Tribunal / suspensions 2024

[ledge]

First up Port Adelaide?s Powell Pepper 4 weeks.
I think that?s about right.

[ReLoad]

First up Port Adelaide?s Powell Pepper 4 weeks.
I think that?s about right.

depends, when do we play them?

[GVGjr]

depends, when do we play them?

Apparently he's back the week before they play Adelaide.

[azabob]

Apparently he's back the week before they play Adelaide.

Who said the AFEEEL do not have a sense of humour?

[Grantysghost]

First up Port Adelaide?s Powell Pepper 4 weeks.
I think that?s about right.

Except the tackler slung him into SPP which I find a little hard to work out.

For reference : https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/port-adelaide-power/afl-2024-port-adelaides-sam-powellpepper-tribunal-live-blog-updates-suspension-news-video-of-hit-on-adelaides-mark-keane/news-story/6a292f8a1fc478add97c09e6ca9fec27

[Axe Man]

Except the tackler slung him into SPP which I find a little hard to work out.

I do get that but what was SPP hoping to achieve if his teammate didn't spin the Crows player, knocking his teammate out? He wasn't there to tackle. 4 weeks for being a moron.

[Grantysghost]

I do get that but what was SPP hoping to achieve if his teammate didn't spin the Crows player, knocking his teammate out? He wasn't there to tackle. 4 weeks for being a moron.

I think he just went into the contest and when he realised the guy was hurtling towards him kind of braced and moved forward.

I think he was careless for sure. Four weeks seems pretty harsh.

He's pretty flat footed here :

https://i.postimg.cc/DZ0CywFw/2024-02-28-16-59-13-AFL-2024-Port-Adelaide-s-Sam-Powell-Pepper-Tribunal-blog-result-how-many-weeks.png (https://postimages.org/)

[ledge]

Except the tackler slung him into SPP which I find a little hard to work out.

For reference : https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/port-adelaide-power/afl-2024-port-adelaides-sam-powellpepper-tribunal-live-blog-updates-suspension-news-video-of-hit-on-adelaides-mark-keane/news-story/6a292f8a1fc478add97c09e6ca9fec27

He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Also he went shoulder first with head tucked in. Definitely went the man not the ball.
You do that and hit the head your a goner.
Reporter invented a new word too, scrutanty. :-)

[Grantysghost]

He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Also he went shoulder first with head tucked in. Definitely went the man not the ball.
You do that and hit the head your a goner.
Reporter invented a new word too, scrutanty. :-)

Ha like that one!

What does it mean ledge?

[ledge]

Ha like that one!

What does it mean ledge?

I presume it’s scrutiny the Sth Australian version.

[bornadog]

How many weeks for this hit? Give him 6 weeks and send a message

https://twitter.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1764136022688809471

[Grantysghost]

How many weeks for this hit? Give him 6 weeks and send a message

https://twitter.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1764136022688809471

About right. 4 too little. 8 too much.

[GVGjr]

How many weeks for this hit? Give him 6 weeks and send a message

https://twitter.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1764136022688809471

I don't think there is any doubt that he intentionally made head high contact rather than trying to tackle or smother the football. The player was the target not the footy. He's in a bit of strife. 6 weeks and perhaps 6 weeks plus.

[ledge]

He lined him up shoulder first and jumped into him.
6 minimum.

[Grantysghost]

He lined him up shoulder first and jumped into him.
6 minimum.
Something about shitful Moorabin brings out the worst in players.

[chef]

8 for me. Cowardly stuff

[EasternWest]

8 for me. Cowardly stuff

Yo WTF he knew exactly what he was doing.

Rub this dude out and send a serious message. That kind of thing can end careers.

[jeemak]

The arsehole should have been savagely introduced to the fence after that. Absolute wanker stuff and he should get three months.

I mean, what does the AFL stand for? The apologist blokey nature of the commentariat will be out in force tomorrow attempting to mitigate what was an act of calculated violence intended to maim an opponent. They'll say he needs to go for a long time, but stop short of actually suggesting an appropriately long ban. Simpkin now has a career at risk, what's a reasonable price to pay for that?

Last year Pickett copped two for his hit on Bailey Smith, only because the latter was fortunately able to walk away from the contest. But if you review that incident versus the Webster and Simpkin one from today, they're extremely similar. Pickett should have copped many more weeks, and that may have acted as a signal the league was serious about penalising dangerous intent and not just outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPqjWoqghAM

If you penalise intent, you immediately clean up the mess. Webster will be sidelined mainly because of the outcome of his actions, and that to me is missing the point if you really want to protect the head. Bad outcomes are important and need to factor into penalties, but they're a lag indicator of an action that due to their relative infrequency don't do enough to change behaviour.

[jazzadogs]

Intent is interesting because the only time they seemed to consider intent over outcome last year was when they decided that Maynard did not INTEND to cause the outcome of Brayshaw being knocked out.

[jeemak]

Intent is interesting because the only time they seemed to consider intent over outcome last year was when they decided that Maynard did not INTEND to cause the outcome of Brayshaw being knocked out.

And that's where the apologist bullshit comes into play. Maynard's intent was to impact high with force. As soon as he balled up on drove his shoulder downwards it should have been weeks. Doing that was physically more difficult than lowering his arms and using them to limit contact and protect himself from danger.

A simple way of looking at the Maynard incident would be what would he have done if he was on a set of skis or roller skates out of control, waving his arms around and about to hit a tree. Would he have balled up in that situation or would he have put his hands out to limit the damage to himself? The answer is obviously the latter but he wasn't heading towards a tree, he was heading towards a prone and vulnerable opponent and decided to maim him.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The arsehole should have been savagely introduced to the fence after that. Absolute wanker stuff and he should get three months.

I mean, what does the AFL stand for? The apologist blokey nature of the commentariat will be out in force tomorrow attempting to mitigate what was an act of calculated violence intended to maim an opponent. They'll say he needs to go for a long time, but stop short of actually suggesting an appropriately long ban. Simpkin now has a career at risk, what's a reasonable price to pay for that?

Last year Pickett copped two for his hit on Bailey Smith, only because the latter was fortunately able to walk away from the contest. But if you review that incident versus the Webster and Simpkin one from today, they're extremely similar. Pickett should have copped many more weeks, and that may have acted as a signal the league was serious about penalising dangerous intent and not just outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPqjWoqghAM

If you penalise intent, you immediately clean up the mess. Webster will be sidelined mainly because of the outcome of his actions, and that to me is missing the point if you really want to protect the head. Bad outcomes are important and need to factor into penalties, but they're a lag indicator of an action that due to their relative infrequency don't do enough to change behaviour.

Did you hear Bernie Vince on the Powel Pepper hit? Said it was out of character from him and he's a good bloke. Thought 4 weeks was a bit harsh. Absolute wanker.

The Pickett one I said was negligent at the time. This hit reminded me of his on Bailey. And the AFL will wonder why these hits still happen. Absolute negligent amateur league.

[jeemak]

Did you hear Bernie Vince on the Powel Pepper hit? Said it was out of character from him and he's a good bloke. Thought 4 weeks was a bit harsh. Absolute wanker.

The Pickett one I said was negligent at the time. This hit reminded me of his on Bailey. And the AFL will wonder why these hits still happen. Absolute negligent amateur league.

