Club statement: Katie Brennan

[bornadog]

Link (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2018-03-23/club-statement-katie-brennan)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY7P80IVoAAjx4q.jpg

Three principles have been of paramount importance to Katie Brennan and the Western Bulldogs following the suspension of Katie by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night:

to fight the injustice and inequality to women which afflicts the AFL rules;
• to give the team the best possible chance of winning Saturday’s Grand final;
• to do her best to make herself available to assist on field with pursuing that success.
After the rejection of her appeal by the AFL Appeals Board on Thursday, Katie spent several hours with Club senior management discussing her options.

The AFL yesterday submitted to the Appeals Board that if Katie challenged the discriminatory nature of the AFLW rules, Katie should take that claim to an external court.


In preparation for this, Katie’s legal team served draft documents on the AFL for a Federal Court challenge to her suspension, and a separate challenge against the AFL to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

After lengthy consideration, Katie has decided that in the best interests of the team on Saturday it is best to resolve the matter by not seeking to pursue the Federal Court application.

She will not play in Saturday’s Grand Final but will instead strongly support the team tomorrow from the sidelines.

However, both she and the Club remain resolved to right the injustice and gender discrimination which is inherent to the current AFL Rules.

Accordingly, Katie has this morning filed proceedings with the Australian Human Rights Commission seeking to have her suspension overturned and for the AFL to amend the differences between the AFLW regulations and the AFL regulations to ensure that in future, other women players are not more likely to be suspended than men for identical conduct with identical disciplinary records.

To be clear, Katie is not seeking to play tomorrow. She wants her suspension overturned in time in the interests of justice, and the rules changed to make sure what happened to her does not happen to anyone else.

“I believe my tackle on Harriet Cordner was reasonable and I strongly disagree with the guilty finding,” Katie said.

“It is even more troubling to know that if I was a man playing in the AFL and was reported for the identical tackle, I would not have been suspended and I would be playing in a Grand final tomorrow.

“The fight for gender equality is as every bit as important to me as the Grand Final and the decisions I have made reflect both of those priorities.”

Club CEO Ameet Bains said: “We are immensely proud of Katie and stand by her. Our team will be doing its best to re-pay her faith in them tomorrow.

“We share Katie’s view that her suspension was wrong and we will fully support her challenging the AFL Rules on the basis of gender discrimination.”

[Mantis]

Given the rules were in place prior to the start of the season why didn't we challenge them then?

[westbulldog]

She and the Club are right to further challenge the decision, equality means the same rules for all, men and women. The AFL match review committee was a basket case of bewildering decisions last year and the trend has continued. Reminds me of Chris Grant being robbed of the Brownlow.

[Ghost Dog]

“I believe my tackle on Harriet Cordner was reasonable and I strongly disagree with the guilty finding,” Katie said.
Are AFL players allowed to come out swinging like that in the media against a tribunal decision?

I think some of the women's players are cherry picking the terms of their equality.

[bornadog]

Given the rules were in place prior to the start of the season why didn't we challenge them then?

Still doesn't mean the decision was correct.

[Mantis]

Still doesn't mean the decision was correct.

It doesn't, but if anyone bothered to read the rules when they were set they could've raised it with the powers that be and had them re-aligned.

I'm pretty embarrased by this course of action... they have a GF to win and that's where the focus needs to be.

[westdog54]

It doesn't, but if anyone bothered to read the rules when they were set they could've raised it with the powers that be and had them re-aligned.

I'm pretty embarrased by this course of action... they have a GF to win and that's where the focus needs to be.

Why is it embarrassing?

Why should we just roll over and say "Too bad, so sad"?

Why shouldn't this be challenged as far as it can go?

How do we know these concerns weren't raised privately with the AFL?

Why aren't the rest of the playing group capable of focusing on a Grand Final?

[bornadog]

The club was willing to go to Court but Katie agreed it wasn't worth it and will not play, however, she will lodge a formal sex discrimination complaint against the AFL with the Australian Human Rights Commission. The club will back her.

[Ghost Dog]

Why is it embarrassing?

Why should we just roll over and say "Too bad, so sad"?

Why shouldn't this be challenged as far as it can go?

