![\"Danny](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/14200608ab3621357a740646c1e6f58c8cefb511.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Updated April 24, 2026 \u2014 10:55am,first published 10:53am<\/p>\n
Save<\/p>\n
You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n
Remove items from your saved list<\/a> to add more.<\/p>\n Save this article for later<\/p>\n Add articles to your saved list and come back to them anytime.<\/p>\n Got it<\/p>\n AAA<\/p>\n The AFL Appeals Boards is copping severe backlash for handing down a judgement that says it is commonplace that players can use racist, sexist or homophobic language in \u201chighly competitive\u201d levels of football.<\/p>\n The appeals board made the claim after upholding St Kilda youngster Lance Collard\u2019s appeal<\/a> against a nine-week ban (with two weeks suspended) for using a homophobic slur in a VFL game.<\/p>\n The penalty was reduced to four weeks (with two weeks suspended).<\/p>\n Collard was found to have used homophobic language in a match against Frankston, but the player claimed he had said \u201cmaggot\u201d and had not used the phrase \u201cf—ing f—-t\u201d.\u00a0 The appeals board did not overturn that finding.<\/a><\/p>\n The AFL disciplinary tribunal\u2019s original decision to ban Collard for nine weeks was found to be \u201cmanifestly excessive\u201d.<\/p>\n But the appeals board, led by Will Houghton KC, has come under fire for parts of its judgement.<\/p>\n AFL Appeals board judgement<\/p>\n The Appeal Board is required to deal with every case before it on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, Collard suffered a sanction of nine weeks, which was cumulative to the two-week suspension he had already suffered for a strike to an opposing player in the same game.<\/p>\n Two weeks of that penalty was suspended. The Tribunal had regard to a number of matters in coming to that decision. There had been a number of previous decisions which suggested a range of penalties for players using the term f*****t, which was between three and six weeks.<\/p>\n However, in none of those prior decisions did the Tribunal have any role, because the AFL and the player had come to an agreement. There was also reliance placed by the tribunal upon a prior conviction of Collard in 2024 when he received a six week sanction using the term f*****t a number of times during the course of the game to several opposing players, and that he was warned about using that term.<\/p>\n Again, it was an agreed sanction between the AFL and the player. That conduct though was clearly in a worse category than the present incident, where the phrase was said once to two players who recollected.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n We observe that it\u2019s to the credit of the AFL and the Tribunal that its efforts to eliminate these comments appear to be succeeding.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s a young man and he\u2019s indigenous.<\/p>\n Thirdly, his difficult background, of which evidence was led.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve also had regard to the fact of general and specific deterrence in coming to our own view on the penalty.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the Appeal Board has come to the view that the sanction imposed on player collard by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive.<\/p>\n In lieu thereof, we would impose a sanction of four weeks, with two weeks suspended for the remainder of this VFL\/AFL season and the 2027 VFL\/AFL season, cumulative to Collard\u2019s two-week suspension for striking.<\/p>\n Critics have questioned why the appeal board considered \u201cthe fact the victim was not personally offended\u201d by Collard\u2019s abuse. Two Frankston players gave evidence in the case.<\/p>\n \u201cI am genuinely speechless that this is in print … Absolutely baffled,\u201d retired AFLW star and Seven commentator Kate McCarthy posted on social media.<\/p>\n \u201cIt gets worse,\u201d McCarthy then says on her X account.<\/p>\n She refers to another paragraph in the judgement that says: \u201cWe 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.\u201d The appeals board did not say that this should be an excuse, and it did not condone that language in any way.<\/p>\n McCarthy doubled down on her criticism, posting on Instagram: \u201cThere is absolutely NO CONTEXT as to where a statement like this from the AFL appeals board is acceptable.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat the hell? I have no way to describe this. It is actually baffling. So much for every policy in the AFL saying there\u2019s zero tolerance – \u2018there\u2019s zero tolerance for racism, there\u2019s zero tolerance for sexism, there\u2019s zero tolerance for homophobia\u2019. <\/p>\n \u201cThis decision and this explanation of this decision go against everything that the AFL has claimed to stand for. This is disgusting.\u201d<\/p>\n The appeals board finding goes on to say: \u201cWe observe that it\u2019s to the credit of the AFL and the tribunal that its efforts to eliminate these comments appear to be succeeding.<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, that cannot be at the price of imposing what this board considers to be a crippling penalty on the appellant of this case.<\/p>\n \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Related Article It is the second time in two years Collard, 21, has been found to have used homophobic language in a match.<\/p>\n He was suspended for six matches after admitting to using the slur \u201cf—-t\u201d in a VFL match in 2024.<\/p>\n In reducing the penalty, the appeals board considered Collard\u2019s age, that fact he was Indigenous and had a difficult background, and that the Frankston player at the centre of the abuse was not offended by the comment.<\/p>\n \u201cHe [Collard] had at that time struck an opposing player, given away a free kick and been jostled, roughed up and verbally challenged by a number of his opponents,\u201d the appeal board found.<\/p>\n Collard was also suspended for two weeks for the hit that triggered the incident.<\/p>\n The appeals board noted that Collard\u2019s six-week ban in 2024 for using a homophobic slur was an agreed penalty between the AFL and the player, and did not involve the AFL tribunal.<\/p>\n \u201cThat conduct though was clearly in a worse category than the present incident, where the phrase was said once to two players who recollected,\u201d the appeal board found.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The appeals board said it \u201chad regard to the fact of general and specific deterrence in coming to our own view on the penalty\u201d.<\/p>\n Related Article \u201cUltimately, the appeal board has come to the view that the sanction imposed on player collard by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive,\u201d the judgement said.<\/p>\n The AFL has been contacted, and was expected to respond to the criticism later on Friday.<\/p>\n The league released an initial statement on Thursday night.<\/p>\n \u201cThe AFL acknowledges the decision of the AFL Appeals Board tonight to uphold the appeal brought by St Kilda\u2019s Lance Collard against the sanction of the AFL Disciplinary Tribunal last week,\u201d the statement said.<\/p>\n \u201cThis 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.<\/a><\/p>\n Save<\/p>\n You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n![\"Lance](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776315314_519_38807a87822fb835208dc4d7687bcc9330d45963.jpeg\")
Lance Collard\u2019s ban was reduced to four weeks. AFL Photos<\/p>\n![\"Former](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/7d9c832ea8ec8ad097dd15243b065ad78973a549.jpeg\")
Former AFLW player and commentator Kate McCarthy.<\/p>\n![\"Lance](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/aed23d5be57c387992359b766dbfdabdec6503ee.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Voss](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776961032_148_b606b3ac480fc1f880c191b8ffdc9f1933a4d676.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n