This is the BS that I hate. Everyone's a good bloke of upstanding character until they're not, and if there's direct evidence of them taking an opportunity for a cheap one then that should be enough to at least make people suspicious of their original good bloke assessment, and leave it out of the conversation.

Negligence is a funny word - failure to take proper care over something. Without the myriad training sessions, AFL warnings, general decency or whatever you could make the excuse that ignorance leads to a negligent act on the field of play. But every player is equipped with all of the elements that should take ignorance out of the equation as a mitigating factor for negligent acts committed. Meaning there's no excuse for negligence and the definition should be considered more harshly.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

This is the BS that I hate. Everyone's a good bloke of upstanding character until they're not, and if there's direct evidence of them taking an opportunity for a cheap one then that should be enough to at least make people suspicious of their original good bloke assessment, and leave it out of the conversation.

Negligence is a funny word - failure to take proper care over something. Without the myriad training sessions, AFL warnings, general decency or whatever you could make the excuse that ignorance leads to a negligent act on the field of play. But every player is equipped with all of the elements that should take ignorance out of the equation as a mitigating factor for negligent acts committed. Meaning there's no excuse for negligence and the definition should be considered more harshly.

SPP always plays on the edge. His bump certainly wasn't out of character but agree with what you're saying.

I think reckless or malicious or stupid or dangerous may be more appropriate words for the Pickett and Webster bumps.

[GVGjr]

Kingy has come out with a suggestion that Webster should get 10 weeks.
Could it be that high?

[bornadog]

Kingy has come out with a suggestion that Webster should get 10 weeks.
Could it be that high?

I still think he will get 6

[divvydan]

I really don't know what he'll get.
4 weeks seems the absolute minimum possible and inline with other bumps in recent history.
I think everyone believes this action warrants more than that but how many more weeks can you add unless you deem it intentional, which is almost never the case with bumps.

Personally, I'd like to see it be ruled intentional and Webster given 8 weeks. I think 5 weeks is more likely since they'll want to go above the usual 4 but will be limited by ruling it as careless.

[ledge]

I really don't know what he'll get.
4 weeks seems the absolute minimum possible and inline with other bumps in recent history.
I think everyone believes this action warrants more than that but how many more weeks can you add unless you deem it intentional, which is almost never the case with bumps.

Personally, I'd like to see it be ruled intentional and Webster given 8 weeks. I think 5 weeks is more likely since they'll want to go above the usual 4 but will be limited by ruling it as careless.

To be honest if that wasn’t deliberate and intentional neither was the JFK assasination.

[divvydan]

The Match Review Officer (MRO) graded the incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, leaving Webster facing a ban of three-plus matches.

As expected, graded careless.

[angelopetraglia]

Kingy has come out with a suggestion that Webster should get 10 weeks.
Could it be that high?

I would be happy with 10. But think he will get around 6. The game can't stand for that type of conduct anymore. Especially in the light of all these concussion issues. It was completely avoidable, it was late, it was high and it was exteme impact. Send a message to the football world that they take these issues seriously.

[angelopetraglia]

The Match Review Officer (MRO) graded the incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, leaving Webster facing a ban of three-plus matches.

As expected, graded careless.

I don't think it was careless. It was intentional. He lined him up with and old fashioned hip and shoulder, something you would have seen in the 70s and 80s.

[EasternWest]

To be honest if that wasn’t deliberate and intentional neither was the JFK assasination.

Simpkin's head definitely went back and to the left.

[Grantysghost]

Simpkin's head definitely went back and to the left.
That was one magic loogie.

[mighty_west]

it was absolutely intentional, in slow mo, normal speed or fast speed, he had no other intention other than going in with the shoulder bump, for the tribunal to classify it as careless is a cop out, just wrong.

At a minimum 6 weeks, if they wanted to set an example go the 8.

[angelopetraglia]

Off topic. But the Rest is History podcast series on JFK was sensational for anyone with a remote interest in JFK.

[Grantysghost]

Off topic. But the Rest is History podcast series on JFK was sensational for anyone with a remote interest in JFK.
The back brace!

[jeemak]

How the **** is that not considered intentional?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Simpkin's head definitely went back and to the left.

That rules out Webster then. There must have been a second bumper.....

[bulldogsthru&thru]

That was one magic loogie.

The defence has heard Simpkin muttered "Nice game pretty boy." just prior to the bump.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Can careless not also be intentional at the same time?? This is a joke.....

[angelopetraglia]

The back brace!

So many things I didn?t know about his back story, life and the assassination and I visited the JFK museum in Dallas just prior to COVID.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Off topic. But the Rest is History podcast series on JFK was sensational for anyone with a remote interest in JFK.

I've never listened to that one but Rest of History do excellent podcasts.

[Grantysghost]

The defence has heard Simpkin muttered "Nice game pretty boy." just prior to the bump.
Ahahaaaaa you can retire on that.

[Grantysghost]

I've never listened to that one but Rest of History do excellent podcasts.
It's amazing.

Montezuma v the Conquistadors
Columbus
Jfk
The story of carthage (latest)

So many brilliant series.

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-rest-is-history-1544851/episodes/jfk-the-road-to-the-white-hous-193257849

They were in Melbourne in November i was away was spewing!

[angelopetraglia]

It's amazing.

Montezuma v the Conquistadors
Columbus
Jfk
The story of carthage (latest)

So many brilliant series.

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-rest-is-history-1544851/episodes/jfk-the-road-to-the-white-hous-193257849

They were in Melbourne in November i was away was spewing!

Agree with all of that. The two series on the Nazis also also exceptional, The Rise of the Nazis and Nazis in Power. Oppenheimer, the American Revolution and Napoleon were also great.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Agree with all of that. The two series on the Nazis also also exceptional, The Rise of the Nazis and Nazis in Power. Oppenheimer, the American Revolution and Napoleon were also great.

Dan Carlin hardcore history are also great.

[angelopetraglia]

Dan Carlin hardcore history are also great.

I only listened to Dan Carlin when he was on the Rest of History and really enjoyed it.

I must listen to one of his series.

[FrediKanoute]

The problem with head high contact and the AFL is inconsistency that the AFL applies. Pickett gets 2 weeks for the bump on Smith. Maynard gets off for the bump on Brayshaw. We are calling for 6 to 8 weeks for Webster's on Symkin. Part of he problem with long suspensions is that they have to be meticulously justified in order to make them seem fair. Yes Symkin's head knock could be career ending or life amending, but Webster missing 8 weeks could be career ending as well. Inconsistency on what is and what isn't a headknock that merits a long suspension and what merit's a short suspension is the problem.

Take a look at how Rugby Union deals with tackles to the head.

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent?s neck or head is dangerous play.

So we have a very clear statement about what is allowed and not allowed. We then have a framework for assessing the action itself and that happens.


Is the incident a high tackle or a shoulder charge?

ii. If so, was there contact with the head or neck of the ball-carrier?

iii. What was the degree of danger ? high or low?

iv. Are there clear and obvious mitigating factors?



By working through these steps Rugby Union officials apply a consistent approach to dealing with high tackles and players know that if they connect with the head they are in trouble, unless there are clear and obvious mitigating circumstances. This means that there is not some bullsh*t opinion from a biomechanic's expert, but real mitigants like a player ducking into a tackle, or being pushed into contact.

The AFL if it was serious about player welfare would do well to come up with a similar framework. It wont though, because can you imagine the furore when XYZ player misses a GF as a result.