How do we know these concerns weren't raised privately with the AFL?

Why aren't the rest of the playing group capable of focusing on a Grand Final?

By moaning about it publicly? So, from now on, every player who believes a wrong decision has been made in the AFWL during the season is going to have a press conference about it?
It's extremely childish and embarrassing. If you don't like the rules don't play the game, as Mantis says.

[Mantis]

Why is it embarrassing?

The club made an absolute balls up of the defence of this case at the tribunal and have been behind the 8-ball since.

This on the back of several other poorly handled matters has our public image extremely low which is a long way from where it was on Oct 1 2016.


Why should we just roll over and say "Too bad, so sad"?

Why shouldn't this be challenged as far as it can go?

Taking this to the Human Right's Commission seems a few steps too far for me... Whilst the rules probably need to be aligned more closely we are talking about a completely different competition here which already has several different rules .eg. ball size, number of players on the field, game time, last touch rule, etc... Do we change all of them too?


How do we know these concerns weren't raised privately with the AFL?

I'm sure we would've heard about it if it had.


Why aren't the rest of the playing group capable of focusing on a Grand Final?

They probably are... but all media focus has been on this case when we shoud be celebrating the fact we are in a GF.

[bornadog]

The club made an absolute balls up of the defence of this case at the tribunal and have been behind the 8-ball since. .

How do you know this? Don't tell me, you read it in the media.

The club argued what they went there to argue ie the charge was incorrect and the tackle was not a sling tackle.

The tribunal wouldn't have that, so they had to find a new tact.


It's extremely childish and embarrassing. If you don't like the rules don't play the game, as Mantis says.

is this a joke post, what is embarrassing??????

I am sure you can both agree, the penalty is extremely harsh for a tackle - 2 matches.

I am proud of the club for putting up a stance against these morons in their Ivory tower who refuse to budge on anything unless it suits them.

[Ghost Dog]

How do you know this? Don't tell me, you read it in the media.

The club argued what they went there to argue ie the charge was incorrect and the tackle was not a sling tackle.

The tribunal wouldn't have that, so they had to find a new tact.



is this a joke post, what is embarrassing??????

I am sure you can both agree, the penalty is extremely harsh for a tackle - 2 matches.

I am proud of the club for putting up a stance against these morons in their Ivory tower who refuse to budge on anything unless it suits them.

She's not protesting the ban. She's arguing against the difference between rules in men's comp and women's. Which is inherently different. The competition is just starting! What can we expect. There's going to be a lot of injuries and semi professionals. The league has to protect them. It's not like men's yet where you grow up playing the sport, getting your body adjusted to it. Anyway she's got priors hasn't she? Isn't that part of the decision?
I don't have to agree with everything the club says or does do I?

[bornadog]

She's not protesting the ban. She's arguing against the difference between rules in men's comp and women's. Which is inherently different.

Missing a Grand Final due to two reprimands both for tackles. I don't know about the first tackle but the 2nd one looked ok to me. It's the penalties that are being argued - in the mens, you get a fine of around $1000, the women's you lose a match, in this case 2 matches due to an appeal. It is a total mokery. Both games are AFL.


I don't have to agree with everything the club says or does do I? Or are we going back to the days of Chops....etc

No you don't have to agree with everything, but I asked you why is it childish and an embarrassment?

[westdog54]

The club made an absolute balls up of the defence of this case at the tribunal and have been behind the 8-ball since.

This on the back of several other poorly handled matters has our public image extremely low which is a long way from where it was on Oct 1 2016.



Taking this to the Human Right's Commission seems a few steps too far for me... Whilst the rules probably need to be aligned more closely we are talking about a completely different competition here which already has several different rules .eg. ball size, number of players on the field, game time, last touch rule, etc... Do we change all of them too?



I'm sure we would've heard about it if it had.



They probably are... but all media focus has been on this case when we shoud be celebrating the fact we are in a GF.

I'm glad you pointed this out, because it only supports what Katie and the club are doing.

The women's league has had to put up with enough 'compromises' simply to get a league started. Now they're being told that they're not going to be treated the same at the tribunal.

And the idea that we should say nothing because we're in a Grand Final is absurd.

