0 
0 Legendary former coach Mick Malthouse believes GWS skipper Toby Greene should have been cleared of his one-match ban for rough conduct at the AFL tribunal.
Greene’s suspension was upheld by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night after the Giants’ appeal fell flat.
As a result, Greene will sit out the clash with the Lions on Thursday evening.
READ MORE: The moment Slater tried to claim Knights rookie
READ MORE: Rival coach backs ‘outstanding person’ in legal fight
READ MORE: Coach’s bizarre claim after injured star fumes
Greene was suspended for making high contact with Carlton’s Jordan Boyd during the Blues’ 19-point victory at Marvel Stadium on Saturday afternoon.
He was charged with careless conduct of medium impact and high contact after leaping into the air in a marking contest, extending his leg and turning his body as Boyd jumped to contest the ball after running back with the flight.
The clash saw Greene’s shoulder make contact with Boyd’s head, though he was uninjured in the incident.
Malthouse argued Greene should have had his suspension thrown out, using Essendon forward Peter Wright as an example.
Last month, Wright received a contentious four-match suspension for his high hit on Sydney’s Harry Cunningham.
“Of course, he should have [got off]. Absolutely,” he told Nine’s Today.
”Peter Wright will also play today, he should have got off [too].
“If you’re going to attack the football, someone is going to come from the other way, and show courage [going back with the flight] and attack the football. [They say] they are the players at risk, well, they put themselves at risk.
“Toby Greene had every right to attack the football.
“Toby and Peter Wright are both stiff [calls].”
During the hearing, the AFL’s lawyer Andrew Woods argued the duty of care in this scenario was on Greene knowing Boyd was coming back with the flight and had the potential to have not sighted him.
The Giants representative, Anais d’Arville, countered this by declaring that charging Greene would go against “one of the great features of our game, the contested mark”.
“If the finding is Greene was unreasonable, that would have the consequence that Greene should’ve pulled out of this contest altogether,” he told the tribunal.
Malthouse shared a similar concern for the state of the game, insisting that acts of attacking the football must be preserved within in the rules.
”The league need to have a close look at this because we’re taking out a part of the essence of what our game is all about,” he said.
“Yep, show courage [going back with the flight], but you’ve still got to attack the football.”