This website is really instructive - https://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/11/08/world-rugby-high-tackle-framework-update-2020-red-card-player-welfare-referee-sent-off/

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I only listened to Dan Carlin when he was on the Rest of History and really enjoyed it.

I must listen to one of his series.

Ghosts of the Osfront and Blueprint for Armageddon are good starters.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Dan Carlin hardcore history are also great.

Dan Carlin is just a great communicator. Hardcore History, as well as Hardcore History Addendum, and when he gets around to doing an episode every one or two years Common Sense. Great podcasts.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Ghosts of the Osfront and Blueprint for Armageddon are good starters.

Yep as a WW1 nuffy, his Countdown to Armageddon is some 18 hrs of the most engaging listening; combining factual well sourced storytelling, and an array of historical detail and told in such a manner that leaves you in no doubt that Dan really loves history and loves building an engaging narrative.

[ledge]

Yep as a WW1 nuffy, his Countdown to Armageddon is some 18 hrs of the most engaging listening; combining factual well sourced storytelling, and an array of historical detail and told in such a manner that leaves you in no doubt that Dan really loves history and loves building an engaging narrative.

Umm what’s this got to do with the thread ?

[angelopetraglia]

Umm what’s this got to do with the thread ?

Ha. My fault. There was a reference to JFK. I mentioned a history podcast on JFK for those interested. It grew legs from there. Like many great WOOF threads, they sometimes go on mysterious paths.

[ledge]

Ha. My fault. There was a reference to JFK. I mentioned a history podcast on JFK for those interested. It grew legs from there. Like many great WOOF threads, they sometimes go on mysterious paths.

I mentioned him lol

[Axe Man]

How the **** is that not considered intentional?

The absence of a weapon is all I can conclude.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Ha. My fault. There was a reference to JFK. I mentioned a history podcast on JFK for those interested. It grew legs from there. Like many great WOOF threads, they sometimes go on mysterious paths.

I love this about woof. Great conversation always does this.

[ledge]

The absence of a weapon is all I can conclude.

Akin to the hit on Brereton all those years ago , lined him up and whack.

[Bulldog Joe]

I don't think it was careless. It was intentional. He lined him up with and old fashioned hip and shoulder, something you would have seen in the 70s and 80s.

I agree that it should not be considered careless.

It was a deliberate intentional action and there is no mitigation to it.

[GVGjr]

Webster has been suspended for 7 weeks. It's a big suspension but around the mark required.

[Grantysghost]

Webster has been suspended for 7 weeks. It's a big suspension but around the mark required.

Pretty good result i think

[chef]

Appropriate.

[divvydan]

Yeah, happy with that. His first game back will be North Melbourne if he comes straight in, so hopefully they put him in the VFL for a week.

[G-Mo77]

Yeah, happy with that. His first game back will be North Melbourne if he comes straight in, so hopefully they put him in the VFL for a week.

No way. Bring him back for that one. I reckon they'll get it down to 6.

[angelopetraglia]

7 weeks. Sounds reasonable to me.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Yeah, happy with that. His first game back will be North Melbourne if he comes straight in, so hopefully they put him in the VFL for a week.

How convenient. So it was meant to be 8 weeks but the marketing $$ potential was too much to resist....

[bornadog]

Hopefully players start to learn, you can't bump the head

[G-Mo77]

How convenient. So it was meant to be 8 weeks but the marketing $$ potential was too much to resist....

It does seem way to convenient.

[EasternWest]

How convenient. So it was meant to be 8 weeks but the marketing $$ potential was too much to resist....

Great minds that was my first reaction too.

[Happy Days]

I’d be more convinced of it being a conspiracy if I was more certain Webster was actually best 22 at St Kilda.

This could Todd Curley him.

[Grantysghost]

I’d be more convinced of it being a conspiracy if I was more certain Webster was actually best 22 at St Kilda.

This could Todd Curley him.
Todd Curley used as a verb.... The things woof delivers.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I’d be more convinced of it being a conspiracy if I was more certain Webster was actually best 22 at St Kilda.

This could Todd Curley him.

Look he may not come in straight away but the afel won't let even a slight opportunity slip to rake in some extra $$$.

[Sedat]

Hopefully players start to learn, you can't bump the head
Seemed to work out alright for Maynard (not so much for Brayshaw).

[Mantis]

The lack of consistency the AFL show in handing out punishments to similar incidents, whilst hardly surprising is an indictment on the organization.

The Kossi Pickett hit on Bailey Smith was not worth 2 weeks.
The Brayden Maynard hit on Angus Brayshaw was not worth 0 weeks.
The Jimmy Webster hit on Jy Simpkin was not worth 7 weeks.

They're their own worst enemies.

[Go_Dogs]

The lack of consistency the AFL show in handing out punishments to similar incidents, whilst hardly surprising is an indictment on the organization.

The Kossi Pickett hit on Bailey Smith was not worth 2 weeks.
The Brayden Maynard hit on Angus Brayshaw was not worth 0 weeks.
The Jimmy Webster hit on Jy Simpkin was not worth 7 weeks.

They're their own worst enemies.

Yep. High time for a review and change in approach. Unfortunately, there’ll never be a consistent and independent determination as too much $ at stake.

[FrediKanoute]

The lack of consistency the AFL show in handing out punishments to similar incidents, whilst hardly surprising is an indictment on the organization.

The Kossi Pickett hit on Bailey Smith was not worth 2 weeks.
The Brayden Maynard hit on Angus Brayshaw was not worth 0 weeks.
The Jimmy Webster hit on Jy Simpkin was not worth 7 weeks.

They're their own worst enemies.

I agree. I think all this shows is that its a lottery based more on who you are and who you play for than the actual action.

The reluctance of he AFL to establish a proper framework and stick to it, but instead provide multiple mitigations undermines their whol basis for saying thaey take head contact seriously. The Maynard Brayshaw alone speaks to this.

[angelopetraglia]

Can't believe Hewett didn't get suspeneded for clipping Neale. The strike was deemed careless. Careless? You can throw jabs at people's chin and it is careless?

What a farce. How do they serioulsy wake up in the morning and look in the mirror.

This is careless https://x.com/Sammy__Edmund/status/1766240542386729178?s=20

[jeemak]

Can't believe Hewett didn't get suspeneded for clipping Neale. The strike was deemed careless. Careless? You can throw jabs at people's chin and it is careless?

What a farce. How do they serioulsy wake up in the morning and look in the mirror.

This is careless https://x.com/Sammy__Edmund/status/1766240542386729178?s=20

The only time AFL players lose their coordination and precision with hand, foot and body is if their use of those things is intended to maim. Unbelievable that isn't called intentional.

[jazzadogs]

Apparently Harmes in trouble for a headbutt yesterday.

Can I volunteer as the club lawyer and advocate for a 22 week suspension?

[bornadog]

Apparently Harmes in trouble for a headbutt yesterday.

Can I volunteer as the club lawyer and advocate for a 22 week suspension?

What a dickhead he is if true.

[Grantysghost]

What a dickhead he is if true.
Its true was on the warne stand side.

He more or less pushed his head into Mays.

My guess is a week off.