As others have pointed out elsewhere, Andrew Dunkley and Barry Hall played in grand finals because they went to court to challenge tribunal suspensions. Katie is doing less than that, and yet she's still the bad guy. The criticism levelled at her has hovered between comical and bloody minded all week.

Katie and the club both have my backing.


By moaning about it publicly? So, from now on, every player who believes a wrong decision has been made in the AFWL during the season is going to have a press conference about it?
It's extremely childish and embarrassing. If you don't like the rules don't play the game, as Mantis says.

So just to be clear, the women should put up with a different set of rules and simply be grateful for the opportunity to play?

And yes, I am putting words in your mouth and I make no apology for it.

[Ghost Dog]

Isn't it true that AFL players are not permitted to be critical of umpiring decisions and tribunal decisions in the media? Or are umpiring decisions and tribunal decisions allowed to be openly refuted by individual players in the media with AFWL?

Example; in AFL, if player x gets done for a tackle, and will therefore miss a grand final, comes out and say he disagrees with the decision at a press conference before the final, well, AFL house would have none of it. Is this just a precedent for AFWL? By the way the defence argued she should not miss the final because Bob Murphy missed a final too. What, are we still trying to be, the club people feel sorry for?

I was taught in sport you respect the official and get on with the game. 'Fight injustice' can also look a bit like spitting the dummy.

[Ghost Dog]

I'm glad you pointed this out, because it only supports what Katie and the club are doing.

The women's league has had to put up with enough 'compromises' simply to get a league started. Now they're being told that they're not going to be treated the same at the tribunal.

And the idea that we should say nothing because we're in a Grand Final is absurd.

As others have pointed out elsewhere, Andrew Dunkley and Barry Hall played in grand finals because they went to court to challenge tribunal suspensions. Katie is doing less than that, and yet she's still the bad guy. The criticism levelled at her has hovered between comical and bloody minded all week.

Katie and the club both have my backing.



So just to be clear, the women should put up with a different set of rules and simply be grateful for the opportunity to play?

And yes, I am putting words in your mouth and I make no apology for it.

It takes time to set up a competition and umpires and officials deserve a bit of respect too, otherwise we cannot get young umpires and officials. Yes, hopefully over time women play football from a young age, are paid the same or as close as possible and have the same opportunities, but it takes time. They cannot kick as far, have not had the chance to condition their bodies as much, so the league is trying to develop a game to suit the woman. Would you like to have exactly the same rules for AFLW at this point? Have you taken note of the extremely high number of serious knee issues in the AFLW of late?

[AndrewP6]

I'm fully behind her taking this further. Stuff the officials, when they are so very clearly incompetent, I'm all for it being made public. If it was 50-50, sure, cop it on the chin. This was clearly and obviously wrong. Very wrong.

[LostDoggy]

I think we are a better side without her. Considering the rain that is forecast a smaller forward line is a better choice for the day. The skills of aflw rightly or wrongly isn't at a professional level yet so the ball will be on the ground most of the game so get the mosquito fleet in there and get the scrappy goals and win it. It could be a blessing in disguise

[Flamethrower]

This is no longer about Katie Brennan. It is about holding the AFL to account for having disciplinary rules that discriminate based on gender, so that next time an AFLW player is reprimanded twice in one season they receive a punishment that is consistent with their male brethren.

[Eastdog]

Consistency is vital in regards to the MRP.

[Twodogs]

It looks like a textbook case of discrimination based on gender. Katie is right to take it to the Human Rights Commission.

[westdog54]

It takes time to set up a competition and umpires and officials deserve a bit of respect too, otherwise we cannot get young umpires and officials. Yes, hopefully over time women play football from a young age, are paid the same or as close as possible and have the same opportunities, but it takes time. They cannot kick as far, have not had the chance to condition their bodies as much, so the league is trying to develop a game to suit the woman. Would you like to have exactly the same rules for AFLW at this point? Have you taken note of the extremely high number of serious knee issues in the AFLW of late?

So until the league is more professional, the men can get away with more than the women and you're fine with that?

