AFL removes appeals board chair days after Collard decision
Updated ,first published
The AFL has removed its appeals board chairman Will Houghton, KC, just two days after a controversial judgment in a case involving a homophobic slur.
Houghton chaired an appeals board panel on Thursday night that reduced young Saint Lance Collard’s ban for saying the phrase “f---ing f----t” during a VFL match from nine weeks to four weeks (with two games suspended).
The AFL confirmed on Saturday that the Houghton decision was effective immediately.
Houghton did not wish to comment when contacted by this masthead.
When asked about the Houghton termination, a league spokesperson said: “Mr Houghton served as chair since his appointment in March 2024 and has contributed at club level over many years and the AFL thanks him for his service.”
Sources not authorised to comment publicly said the AFL would be conducting a prompt review of its disciplinary processes, including the tribunals.
Collard claimed he said “maggot” in a match against Frankston late last month.
It was the second time he had been found guilty of using a homophobic slur. He was banned for six matches in 2024.
In this instance the appeals board found the nine-week ban to be “manifestly excessive”.
In reducing the penalty, the appeals board considered Collard’s age, 21, and the fact he was Indigenous and had come from a difficult background.
The appeals board noted that the recipient of the remark was not offended by the comment.
The appeals board judgment was handed down by Houghton.
“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,” it said.
The appeals board finding also said: “We observe that it’s to the credit of the AFL and the tribunal that its efforts to eliminate these comments appear to be succeeding.”
League boss Andrew Dillon took the extreme step of condemning the appeals board’s decision on Friday as it attracted widespread criticism, including from retired AFLW players Kate McCarthy and Steph Chiocci.
Veteran ruckman Max Gawn described the fallout from the verdict as an “embarrassing” period for the AFL.
“For roughly six-seven hours, when we had to stand beside that message that the appeals board put out,” Gawn told ABC Radio on Saturday.
“I certainly know that the game is not that hard, I know I can shut my mouth with homophobic, racist and other vilifications.”
Dillon said the AFL disciplinary tribunal’s original ban was “not only warranted – it was necessary”.
Dillon also rejected the board’s assertion that it was commonplace that players use racist, sexist or homophobic language from time to time in “highly competitive” levels of football.
“The AFL strongly rejects the statement not only that such language is commonplace, but also any implication that may be a factor in determining the severity of the sanction,” Dillon said in comments later echoed by the AFL Players Association.
“We will not accept, excuse or normalise behaviour and language that demeans, discriminates or vilifies people based on who they are.”
McCarthy questioned why the board considered the fact the alleged victim – one of two Frankston players who gave evidence – “was not personally offended” by Collard’s abuse.
“I am genuinely speechless that this is in print ... Absolutely baffled,” McCarthy, also a Seven commentator, posted on social media.
AFLPA chief James Gallagher said the players’ union was “deeply concerned” by some of the appeals board’s statements, rejecting suggestions that vilification between players was commonplace.
On Thursday night, after the verdict was announced, the AFL had said in a statement: “This 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.
“We thank all parties involved for their cooperation in this process.”
AFL Appeals Board judgment
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We observe that it’s to the credit of the AFL and the Tribunal that its efforts to eliminate these comments appear to be succeeding.
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.
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.
We’ve also had regard to the fact of general and specific deterrence in coming to our own view on the penalty.
Ultimately, the Appeal Board has come to the view that the sanction imposed on player Collard by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive.
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’s two-week suspension for striking.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Danny Russell is a racing writer for The Age.
Scott Spits is a sports reporter for The AgeConnect via X or email.