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.ABC/AAP