The AFL Disciplinary Tribunal has imposed a nine-week suspension on St Kilda forward Lance Collard after concluding he used a homophobic slur during a VFL game. The tribunal’s ruling followed a multi-day process in which witnesses and expert evidence were called, and the panel ultimately concluded the words spoken during the match met the threshold for conduct unbecoming. The penalty includes two weeks suspended to be activated across the 2026 and 2027 seasons, a detail highlighted by the tribunal as part of a calibrated sanction that balances punishment with an element of conditional reprieve.
The incident under scrutiny occurred during a VFL fixture on March 27, where a melee followed a forceful arm contact on Frankston’s Jackson Voss. Collard was separately sanctioned with a two-match ban for that high hit. The hearing extended across two days of deliberation, with evidence led from Frankston players who said they heard the slur and from Collard, who denied using it and maintained he said a word that rhymed with the alleged term. The tribunal chair, Jeff Gleeson KC, and the panel weighed competing accounts before upholding the charge.
Tribunal reasoning and the penalty imposed
The tribunal described the use of homophobic language as a serious breach and emphasised the need for general deterrence. The AFL had sought a 10-match suspension, citing the repeat nature of the conduct; Collard had previously been suspended for six matches in 2026 after a separate finding in which he admitted to using a homophobic slur and completed inclusion education. Given this history, the panel concluded a substantial suspension was warranted. The decision to include suspended weeks was presented as a way to impose a clear consequence while offering a path for future behaviour to influence the ultimate outcome.
What made this case notable
Aside from the sanction itself, the hearing was unusual in its adversarial character. It was one of the first high-profile instances where a charge of conduct unbecoming was actively contested by the accused rather than accepted, producing lengthy testimony and cross-examination of on-field witnesses. That adversarial element drew attention because it exposed witnesses to public scrutiny and raised questions about whether such processes might discourage reporting of discriminatory language in future. Nonetheless, the tribunal’s finding marks a clear application of the AFL’s rule set against abusive language.
Mitigation, character evidence and Collard’s background
St Kilda presented mitigation material highlighting Collard’s personal circumstances and community work. Club counsel argued that Collard, an Indigenous player, had overcome a difficult childhood, financially supports his grandmother and participates in First Nations and multicultural programs. The club also pointed to his prior participation in inclusion sessions and the role of mentor Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera in his life. Witnesses for the defence described Collard as engaged in Pride Cup training, and the tribunal acknowledged that background while ultimately finding the repetition of the same harmful language required a firm response.
Appeal avenues and next steps
Following the written finding, St Kilda said it would review the tribunal’s reasons and consider possible appeals, noting the process was ongoing with further submissions to be lodged on sanction. The AFL reiterated its position of having zero tolerance for homophobic language and pointed to the education all AFL and VFL players receive. The tribunal also urged Collard to resume the awareness training he previously undertook, positioning remedial education as a complementary measure to suspension.
Broader fallout: culture, prevention and reporting
The case has reignited debate about how best to address homophobia within football. Advocates argue that suspensions alone have limited effect unless accompanied by sustained investment in cultural change and preventative education across clubs and pathways. Critics warn that highly public tribunals that include intensive cross-examination of reporting players may unintentionally deter witnesses from coming forward, especially if they fear online scrutiny or personal repercussions. At the same time, the league faces pressure to demonstrate consistent enforcement to protect LGBTQIA+ participants and supporters.
As the sport digests the tribunal’s decision, the key questions remain: will sanctions plus education reduce recurrence, and can the AFL create environments where reporting discriminatory language feels safe and supported? The tribunal’s ruling is a clear disciplinary marker, but many stakeholders say deeper, systemic work will be needed to shift the attitudes and locker-room cultures that allow such language to persist.