[Hotdog60]

We'll if his going to do it, do it with meaning and bring out your best Phil Carman and then that fixes two problems at once.
May out for the rest of the game and Harmes gone for 12 months. :)

[bornadog]

Stupid act


JAMES Harmes will miss this week's clash with in-form Gold Coast after copping a suspension, while six other players were fined for transgressions during Sunday's AFL matches.Harmes was handed a one-game suspension for headbutting former teammate Steven May late in the final term of the Western Bulldogs' loss to Melbourne on Sunday afternoon (https://www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/5905).

New Demon Jack Billings won a holding the ball free kick for his tackle on Harmes just outside the Bulldogs' forward 50, with May coming in to give the ex-Demon a secondary shove before the duo scuffled on the ground.
After getting to their feet, Harmes pushed his head towards May who immediately grabbed his face and made a point to the umpire that he had been headbutted.

[Sedat]

Seeing as it was Steven May on the receiving end, it is perfectly understandable for Harmes to direct a Liverpool kiss at his scone - maybe he thought he was at Entrecote restaurant.

Harmes is one of us now - I wish him a quick return to the side.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Stupid act

Yeah May certainly made his case to the umpire. Worthy of a Hollywood gig. Looked like a primary school kid pleading to the teacher.

[bornadog]

From The Club


We’ve accepted the one match suspension for Harmes.

He’ll be unavailable for this week’s match up with the Suns

[mighty_west]

Seeing as it was Steven May on the receiving end, it is perfectly understandable for Harmes to direct a Liverpool kiss at his scone - maybe he thought he was at Entrecote restaurant.

Harmes is one of us now - I wish him a quick return to the side.

Yeah sometimes it's just worth it, not the first time May has copped it from a team mate or ex team mate.

[josie]

Seeing as it was Steven May on the receiving end, it is perfectly understandable for Harmes to direct a Liverpool kiss at his scone - maybe he thought he was at Entrecote restaurant.

Harmes is one of us now - I wish him a quick return to the side.

Yep. He?s a doggie. Wish our player s had stuck up for him a bit, without stepping into suspension territory. Sometimes a melee can change the flow of the game, and we needed all the help we could muster.

[GVGjr]

Does anyone think the match committee like the fact that it's a forced change? :)

[jazzadogs]

Does anyone think the match committee like the fact that it's a forced change? :)

I'm not on the Match Committee but I like it. He offered nothing, and as an experienced player he doesn't have the excuses of some of the others who were below standard.

[SonofScray]

Didn’t head butt him too hard, should have kicked him instead.

[bornadog]

James Sicily free to play.

No way he kicked McGrath.

[bulldogtragic]

I don’t know the answer. But does anyone know of another player we traded in who got suspended on debut for us?

[jazzadogs]

Carlton traded in Elijah Hollands who got suspended before even playing a game.

Did Lovett and Carlisle manage games for the saints before they were suspended?

In answer to your actual question, I don't know.

[bulldogtragic]

Carlton traded in Elijah Hollands who got suspended before even playing a game.

Did Lovett and Carlisle manage games for the saints before they were suspended?

In answer to your actual question, I don't know.

I can’t think of a player we traded in ever being suspended on debut for the club.

[JanLorMill]

I can?t think of a player we traded in ever being suspended on debut for the club.
Sorry misread

[Axe Man]

Toby "Karate Kid" Greene up to his old tricks. Umpire didn't even pay the free when they specifically brought in a rule to outlaw him doing this.
https://i.postimg.cc/7PKf99Lf/Greene.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[bornadog]

Toby "Karate Kid" Greene up to his old tricks. Umpire didn't even pay the free when they specifically brought in a rule to outlaw him doing this.
https://i.postimg.cc/7PKf99Lf/Greene.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Can't stand this little turd

[ledge]

I’ve been saying for years bring in the studs up rule, it’s in every other sport, it’s dangerous and it’s common sense.
Wait until someone gets booted in the head and gets serious scars or injury then let’s bring it in is how the AFL work.

[bornadog]

David Swallow no case to answer for hit on Ed

https://resources.afl.com.au/photo-resources/2024/03/25/c3bc2137-2194-42b1-ab3a-bf1f6f266d1c/Sun2MRO.jpg?width=1511

[jazzadogs]

How do Libba and Laith get two first offences in one game? Surely one is a second offence?

Good on em anyway.

[ledge]

I didn’t think there was anything in the Ed incident , both had their hands out reaching for the ball at the same time. The only thing Swallow is guilty of is being a little taller than Ed.

[Axe Man]

I didn’t think there was anything in the Ed incident , both had their hands out reaching for the ball at the same time. The only thing Swallow is guilty of is being a little taller than Ed.

Ed is taller but agree, nothing in it.

[Testekill]

I didn’t think there was anything in the Ed incident , both had their hands out reaching for the ball at the same time. The only thing Swallow is guilty of is being a little taller than Ed.

Yeah that was purely accidental, shit happens in a contact game and I honestly would have been pissed if Swallow got reported for it.

[GVGjr]

How many weeks do you think Peter Wright will get?

[Grantysghost]

How many weeks do you think Peter Wright will get?
Five

[GVGjr]

Peter Wright gets 4 weeks.

[Grantysghost]

Peter Wright gets 4 weeks.

About right.

[SonofScray]

2 m Peter a bit stiff, I’d have tossed the coin there. On first look it’s a collision as he goes for the footy with an opponent coming across from an awkward angle. Slow it down and there’s a half hearted, last minute switch to take the player out and protect himself rather than get the footy.

Not particularly malicious, or careless. But he clipped him high, so there should be some penalty. Anywhere from a free kick to 1-2 weeks felt right to me.

But I also thought you should get 3-4 weeks for kicking a bloke. So I’m way off the mark on what the league and general public are thinking.

[jazzadogs]

Alright devils advocate...

Why is Peter Wright the only person in that contest with some responsibility/duty of care? What steps did Cunningham take to protect himself? How much of the contact was created by Cunningham recklessly running back with the ball?

To me, if the AFL is serious about stamping out concussion, it is the culture of 'bravery = running back with the flight' that needs to change before suspensions like this. There is nothing in Wright getting suspended that actually fixes the problem, if you ask me.

[bornadog]

Richmond's Baker very unlucky to get a week for that. There was no damage to Melican, Baker was trying to spoil the mark.

tribunal decisions very puzzling

[EasternWest]

Richmond's Baker very unlucky to get a week for that. There was no damage to Melican, Baker was trying to spoil the mark.

tribunal decisions very puzzling

Yesterday was April fool's.

[Testekill]

A week for Kosi going head hunting again which might get overturned or downgraded to a fine and he'll learn nothing.

[ledge]

Be interesting to see how the Finlayson one transpires.

[bornadog]

Be interesting to see how the Finlayson one transpires.

Bullshit if he gets weeks off

[Sedat]

Be interesting to see how the Finlayson one transpires.
Looking forward to the AFEL once again showing us all they have more positions than the Kamasutra - I predict Finlayson will get suspended, about a month after Clarkson got a fine for effectively doing the same thing. And of course let's not forget the Muslim AFELW player who twice boycotted pride round and the AFEL/media cowards who pretended like this never happened (the same people who were all foaming at the mouth when Folau expressed pretty much the same beliefs - different religion of course). Or Sydney having Qatar Airways as one of their main sponsors - gotta love those cute rainbow socks for the pride game while taking sponsorship money from an organisation owned by a nation that punishes the lived experience of being gay by death.