[SonofScray]

“I believe my tackle on Harriet Cordner was reasonable and I strongly disagree with the guilty finding,” Katie said.
Are AFL players allowed to come out swinging like that in the media against a tribunal decision?

I think some of the women's players are cherry picking the terms of their equality.
Good on her, it was a crap decision and she doesn't have to accept it all. Just the outcome. Which she has. Wish more people called it out.

[soupman]

This is no longer about Katie Brennan. It is about holding the AFL to account for having disciplinary rules that discriminate based on gender, so that next time an AFLW player is reprimanded twice in one season they receive a punishment that is consistent with their male brethren.

I have posted my thoughts on the reprimand system elsewhere but I don't see why giving the girls just 2 chances vs 3 in the mens i s discriminatory when they play 7 game and 22 game seasons respectively. At the rate Brennan has collected reprimands she would have been rubbed out twice in the mens comp, and that's not even taking into account she has actually missed most of the AFLW season.

[westdog54]

“I believe my tackle on Harriet Cordner was reasonable and I strongly disagree with the guilty finding,” Katie said.
Are AFL players allowed to come out swinging like that in the media against a tribunal decision?

I think some of the women's players are cherry picking the terms of their equality.

What are they going to do? Fine her? Suspend her twice?

[Twodogs]

What are they going to do? Fine her? Suspend her twice?


Whatever the punishment is you can bet it won't be the same as a bloke would have got.

[Sedat]

It looks like a textbook case of discrimination based on gender. Katie is right to take it to the Human Rights Commission.
I'm not disagreeing with this but playing devil's advocate, what if a male tennis player lodged the same complaint because he has to play best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets for the same prize money as women?

Our hardline stance has only been taken because we failed miserably in our first tribunal hearing. A more pathetic, inept performance I haven't seen, and as others have pointed out we have a long list of poorly handled off-field issues the last couple of years

I don't mind our hardline stance with the media but we must acknowledge that we've been the architects of our own issues more often than not. And frankly we need to lift our off-field game significantly, from the top down.

[Twodogs]

I'm not disagreeing with this but playing devil's advocate, what if a male tennis player lodged the same complaint because he has to play best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets for the same prize money as women?

Our hardline stance has only been taken because we failed miserably in our first tribunal hearing. A more pathetic, inept performance I haven't seen, and as others have pointed out we have a long list of poorly handled off-field issues the last couple of years

I don't mind our hardline stance with the media but we must acknowledge that we've been the architects of our own issues more often than not. And frankly we need to lift our off-field game significantly, from the top down.


Mate. Don't get me started on the differences in male and female tennis!;) And I don't even like tennis.

Yeah, we haven't been in great form with our decision making for a while. We have made some very odd choices.

[The Adelaide Connection]

The unfortunate biproduct of this whole sorry saga is that while we should be talking about the GF we are having to talk about discrimination.

That is not Katie Brennan’s fault. Bornadog, Westdog and others have pointed out that the systems/procedures in place are flawed and discriminatory. That a group of people intrusted to take care of the women’s game have really dropped the ball is desperately disappointing. It is a depressing reminder that things still have a long way to go.

The worst part is the misogyny in the AFL community, which has only occasionally reared its head, was only hidden and has floated aggressively to the surface in the past week.

Maybe this is the incident we had to have. Maybe this will be the incident that rattles the cages that need to be rattled and forces them to have the conversations that be need to had. Oh, and they change the idiotic mrp rules.

[Sedat]

The unfortunate biproduct of this whole sorry saga is that while we should be talking about the GF we are having to talk about discrimination.

That is not Katie Brennan’s fault. Bornadog, Westdog and others have pointed out that the systems/procedures in place are flawed and discriminatory. That a group of people intrusted to take care of the women’s game have really dropped the ball is desperately disappointing. It is a depressing reminder that things still have a long way to go.

The worst part is the misogyny in the AFL community, which has only occasionally reared its head, was only hidden and has floated aggressively to the surface in the past week.

Maybe this is the incident we had to have. Maybe this will be the incident that rattles the cages that need to be rattled and forces them to have the conversations that need to had. Oh, and they change the idiotic mrp rules.
Terrific summation, but if we're being honest none of this would have happened had we been remotely competent in the basic task of defending Katie on Tuesday night. What we presented to the tribunal that evening rightfully made us a laughing stock, and should have resulted in the sacking of any key personnel who signed off on such a shambolic defence strategy.

