Uploaded April 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
St Kilda’s Lance Collard, a 21-year-old Aussie rules footballer, has been a naughty boy… again! Back in 2024, the National Indigenous Times reported: “Lance Collard handed six-week ban for ‘unprompted and highly offensive homophobic slurs’ in VFL match.” I find it interesting that they justify the harsh penalty due to the language being “highly offensive.”
But if he had instead used a less offensive or even a scientific word, would he have been given a lighter sentence? I doubt it. The “highly offensive” label is simply being used as an excuse by the AFL to severely punish homophobia in any form.
Unfortunately for players caught in the heat of the moment, homophobia has come to mean any syllable that can be negatively construed as an attack on gay people—an act now met with immediate, unquestioning outrage and a heavy-handed sentence.
And now in 2026, Lance Collard has let it slip again. The ABC reported that Collard was handed a “monster ban” over an “entirely unacceptable” homophobic slur. Yes, at the time, he was handed a nine-week ban—two weeks of which were suspended—for allegedly saying a single word. Players who smash opponents in the face and cause actual physical injury often receive less.
Collard vigorously denies saying the slur, but nearby players swore they heard it, and the Tribunal chose to believe them. Ah, freedom of speech in democratic Australia—where a panel of others gets to decide what you did or didn’t say, and then punishes you based on their own ruling.
But there’s more to this story. The following week, the ABC headlined: “Collard’s ‘crippling’ ban for homophobic slur reduced on appeal.” His sentence was slashed from nine weeks to four weeks, with two of those suspended. The Board declared that the initial penalty was “manifestly excessive” and would have had a “crippling” effect on the 21-year-old’s career.
Crucially, it was also revealed that the opposing player wasn’t even personally offended by the slur directed at him. So, considering the totality of the circumstances, I think him missing out on two weeks is a fair compromise. I don’t think any professional player would want to miss out on even a single week of their career.
That said, two weeks is enough to deter people from using inappropriate language. And given the fact that nobody was actually offended, well—what would the original excessive punishment have actually achieved?
But wait—there’s more! As the ABC declared: “AFL sacks appeals boss after homophobia statement labelled ‘disgusting’.” Basically, the AFL didn’t like the findings of the independent Appeals Board, so they sacked its chair, Will Houghton KC.
Apparently, if the AFL disagrees with the ruling of its own Appeals Board, it can simply sack the leader. It sounds like the kind of judicial “independence” you’d expect to find in the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.
According to the AFL’s own website: “League dismisses Appeals Board Chair after Collard hearing,” AFL CEO Andrew Dillon said a penalty larger than Collard’s eventual four-game ban “was not only warranted – it was necessary.” He stated they would not “accept, excuse or normalise behaviour or language that demeans, discriminates or vilifies people based on who they are.”
Dillon was also highly critical of the Appeals Board’s reasoning. He said, “The AFL specifically rejects the Appeals Board’s reasoning which stated, ‘it is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field’. 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.”
So there you go. If the AFL doesn’t like the language you use, it doesn’t matter if an independent Appeals Board identifies the punishment as “manifestly excessive”—the league will simply dismantle that board until they find one that falls in line. What happened to teaching our kids resilience—you know, “sticks and stones” and all that? It turns out that in modern Australia, words are so dangerous that not only must you be punished severely for using them, but anyone who even questions the logic of that punishment will lose their job.
It’s no longer about the words themselves; it’s about protecting the institution’s power to decide which syllables are allowed to exist and maintaining the league’s right to total control.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
St Kilda’s Lance Collard, a 21-year-old Aussie rules footballer, has been a naughty boy… again! Back in 2024, the National Indigenous Times reported: “Lance Collard handed six-week ban for ‘unprompted and highly offensive homophobic slurs’ in VFL match.” I find it interesting that they justify the harsh penalty due to the language being “highly offensive.”
But if he had instead used a less offensive or even a scientific word, would he have been given a lighter sentence? I doubt it. The “highly offensive” label is simply being used as an excuse by the AFL to severely punish homophobia in any form.
Unfortunately for players caught in the heat of the moment, homophobia has come to mean any syllable that can be negatively construed as an attack on gay people—an act now met with immediate, unquestioning outrage and a heavy-handed sentence.
And now in 2026, Lance Collard has let it slip again. The ABC reported that Collard was handed a “monster ban” over an “entirely unacceptable” homophobic slur. Yes, at the time, he was handed a nine-week ban—two weeks of which were suspended—for allegedly saying a single word. Players who smash opponents in the face and cause actual physical injury often receive less.
Collard vigorously denies saying the slur, but nearby players swore they heard it, and the Tribunal chose to believe them. Ah, freedom of speech in democratic Australia—where a panel of others gets to decide what you did or didn’t say, and then punishes you based on their own ruling.
But there’s more to this story. The following week, the ABC headlined: “Collard’s ‘crippling’ ban for homophobic slur reduced on appeal.” His sentence was slashed from nine weeks to four weeks, with two of those suspended. The Board declared that the initial penalty was “manifestly excessive” and would have had a “crippling” effect on the 21-year-old’s career.
Crucially, it was also revealed that the opposing player wasn’t even personally offended by the slur directed at him. So, considering the totality of the circumstances, I think him missing out on two weeks is a fair compromise. I don’t think any professional player would want to miss out on even a single week of their career.
That said, two weeks is enough to deter people from using inappropriate language. And given the fact that nobody was actually offended, well—what would the original excessive punishment have actually achieved?
But wait—there’s more! As the ABC declared: “AFL sacks appeals boss after homophobia statement labelled ‘disgusting’.” Basically, the AFL didn’t like the findings of the independent Appeals Board, so they sacked its chair, Will Houghton KC.
Apparently, if the AFL disagrees with the ruling of its own Appeals Board, it can simply sack the leader. It sounds like the kind of judicial “independence” you’d expect to find in the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.
According to the AFL’s own website: “League dismisses Appeals Board Chair after Collard hearing,” AFL CEO Andrew Dillon said a penalty larger than Collard’s eventual four-game ban “was not only warranted – it was necessary.” He stated they would not “accept, excuse or normalise behaviour or language that demeans, discriminates or vilifies people based on who they are.”
Dillon was also highly critical of the Appeals Board’s reasoning. He said, “The AFL specifically rejects the Appeals Board’s reasoning which stated, ‘it is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field’. 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.”
So there you go. If the AFL doesn’t like the language you use, it doesn’t matter if an independent Appeals Board identifies the punishment as “manifestly excessive”—the league will simply dismantle that board until they find one that falls in line. What happened to teaching our kids resilience—you know, “sticks and stones” and all that? It turns out that in modern Australia, words are so dangerous that not only must you be punished severely for using them, but anyone who even questions the logic of that punishment will lose their job.
It’s no longer about the words themselves; it’s about protecting the institution’s power to decide which syllables are allowed to exist and maintaining the league’s right to total control.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