This is in no way supporting Finlayson, just highlighting that the AFEL pays lip service to the causes they supposedly trumpet and swing with the breeze depending on the outrage-o-meter. If you are completely transactional with your morals, ethics and beliefs, you should be disqualified and utterly discredited from having an opinion on the issue in question.

[GVGjr]

Be interesting to see how the Finlayson one transpires.

Apparently the AFL see the Clarkson and Finlayson comments very differently. I'd say he gets a week off.
The only positive of all this is there a vastly improved level of ownership by the players than there was just a few years back.

[Mofra]

Bullshit if he gets weeks off
We had AFLW players boycott pride round without sanction. Findlayson would be very stiff to miss a game.

[Mofra]

Pickett challenging his one week suspension. I actually thought only 1 week was lucky and he should take it and run.

[ledge]

Pickett challenging his one week suspension. I actually thought only 1 week was lucky and he should take it and run.

Melbourne defence ..”judge we are challenging the one week suspension”
Judge .. “ I agree it should have been at least two weeks, two weeks case over”

[Bulldog Joe]

Melbourne defence ..”judge we are challenging the one week suspension”
Judge .. “ I agree it should have been at least two weeks, two weeks case over”

I favour making it 4.

2 for the jump to bump in the head doubled for the stupidity of challenging.

Although with the way they work someone will contend that Kosi is important to the fabric of the game and deem no suspension.

[josie]

Looking forward to the AFEL once again showing us all they have more positions than the Kamasutra - I predict Finlayson will get suspended, about a month after Clarkson got a fine for effectively doing the same thing. And of course let's not forget the Muslim AFELW player who twice boycotted pride round and the AFEL/media cowards who pretended like this never happened (the same people who were all foaming at the mouth when Folau expressed pretty much the same beliefs - different religion of course). Or Sydney having Qatar Airways as one of their main sponsors - gotta love those cute rainbow socks for the pride game while taking sponsorship money from an organisation owned by a nation that punishes the lived experience of being gay by death.

This is in no way supporting Finlayson, just highlighting that the AFEL pays lip service to the causes they supposedly trumpet and swing with the breeze depending on the outrage-o-meter. If you are completely transactional with your morals, ethics and beliefs, you should be disqualified and utterly discredited from having an opinion on the issue in question.

Agree. I?d much rather healthy, informed debate, but in today?s society everything?s black or white (no racial slur intended), and the ideas of nuance and sound logic are thrown out the window. Outrage-o-meter aka what gains clicks is de rigueur.

[EasternWest]

Agree. I?d much rather healthy, informed debate, but in today?s society everything?s black or white (no racial slur intended), and the ideas of nuance and sound logic are thrown out the window. Outrage-o-meter aka what gains clicks is de rigueur.

This offends me.

[bulldogtragic]

This offends me.

Always with the virtue signalling with you.

[bornadog]

Picket loses appeal

[ratsmac]

Picket loses appeal

Obviously. I can't believe they challenged it. But then again they probably thought if Maynard can send their club champion into retirement with a similar action, then why not!

[angelopetraglia]

Finlayson three weeks.

Sounds incredibly harsh when you consider Clarko got zero and has a history of verbal abuse.

[mighty_west]

Finlayson three weeks.

Sounds incredibly harsh when you consider Clarko got zero and has a history of verbal abuse.

Good, tough stance as they should as there is no room for that garbage. As for Clarko, the AFL fkd up and should have given him a much tougher penalty.

[jeemak]

Any ideas what the slur was?

Just wanting to know how much worse than the homophobic/ derogatory term Clarkson used it was.

Or how much worse than what Dane Zorko said to Harrison Petty when the latter was left in tears.........

[angelopetraglia]

Any ideas what the slur was?

Just wanting to know how much worse than the homophobic/ derogatory term Clarkson used it was.

Or how much worse than what Dane Zorko said to Harrison Petty when the latter was left in tears.........

It supposedly was the f word. Which is definiltey worse than what Clarko said. But still hard to accept that repeat offender Clarko, with a history of anger management issues got zero weeks.

[jeemak]

I'd be taking it straight to appeal and then to the courts if I was Port and Finlayson. Penalties on the fly aren't OK.

The AFL needs to hand over a fine as they did to Clarkson, and release prescribed penalties this week as a line in the sand.

If three weeks is the number, so be it, but it has to be from this point onwards.

[bornadog]

It supposedly was the f word.

This is puzzling to get 3 weeks. :confused:

[jeemak]

Danny Zorko made someone cry on the field and got nothing! Literally made someone cry because of the horrible things he apparently said.

Now I'm OK with whatever penalty the AFEL thinks is required in the future, but you can't just Todd Curley someone because it suits an agenda.

[hujsh]

This is puzzling to get 3 weeks. :confused:

I think you're thinking of a different F word. Fa not Fu

[mjp]

3 weeks?

Something is afoot.

[bornadog]

I think you're thinking of a different F word. Fa not Fu

Are you saying it is Fairy? or am I na?ve and missing something?

PS:, ok got it - ridiculous in this day and age

[Sedat]

It supposedly was the f word. Which is definiltey worse than what Clarko said. But still hard to accept that repeat offender Clarko, with a history of anger management issues got zero weeks.
To be fair to Clarko, his homophobic slur was more inclusive - women can do it as well.

[GVGjr]

Are you saying it is Fairy? or am I na?ve and missing something?

Think about it, you will get there.

[bornadog]

Think about it, you will get there.

ok got it. Hardly worth 3 weeks.

Tribunal all over the shop

[jeemak]

To be fair to Clarko, his homophobic slur was more inclusive - women can do it as well.

Not very inclusive for those who don't identify either way, Sedat.

[angelopetraglia]

Jon Ralph

Clarkson’s recent slap on the wrist from the AFL was his eighth serious incident and third involving the abuse of a player on a football field. Finlayson deserved a suspension. Community standards have changed. But it’s impossible to reconcile the two vastly different penalties

[angelopetraglia]

Clarko. 8th incident where he has lost the plot and gets off. Crazy double standards. If anything, a coach abusing someone on the field of play with the senior position they have, is even worse than a player doing it in the heat of the battle.

Chook lotto.

[jeemak]

Finlayson is an easier target than Clarkson, who the AFEL is trying to mollycoddle after he was accused of doing racisms at indigenous people.

[Axe Man]

ok got it. Hardly worth 3 weeks.

Tribunal all over the shop

What's it worth then?

Are derogatory terms aimed at someone's sexuality not as bad as racial or religious vilification? Or are you saying any abuse isn't worthy of suspension?

I totally understand the inconsistency arguments but I'm not sure where you are coming from here BAD?

[bornadog]

What's it worth then?

Are derogatory terms aimed at someone's sexuality not as bad as racial or religious vilification? Or are you saying any abuse isn't worthy of suspension?

I totally understand the inconsistency arguments but I'm not sure where you are coming from here BAD?

You knock out a bloke and get a week. You make a slur in the heat of the moment and get 3. Tell me which one is more dangerous

[hujsh]

Are we really comparing cocksucker and F****t as homophobic slurs? These are not the same and I think the punishment for both pretty accurately reflect the severity of the terms used. The AFL actually does the right thing for once and all we care about is perceived hypocrisy.

[hujsh]

You knock out a bloke and get a week. You make a slur in the heat of the moment and get 3. Tell me which one is more dangerous

So if he called an Aboriginal guy the N-word it should be a fine? Not saying it's the same but you get the point right?

