFL proceeded under the wrong charge, it ought to be dismissed,” Borsky says.

He says the AFL should have used rule 35 (the Peek Rule, regarding Discrimination and Racial Vilification) instead.

1h agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:13am

Borsky says AFL brought incident to public, not Saints

“An on-field comment directed to a player which was not picked up by microphones or heard in public in any sense until the AFL decided to make it public by proceeding under rule 2.3(a),” Borsky says.

1h agoThu 23 Apr 2026 at 7:10am

Collard’s defence is pointing to Rule 2.3(a)

St Kilda’s legal counsel, Michael Borsky, is starting Collard’s defence by pointing to Rule 2.3(a).

Borsky says 2.3(a) is “directed to conduct of the most serious kind of conduct with an inherently public dimension”.