[westdog54]

I'm not disagreeing with this but playing devil's advocate, what if a male tennis player lodged the same complaint because he has to play best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets for the same prize money as women?

Our hardline stance has only been taken because we failed miserably in our first tribunal hearing. A more pathetic, inept performance I haven't seen, and as others have pointed out we have a long list of poorly handled off-field issues the last couple of years

I don't mind our hardline stance with the media but we must acknowledge that we've been the architects of our own issues more often than not. And frankly we need to lift our off-field game significantly, from the top down.

The men play 5 sets for four tournaments a year, plus Davis cup. Quite frankly I'm sick of it being as big an issue as it is.

If the men have an issue then they can have their press conferences at Grand Slams run for 40% longer than the women's.

[Bulldog4life]

I'm not disagreeing with this but playing devil's advocate, what if a male tennis player lodged the same complaint because he has to play best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets for the same prize money as women?

Our hardline stance has only been taken because we failed miserably in our first tribunal hearing. A more pathetic, inept performance I haven't seen, and as others have pointed out we have a long list of poorly handled off-field issues the last couple of years

I don't mind our hardline stance with the media but we must acknowledge that we've been the architects of our own issues more often than not. And frankly we need to lift our off-field game significantly, from the top down.

You were there Sedat? Or is it just what you read in the HUN? I take believing what I read in the HUN with a very small grain of salt.

[Sedat]

You were there Sedat? Or is it just what you read in the HUN? I take believing what I read in the HUN with a very small grain of salt.
Reporting on tribunal hearings are not opinion pieces. And all media reports on what took place on Tuesday night reflect very poorly on us - quite simply we let Katie down horribly.

[bornadog]

What are they going to do? Fine her? Suspend her twice?

If she wins, she over turns her suspension, so at least she doesn't miss game one or have a record.



I'm not disagreeing with this but playing devil's advocate, what if a male tennis player lodged the same complaint because he has to play best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets for the same prize money as women?

Really bad example, sorry I don't get this? We are talking about punishment for a report and if Katie was a man she would be fined, simple as that.


Reporting on tribunal hearings are not opinion pieces. And all media reports on what took place on Tuesday night reflect very poorly on us - quite simply we let Katie down horribly.


You were there Sedat? Or is it just what you read in the HUN? I take believing what I read in the HUN with a very small grain of salt.

What else could we have done better on Tuesday? We could only argue the charge of rough conduct, but the tribunal and the MRP had made up their minds. B4L is correct about right wing papers like the HUN

I followed the media right through both hearings and some of the media reports were ridiclous. Have a look at some comments from Sam Mclure.

As I said before, I am proud the club is taking this all the way.

[Greystache]

The men play 5 sets for four tournaments a year, plus Davis cup. Quite frankly I'm sick of it being as big an issue as it is.

If the men have an issue then they can have their press conferences at Grand Slams run for 40% longer than the women's.

That is just a bizarre statement. You're outraged when you see something that's discriminatory against women, but tell everyone to get over it when something is discriminatory against men.

The grand slams are the only 4 tournaments a year when men and women earn the same. That's because they're the only tournaments when the men and women play the same tournament. The men's draw actually funds the women's draw, and the women's draw loses money. Not only do the women work for less than half the hours the men do, there's far less time for advertising, the price of the ads sold during women's matches is lower, ratings are lower, ticket sales are driven by who the male players are on the same card, and the revenue generated from it doesn't cover it's costs. Yet they still get paid the same, and people should just get over it because well just coz?

I don't have any problem with the threshold for suspension being lower for AFLW than AFL given the men play more than 3 times the number of matches and the opportunities for a minor incident to occur is greatly increased. If AFLW players needed to be sighted 3 times before receiving a suspension then effectively they could get reported every second game before missing the last game of the season. That would be obscene. I don't think the incident with Brennan was worth a penalty, but that argument was lost with our inept defence, the gender discrimination argument is rubbish given it's not like for like scenario.