Also not a word that's in most people's lexicon nowdays, you kinda have to choose to use it.

[jeemak]

Are we really comparing cocksucker and F****t as homophobic slurs? These are not the same and I think the punishment for both pretty accurately reflect the severity of the terms used. The AFL actually does the right thing for once and all we care about is perceived hypocrisy.

I think people are suggesting a homophobic slur from a coach (who has previously been accused of racist and sexist outbursts) resulting in a slap on the wrist sets a precedent of sorts, and that going straight to three weeks suspension for a player without any precedent for a homophobic slur, albeit a more severe one, is strange.

[Sedat]

So if he called an Aboriginal guy the N-word it should be a fine? Not saying it's the same but you get the point right?
That would be quite the turn of events, seeing as Finlayson is indigenous

[Sedat]

I think people are suggesting a homophobic slur from a coach (who has previously been accused of racist and sexist outbursts) resulting in a slap on the wrist sets a precedent of sorts, and that going straight to three weeks suspension for a player without any prior precedent for a homophobic slur, albeit a more severe one, is strange.
It's kinda obvious, but let others twist themselves in knots trying to justify the inconsistency and complete lack of leadership by the AFEL. They were gift-wrapped the perfect opportunity to put a line in the sand on this issue (if they really cared about it) a month ago following Clarko's outburst and they chose to sweep it under the carpet, just as they did with the GWS player 2 years in a row boycotting Pride Round.

Either you are all in on this issue, or you only pay lip service to it when the outrage mob demand blood.

I don't think anybody is justifying what Finlayson said, least of all himself. You can't unscramble that egg - he said it, immediately regretted it, owned it, apologised unreservedly for it, understood the ramifications of what he said in a contrite and remorseful manner, and happily put himself at the mercy of the AFEL to determine a penalty.

[bornadog]

So if he called an Aboriginal guy the N-word it should be a fine? Not saying it's the same but you get the point right?

Also not a word that's in most people's lexicon nowdays, you kinda have to choose to use it.

Racism is far worse in any name calling.

I was comparing the severity of the penalty, ie a physical hit v name calling

The AFL needs to be consistent, have set penalties and don't discriminate for all the different types of rules broken.

I also think your pass record should be taken into consideration and no discounts for being a good citizen.

[angelopetraglia]

My other question, with the risk of getting smashed. Walking into this one, so go easy.

Have we not all been educated that when you use a term it is not your perception of the term but how it made the other person feel. When Long called out Monkhorst or Goodes called the girl out in the crowd. There was a lot of education about how those words were so damaging to the individual due to personal nature of the attack and the historical use of the word to demean that subset of people. I believe those events helped better educate the public and were so important for drawing a line in the sand. I applauded and supported both strongly supported Long and Goodes at the time. Courageous and they both got slaughtered for it from many people. The Goodes docos were probably the saddest things I have seen in the game's history.

Why isn't this the case this time? Was the remark thrown at someone who was straight or who was gay? Does the context mater? Why the secrecy? Where is the context and education? Is just to protect the player who the remark was thrown at? Is the penalty harsh as that the remark hit home for that player? Or was it just a throwaway line (and in no way defending the use of that term in any context by the way).

[jeemak]

Is the penalty worse if you direct a homophobic slur at someone who is known to be gay versus someone who isn't (may or may not be)?

What if you direct a homophobic slur at a homophobe because you know it will make them uncomfortable?

I'm sure the AFL has thoroughly thought all of this through and has a standardised approach to handling these situations as they arise.

[hujsh]

That would be quite the turn of events, seeing as Finlayson is indigenous

Okay if he said it to JJ then. Or called Lin Jong a c***k. I'm sure you understand the point.

[JanLorMill]

Finlayson always been an idiot, just deserves.

[hujsh]

Racism is far worse in any name calling.

I was comparing the severity of the penalty, ie a physical hit v name calling


TBH it's not 'name calling'. It's a 'slur'. That's why I pulled the more commonly understood racism example (despite the 'umm actually' reply I think most people here understand the comparison in general terms). I know it was used more commonly in the past, hell there's even a South Park episode about how we should still be able to use it for Bikers I remember watching years ago, but nowdays, especially for people of Findlayson's age, you know if you're using it that you're using a slur. So he either chose to do so or uses it so often it just slipped out. Either way reflects poorly on him.




The AFL needs to be consistent, have set penalties and don't discriminate for all the different types of rules broken.

I also think your pass record should be taken into consideration and no discounts for being a good citizen.

Looking forward to someone getting banned for calling a player a red-neck or cracker lol

TBH I have to admit it's probably preferable to leaving makey-uppey in the hands of the AFL but in this particular circumstance I think they got it right. Clarkson's wasn't really homophbic IMO. He used a pretty common expletive which is homophobic in the same way calling someone a pussy is misogynist. Finalyson used a term that is now only relegated to being used as a homophobic slur. I'm just not looking forward to the end results of a 'consistent' policy here.

[EasternWest]

Is the penalty worse if you direct a homophobic slur at someone who is known to be gay versus someone who isn't (may or may not be)?

What if you direct a homophobic slur at a homophobe because you know it will make them uncomfortable?

I'm sure the AFL has thoroughly thought all of this through and has a standardised approach to handling these situations as they arise.

I don't doubt for a second that Finlayson isn't actually a homophobe. Or rather, he's not a hate filled homophobe but more of a casual boofhead footy club "that's poofter stuff" type of homophobe.

The thing that gets me is how readily that word came to mind to use as a sledge. It goes to show that while attitudes towards homosexual people have shifted (for the better) for the bulk of society, it's still a-ok to be a casual homophobe at the footy club, just don't let the poofos at head office hear about it.

And since we're talking, back onto another hobby horse of mine, why is the AFL still happy to broadcast players spitting all over national TV? I detest spitting, it's vile. I've played heaps of sport and never once felt like i had to spit. WTF.

[hujsh]

I think people are suggesting a homophobic slur from a coach (who has previously been accused of racist and sexist outbursts) resulting in a slap on the wrist sets a precedent of sorts, and that going straight to three weeks suspension for a player without any precedent for a homophobic slur, albeit a more severe one, is strange.

Do you consider cocksucker to be a legit homophobic slur? Not intellectually but as part of day to day use in society? Like if you asked Clarkson if it's a homophobic term do you think he'd actually realise that or would it take him a minute to think about it first before he realised (if he even realised at all). Because to me it's very different from what Finlayson said. To me one has has always been interchangeable with 'asshole' or 'dick' and the other is definitely not. Maybe that should change but before people were complaining about Clarkson I would have thought it was more misoginistic a term than homophobic tbh.

I severely doubt the vast majority of Australians considered Clarkson's words to be homophobic. You could make a sound logical case as to why the term is homophobic but it doesn't really have the same stink on it does it? Maybe people will start to make the case now and over time that'll be something we phase out like we did the F-word but I don't know that we're there yet.

[jeemak]

Do you consider cocksucker to be a legit homophobic slur? Not intellectually but as part of day to day use in society? Like if you asked Clarkson if it's a homophobic term do you think he'd actually realise that or would it take him a minute to think about it first before he realised (if he even realised at all). Because to me it's very different from what Finlayson said. To me one has has always been interchangeable with 'asshole' or 'dick' and the other is definitely not. Maybe that should change but before people were complaining about Clarkson I would have thought it was more misoginistic a term than homophobic tbh.

