LANCE Collard's nine-week suspension for using homophobic language has been decreased to four weeks - two of which have been suspended - at the AFL Appeal Board on Thursday evening.

The Board, comprised of Chair Will Houghton KC, former player Stephen Jurica, and Georgina Coghlan KC, however dismissed the St Kilda forward's appeal against the charge of conduct unbecoming, meaning the charge stands but Collard has received a different sanction.

In a hearing that ran just shy of two hours, the Board considered the original suspension to be "manifestly excessive" given Collard's young age, Indigenous heritage and difficult background, the fact the victim was not personally offended, the relative lesser seriousness compared to Collard's previous use of the slur, and the context of the game in which the incident occurred.

It considered the effect of such a ban could be "crippling" on his career.

Two weeks of the four-week ban will be suspended for the remainder of the 2026 and the 2027 VFL and AFL seasons, and the ban is to be served in addition to Collard's existing two-week ban for a high hit in the same game.

The Board found there was evidence before the original Tribunal that a large penalty would "finish [Collard] off as a player of professional football".

"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," the Board 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. However, that cannot be at the price of imposing what this board considers to be a crippling penalty on the appellant of this case."

While St Kilda's counsel Michael Borsky KC argued the original Tribunal had erred in accepting evidence from two Frankston players over Collard's evidence and that the use of homophobic language during a football game did not fall under the charge of conduct unbecoming, the Board rejected these claims and upheld the charge.

The Board found that there was plenty of acceptable evidence that the Tribunal used to be comfortably convinced Collard had said the offending phrase.

St Kilda said it was disappointed the charge was upheld but welcomed the reduction in sanction.

"Despite the reduction in sanction, St Kilda remains disappointed with how the matter was assessed and believes greater consistency and clarity in the AFL’s Tribunal process is important moving forward," the club said in a statement released on Thursday night.

"The club remains focused on supporting Lance throughout what has been a challenging period and asks for his privacy as he makes his return to play.

"We also acknowledge the impact this prolonged and public matter has had on members of the LGBTQIA+ and First Nations communities."

The AFL said it accepted the findings of the Board and considered the matter to be finalised.

"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/W and VFL/W players receive," it said in a statement.

Last week, Collard was banned for nine weeks - two of which were suspended - after he was found to have called opponent Darby Hipwell a "f****t" in a VFL game against Frankston in March.

He faced an extraordinary AFL Disciplinary Tribunal hearing on April 9, with the Tribunal's deliberations extending into the next day before he was found to have said the slur.

The sanction was then handed down after another hearing on April 14, with St Kilda electing to appeal the decision.

The incident in question occurred during the third quarter of the March 27 match amid a melee that resulted from Collard collecting Frankston’s Jackson Voss with a swinging arm.

Collard, who previously served a six-match suspension for saying a homophobic slur in 2024, maintained he had said "maggot" and has denied using the slur throughout the various stages of the Tribunal process.

Reasoning

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.