[bornadog]

I don't think the incident with Brennan was worth a penalty, but that argument was lost with our inept defence, the gender discrimination argument is rubbish given it's not like for like scenario.

Well we will see what the Human Rights Commission think, as not many of us on this board are lawyers.

[hujsh]

That is just a bizarre statement. You're outraged when you see something that's discriminatory against women, but tell everyone to get over it when something is discriminatory against men.


If it were technically discrimination. According to the Human Rights Commission


Discrimination is treating, or proposing to treat, someone unfavourably because of a personal characteristic protected by the law.

Seeing that the women get as much as men doesn't really count as discrimination.

[Greystache]

Well we will see what the Human Rights Commission think, as not many of us on this board are lawyers.

The AHRC can find whatever they like, they have appalling form at being anything resembling neutral. I would be staggered if they didn't find in favour of a gay high profile woman taking on a bunch of white blokes in suits. The details of the case will probably be irrelevant. I don't take the AFL's side on anything, but they'll lose a case when they're not in the wrong.

[Greystache]

If it were technically discrimination. According to the Human Rights Commission[I]



Seeing that the women get as much as men doesn't really count as discrimination.

The conditions forced upon the men to earn the same money as women are far more arduous, based purely on sex. That's the definition of discrimination.

[hujsh]

The conditions forced upon the men to earn the same money as women are far more arduous, based purely on sex. That's the definition of discrimination.

But they aren't put out or worse off. They're entirely unaffected. It just means the best man and best woman get the same reward. The time on court may be different but surely they both put in plenty of hours and effort outside of that.

[Greystache]

But they aren't put out or worse off. They're entirely unaffected. It just means the best man and best woman get the same reward. The time on court may be different but surely they both put in plenty of hours and effort outside of that.

Yes they are. The men have to work on average twice the hours the women do to earn the same wage. The wear and tear on their bodies and the cost of that on their longer term career and earning potential is significant. If the male players only had to meet the conditions of the women players they would be able to earn significantly more money during their careers by extending them. Their careers are impacted by the conditions placed on them purely for being men. It's discrimination whether you justify it or not.

Players don't get paid to train, they do it because it increases their chances of success in their work place (being on court), it's the same as people choosing to go to university or doing further professional development outside of their day job to increase their chances of success in their profession. No one gets paid for those hours, they do it because they think the pay off will come in time.

[Sedat]

That is just a bizarre statement. You're outraged when you see something that's discriminatory against women, but tell everyone to get over it when something is discriminatory against men.

The grand slams are the only 4 tournaments a year when men and women earn the same. That's because they're the only tournaments when the men and women play the same tournament. The men's draw actually funds the women's draw, and the women's draw loses money. Not only do the women work for less than half the hours the men do, there's far less time for advertising, the price of the ads sold during women's matches is lower, ratings are lower, ticket sales are driven by who the male players are on the same card, and the revenue generated from it doesn't cover it's costs. Yet they still get paid the same, and people should just get over it because well just coz?

I don't have any problem with the threshold for suspension being lower for AFLW than AFL given the men play more than 3 times the number of matches and the opportunities for a minor incident to occur is greatly increased. If AFLW players needed to be sighted 3 times before receiving a suspension then effectively they could get reported every second game before missing the last game of the season. That would be obscene. I don't think the incident with Brennan was worth a penalty, but that argument was lost with our inept defence, the gender discrimination argument is rubbish given it's not like for like scenario.
Thank you for understanding the context of my tennis analogy. I thought it was pretty clear what the analogy was trying to outline but the waters were muddied somewhat. The decision by Katie to fight this in the HRC is her right to do so, and I absolutely see merit in her stance. I'm just pointing out other examples of potential sex discrimination that could be mounted in other sports but haven't been.

For such a fundamentally important issue as equality, why wasn't anything raised prior? This issue has been part of the AFLW rules for 2 seasons now, and yet it has only been raised as a sex discrimination case now, after a shambolic failed tribunal hearing by us.

The rules may well need to be re-written in relation to this issue. But I'm not applauding the performance of our senior management if indeed a change of rules is the end result. And I'm certainly not proud of the amateur way we handled Katie's initial defence case against what was a borderline and very beatable MRP finding. I expect much, much better from our senior management.