I severely doubt the vast majority of Australians considered Clarkson's words to be homophobic. You could make a sound logical case as to why the term is homophobic but it doesn't really have the same stink on it does it? Maybe people will start to make the case now and over time that'll be something we phase out like we did the F-word but I don't know that we're there yet.

I can see how people would be offended by CS as a homophobic slur in the same way I can see women being offended by the BIG C. They're used as derogatory terms born from outdated stereotypes by some and felt that way by others. Honestly, I've used both over time and respectively haven't thought about the act and who does it, or that part of the female anatomy (I blame Hollywood and I'm trying to be better).

But in the case of Clarkson, should his punishment be so much less than Finlayson's because the bulk of Australia hasn't caught up with how offensive it can be to sections of the community? Who decides how severe penalties should be and what formula is used to determine that severity?

To me one week would have sufficed, knowing the differences between the two. I look at it like this, what Finlayson said was probably twice as bad as what Clarkson said. So that goes from a fine to a week. The AFEL could have stated from that point on a zero tolerance policy and a prescribed two week suspension and an escalation from there for no remorse or repetition of the slur.

Now the AFEL has nowhere to go, and we're in a situation where homophobic slurs that might be directed at people who aren't even homosexuals can attract more time on the sidelines than carelessly (but really intentionally) concussing someone.

It's something they should have had figured out after the Clarkson incident and gotten onto the front foot with (in terms of detailed penalties), but of course everyone at AFL house was circle jerking themselves (inclusively no doubt) over how amazing Gather Round was going to be after the huge success of Round Zero.

[GVGjr]

It's kinda obvious, but let others twist themselves in knots trying to justify the inconsistency and complete lack of leadership by the AFEL. They were gift-wrapped the perfect opportunity to put a line in the sand on this issue (if they really cared about it) a month ago following Clarko's outburst and they chose to sweep it under the carpet, just as they did with the GWS player 2 years in a row boycotting Pride Round.

Either you are all in on this issue, or you only pay lip service to it when the outrage mob demand blood.

I don't think anybody is justifying what Finlayson said, least of all himself. You can't unscramble that egg - he said it, immediately regretted it, owned it, apologised unreservedly for it, understood the ramifications of what he said in a contrite and remorseful manner, and happily put himself at the mercy of the AFEL to determine a penalty.

Perfectly summed up.
Had Finlayson not owned it and been so genuinely apologetic the AFL might have given him something closer to 5 or 6 weeks which to me is over the top.
In the heat of the battle things can be said and I'd be okay with a first offence of 1 week and a 5 week suspension for a second offence type scenario.
He's paid a very high price and lets hope the players right across the competition realise that enough is enough and there are some severe ramifications for this sort of conduct going forward.

[angelopetraglia]

Do you consider cocksucker to be a legit homophobic slur? Not intellectually but as part of day to day use in society? Like if you asked Clarkson if it's a homophobic term do you think he'd actually realise that or would it take him a minute to think about it first before he realised (if he even realised at all). Because to me it's very different from what Finlayson said. To me one has has always been interchangeable with 'asshole' or 'dick' and the other is definitely not. Maybe that should change but before people were complaining about Clarkson I would have thought it was more misoginistic a term than homophobic tbh.

I severely doubt the vast majority of Australians considered Clarkson's words to be homophobic. You could make a sound logical case as to why the term is homophobic but it doesn't really have the same stink on it does it? Maybe people will start to make the case now and over time that'll be something we phase out like we did the F-word but I don't know that we're there yet.

I agree with this. The Finlayson term is far worse.

[angelopetraglia]

From Robbo's article on the Finlayson suspension:

So, to the well-known AFLW player who called her opponent a “f----t’’ last season – which was heard by several players at the time and relayed to club officials after the game – she is lucky that an official report was not made to the AFL. Because next time, if she was to be so stupid, it won’t be kept under wraps.

[angelopetraglia]

So club officials and Robbo know of incident last year in a league where a large percentage of the players identify as gay and it doesn't get reported to the AFL?

Serioulsy. The AFL is all over the place.

Source: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/robbo-the-world-has-changed-and-people-need-to-change-with-it/news-story/d4b7f7a675dfb3e294db439eb93ac694?amp

[jeemak]

I agree with this. The Finlayson term is far worse.

Is it twice as bad or four times as bad? At the moment the AFEL has it sitting at four times as bad (sometimes).

All the while Danny Zorko made an opponent cry and didn't get a sanction. You can say something so horrendous and clearly targeted that you make someone cry and get away with it in the AFEL, or you can say something homophobic and get a fine or nothing at all, or get three weeks.

Nuts. The incompetent twits should have had this sorted.

[angelopetraglia]

Is it twice as bad or four times as bad? At the moment the AFEL has it sitting at four times as bad (sometimes).

All the while Danny Zorko made an opponent cry and didn't get a sanction. You can say something so horrendous and clearly targeted that you make someone cry and get away with it in the AFEL, or you can say something homophobic and get a fine or nothing at all, or get three weeks.

Nuts. The incompetent twits should have had this sorted.

It is far worse in one context. I think the intent of the word is what makes the difference. You can use the Clarko word in a contex where it ain't homophobic. It is a word that is used in everyday language where the abolute inent is not to demean someone because they are gay. There is no grey area in the Finlayson word. It is used to demean and has historical signficance to the community in being used to demean, humilate and shame someone for who they are.

However, that context is if the word is used against someone who is actually gay. If you are not gay, I don't think it carries the same strength. It does fall more into the insult category. If you are not gay, I actually think what Clarko said and Finlayson said are not miles apart.

But the inconsistency is absolutely wild. Especially when you consider the same thing happened in the AFLW last season for zero penalty.

[Grantysghost]

Is it twice as bad or four times as bad? At the moment the AFEL has it sitting at four times as bad (sometimes).

All the while Danny Zorko made an opponent cry and didn't get a sanction. You can say something so horrendous and clearly targeted that you make someone cry and get away with it in the AFEL, or you can say something homophobic and get a fine or nothing at all, or get three weeks.

Nuts. The incompetent twits should have had this sorted.
We need a matrix Jee.

He used the word po*f, medium volume, high aggression.
2 weeks.

[mighty_west]

Racism is far worse in any name calling.

I was comparing the severity of the penalty, ie a physical hit v name calling

The AFL needs to be consistent, have set penalties and don't discriminate for all the different types of rules broken.

I also think your pass record should be taken into consideration and no discounts for being a good citizen.

How can you actually say that unless you're in someone elses position who may constantly be on the receiving end of homophobic slurs? they're both disgusting and inexcusable and what i do know is i have and have had work mates, friends who have copped this hideous abuse for most of their lives, to the point of being in such a dark place that "living" is or was not their priority going forward.

A physical hit, have had many playing sport, i'm fine.

[Grantysghost]

It is far worse. I think the intent of the word is what makes the difference. You can use the Clarko word in a contex where it ain't homophobic. It is a way the word is used in everyday language where the abolute inent is not to demean someone because they are gay. There is no grey area in the Finlayson word. It is used to demean and has historical signficance to the community in being used to demean, humilate and shame someone for who they are.

But the inconsistency is absolutely wild. Especially when you consider the same thing happened in the AFLW last season for zero penalty.
The F word can be used in non homophobic ways especially the abbreviated form.

People who ride Harley's for eg.

