The AFL appears to be at war with itself, with CEO Andrew Dillon taking a dim view of the Appeals Board decision to significantly reduce Lance Collard’s suspension for a homophobic slur.

St Kilda successfully argued on Thursday that the initial nine-week ruling was “manifestly excessive” with the Appeals Board noting his indigenous background and difficult upbringing, saying the sanction would be crippling to his AFL career.

Collard’s suspension was reduced to four weeks, with two of them suspended, which could see the Saints forward return in a fortnight’s time.

While the league will not challenge the ruling, Dillon hit out strongly saying a harsher penalty was warranted.

“That suspension reflected the seriousness of using a homophobic slur on the field and was intended to set a clear standard for our game, particularly given it was a second offence,” he said in a statement.

“The Appeals Board last night imposed a four-week suspension, with two matches suspended until the end of next year. In the AFL’s view, stronger action was not only warranted - it was necessary.

“Let’s be clear: homophobia has no place in Australian football. Not at any level. Not under any circumstances.”

Dillon specifically rejected the Appeals Board claim that players can “employ language from time to time that is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field” as part of their reasoning for the reduced sentence.

”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,” he said.

“Let’s be clear: homophobia has no place in Australian football. Not at any level. Not under any circumstances.

“We will not accept, excuse or normalise behaviour and language that demeans, discriminates or vilifies people based on who they are.

“We acknowledge there are always broader considerations in these matters, and they must be handled with care. But they do not override the responsibility everyone has to meet the standards of the game.

“Respect and inclusion are not optional in our game - they are fundamental.”

Dillon said the league had communicated its concerns with the Appeals Board.

The AFL Players’ Association also said it was “deeply concerned” in the language used in the ruling.

“The AFLPA does not accept the suggestion that vilification is ‘commonplace’ on the field between players. No matter how hard or competitive the game is, there is no excuse for racist, sexist, or homophobic language and this language is hurtful to communities beyond the individual it is directed at,” CEO James Gallagher said.

“Every step of this process has caused more harm to the LGBTQIA+ community, the First Nations community, and the individuals at the centre of this issue and that is something the industry must deeply reflect on. We have a shared responsibility to develop an approach that is fair, minimises and remedies the harms caused, and shifts behaviour.

“Football is for everyone and all players and the AFLPA remain committed to playing our part in building a culture where everyone is valued, respected, and safe.”

The Sydney Swans’ LGBTQIA+ supporter group, The Rainbow Swans, have also requested a meeting with St Kilda and the AFL ahead of the planned Pride Game between the Saints and Swans on June 7.

“To state that ‘it is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic while on the field’ is hurtful to many in our community and not congruent with the work many people have done within the AFL industry,” chair Sarina Jackson wrote in a statement.

“This is about recognising that repeat behaviour requires stronger responses. Accountability is a necessary part of change.

“LGBTQIA+ people belong in sport — as athletes, coaches, administrators, and fans. We deserve to participate without fear of being targeted, dismissed, or treated as an afterthought.”

League bosses haven’t been the only ones left bewildered by the Board’s ruling, with Channel 7’s Kate McCarthy in shock after she read the appeal board’s statement.

“I am genuinely speechless that this is in print ... Absolutely baffled,” she said on social media, while highlighting the offending words “the fact the victim was was not personally offended”.

“It gets worse,” she added, sharing a screenshot of the statement.

Veteran AFL journalist Gerard Whateley said the ruling was a ‘gross overreach’ by the panel.

“To dismiss the appeal but then reduce the sentence from seven to two … still guilty, but two weeks? That doesn’t line up with anything that the AFL has done,” he said on SEN.

“This feels outside the remit of the Appeal Board, frankly, in the way it has operated traditionally. That’s a very odd verdict - it’s been an incredibly difficult space, and I haven’t envied anyone’s involvement in it from beginning to end, but that is incredibly unsatisfactory.”