[boydogs]

if Katie was a man she would be fined, simple as that.

Why do you think the rules are different?

The AFL have something against women? Maybe, but not sure why they would
The Women earn less, and therefore are less able to meet the fines? Possibly
Someone different wrote the rules for the two leagues? Quite likely
The season is shorter, and therefore multiple reprimands in the one season is more serious? Yeah maybe

Another reason I think is quite believable - the AFL want the women's game to be cleaner, to promote the game to women and not have them fearing getting hurt. Is that discrimination against women? Maybe it's discrimination against men, that they are more exposed to dangerous tackles given the lesser punishment for offenders

I wasn't allowed to play footy as a kid because my Mum was too worried about me getting hurt. If the game were as sanitised as it is today, things may have been different

[hujsh]

Yes they are. The men have to work on average twice the hours the women do to earn the same wage. The wear and tear on their bodies and the cost of that on their longer term career and earning potential is significant. If the male players only had to meet the conditions of the women players they would be able to earn significantly more money during their careers by extending them. Their careers are impacted by the conditions placed on them purely for being men. It's discrimination whether you justify it or not.

Players don't get paid to train, they do it because it increases their chances of success in their work place (being on court), it's the same as people choosing to go to university or doing further professional development outside of their day job to increase their chances of success in their profession. No one gets paid for those hours, they do it because they think the pay off will come in time.

But they always played longer matches so they haven't lost anything. Training's also not optional in a sporting field. Sure, they aren't directly paid for it like an AFL player is but I don't think it lines up quite right with Uni or training courses and the like.

If anything I'm coming around to the idea that men's tennis should be 3 sets though. My assumption has been that the actual physical strain and stress is roughly the same for the men in 5 sets as the women in 3. Hence why women's tennis going to 5 sets hasn't been practical. If that's wrong I'd be happy to see the evidence otherwise.

[bornadog]

Why do you think the rules are different?

The AFL have something against women? Maybe, but not sure why they would
The Women earn less, and therefore are less able to meet the fines?

The AFL make up rules without thinking of the long term consequences. No body in AFL House would have thought a player would be suspended for two matches due to rough tackles and one of the matches would be a GF. They should have thought out the rule before they implemented it.

I will tell you one thing the women go in hard and hit hard.

[Ghost Dog]

The unfortunate biproduct of this whole sorry saga is that while we should be talking about the GF we are having to talk about discrimination.

That is not Katie Brennan’s fault. Bornadog, Westdog and others have pointed out that the systems/procedures in place are flawed and discriminatory. That a group of people intrusted to take care of the women’s game have really dropped the ball is desperately disappointing. It is a depressing reminder that things still have a long way to go.

The worst part is the misogyny in the AFL community, which has only occasionally reared its head, was only hidden and has floated aggressively to the surface in the past week.

Maybe this is the incident we had to have. Maybe this will be the incident that rattles the cages that need to be rattled and forces them to have the conversations that be need to had. Oh, and they change the idiotic mrp rules.

This response from Soupaman put it well.

I have posted my thoughts on the reprimand system elsewhere but I don't see why giving the girls just 2 chances vs 3 in the mens i s discriminatory when they play 7 game and 22 game seasons respectively. At the rate Brennan has collected reprimands she would have been rubbed out twice in the mens comp, and that's not even taking into account she has actually missed most of the AFLW season.

One comp plays triple the game time, so how is it sexist to apply different rules to the tribunal system?
And why are female players allowed to slam game officials in the media when the decision doesn't go their way, while men are not?
Brennan is not right to attack the AFL openly in the media. It looks shrill and insecure, not respecting the spirit of the game and the rules of the comp she signed up to. As others have said, if the rules were in debate why not argue for their modification for all players, at the start of the year?

[bornadog]

One comp plays triple the game time, so how is it sexist to apply different rules to the tribunal system?
And why are female players allowed to slam game officials in the media when the decision doesn't go their way, while men are not?

Which female players slammed the officials?

It is sexist, because men and women of the same organisation are treated differently. They may be playing slightly different games, but they both work for AFL