[jeemak]

It is far worse. I think the intent of the word is what makes the difference. You can use the Clarko word in a contex where it ain't homophobic. It is a way the word is used in everyday language where the abolute inent is not to demean someone because they are gay. There is no grey area in the Finlayson word. It is used to demean and has historical signficance to the community in being used to demean, humilate and shame someone for who they are.

But the inconsistency is absolutely wild. Especially when you consider the same thing happened in the AFLW last season for zero penalty.

I fear we're bordering on The Footy Show/ SEN levels of ask the white/ straight guy what's offensive and why here, so I won't say anything more on how much more offensive I think one is versus the other. At the end of the day, my opinion doesn't count.

It's nice the AFEL has taken care of the confusion, anyway! :)

[Grantysghost]

NSFW


https://youtu.be/ipDmsxQVxIM?si=cpt8WmVGF2LBnCxU

[angelopetraglia]

Robbo with some context that the rational behind the difference in penalty is due to whether the people on the receiving end of it were offended. Saints were not offended. Bombers were.

https://x.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1777981704767938827

[Testekill]

The F word can be used in non homophobic ways especially the abbreviated form.

People who ride Harley's for eg.

Okay but that episode of South Park is just Matt and Trey getting on their soapbox and saying that the meaning of words change so they should be allowed to say it if it's not directed at a gay person.

[angelopetraglia]

Eddie McGuire with a similar view of the rational to Robbo. Bombers were offended. Bomber players were "very upset" https://x.com/FootyonNine/status/1777983825529757844

p.s. Finlayson has had rocks thrown at his house. Crazy.

[azabob]

Paul Marsh has come out swinging.

'Consistently inconsistent': AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh slams Jeremy Finalyson punishment, asks league for 'urgent review' of framework

https://amp.nine.com.au/article/a72677a2-02d9-4156-bc2b-76ec626a928b

[Grantysghost]

Okay but that episode of South Park is just Matt and Trey getting on their soapbox and saying that the meaning of words change so they should be allowed to say it if it's not directed at a gay person.

There's a bit of that. Maybe some reclamation nods as well.

That word certainly has multiple meanings. The slur is American. In the UK it's some sort of food. Has been cigarettes, bundle of wood, shrewish woman etc...

Pretty poor form by the shoosher.

[hujsh]

I can see how people would be offended by CS as a homophobic slur in the same way I can see women being offended by the BIG C. They're used as derogatory terms born from outdated stereotypes by some and felt that way by others. Honestly, I've used both over time and respectively haven't thought about the act and who does it, or that part of the female anatomy (I blame Hollywood and I'm trying to be better).


To me those are pretty different. Maybe it'll change in time but I've personally never heard the former being anything but a derogatory in the same vein as POS.

If significant sections of the gay community do find it offensive and have a history of it being used against them then so be it, they'd know better than I do.

That said I feel like I'm normally on the more accepting side of these sorts of changes, or at least have some knowledge of it. So that I didn't know people now consider that a slur suggests to me that most people in this country would not think of it as a slur. I doubt very much the AFL will lead the way on this front. If anything the AFL, like any corporation, just wants to reflect the most broadly acceptable image of itself to the rest of society. Like a mirror of what they think we want to see. With Clarkson they probably read the room well enough to know it would be seen as someone losing their temper in defense of their player and using 'bad language'. The latter would be someone straight up saying a slur with no real defensible context.



But in the case of Clarkson, should his punishment be so much less than Finlayson's because the bulk of Australia hasn't caught up with how offensive it can be to sections of the community? Who decides how severe penalties should be and what formula is used to determine that severity?

To me one week would have sufficed, knowing the differences between the two. I look at it like this, what Finlayson said was probably twice as bad as what Clarkson said. So that goes from a fine to a week. The AFEL could have stated from that point on a zero tolerance policy and a prescribed two week suspension and an escalation from there for no remorse or repetition of the slur.

Now the AFEL has nowhere to go, and we're in a situation where homophobic slurs that might be directed at people who aren't even homosexuals can attract more time on the sidelines than carelessly (but really intentionally) concussing someone.

It's something they should have had figured out after the Clarkson incident and gotten onto the front foot with (in terms of detailed penalties), but of course everyone at AFL house was circle jerking themselves (inclusively no doubt) over how amazing Gather Round was going to be after the huge success of Round Zero.

I think 3 weeks is probably the correct number if the AFL wants to actually stop this from being a repeated action. I could care less what they did with Clarkson, this was a better opportunity to make an example of someone with an easy to sell narrative. The suspensions for in-game stuff is more complicated and messed up. Players can control what they say easier and it's much easier to police.

[hujsh]

I fear we're bordering on The Footy Show/ SEN levels of ask the white/ straight guy what's offensive and why here, so I won't say anything more on how much more offensive I think one is versus the other. At the end of the day, my opinion doesn't count.

It's nice the AFEL has taken care of the confusion, anyway! :)

Well I'm glad you asked!

[hujsh]

Okay but that episode of South Park is just Matt and Trey getting on their soapbox and saying that the meaning of words change so they should be allowed to say it if it's not directed at a gay person.

Not the best aged episode they ever did. Better than the trans/dolphin one though

[jeemak]

To me those are pretty different. Maybe it'll change in time but I've personally never heard the former being anything but a derogatory in the same vein as POS.

If significant sections of the gay community do find it offensive and have a history of it being used against them then so be it, they'd know better than I do.

That said I feel like I'm normally on the more accepting side of these sorts of changes, or at least have some knowledge of it. So that I didn't know people now consider that a slur suggests to me that most people in this country would not think of it as a slur. I doubt very much the AFL will lead the way on this front. If anything the AFL, like any corporation, just wants to reflect the most broadly acceptable image of itself to the rest of society. Like a mirror of what they think we want to see. With Clarkson they probably read the room well enough to know it would be seen as someone losing their temper in defense of their player and using 'bad language'. The latter would be someone straight up saying a slur with no real defensible context.


I think 3 weeks is probably the correct number if the AFL wants to actually stop this from being a repeated action. I could care less what they did with Clarkson, this was a better opportunity to make an example of someone with an easy to sell narrative. The suspensions for in-game stuff is more complicated and messed up. Players can control what they say easier and it's much easier to police.

So it's the children who are wrong? :)

I'm glad you're OK with ill-considered and reactive penalties that make examples of people being thought up on the fly. Long may it continue until someone's in contention for the Brownlow and guilty of such an act......and subsequently let off with a fine because they only called their opponent a butt****er.*



*I'm aware that's pretty old school, but you never know.

[hujsh]

So it's the children who are wrong? :)



Is it even something the children are saying? I don't think I'm completely out of touch with this stuff. I know all about the pedophiles on Kick. I'm not on Twitter or TikTok though which I think is where a lot of this stuff gets agonized over before it filters down.


I'm glad you're OK with ill-considered and reactive penalties that make examples of people being thought up on the fly. L




TBH I have to admit it's probably preferable to leaving makey-uppey in the hands of the AFL but in this particular circumstance I think they got it right.

[jeemak]

Is it even something the children are saying? I don't think I'm completely out of touch with this stuff. I know all about the pedophiles on Kick. I'm not on Twitter or TikTok though which I think is where a lot of this stuff gets agonized over before it filters down.

I might just be showing my age here, referencing a Simpson's episode from thirty years ago.

[hujsh]

I might just be showing my age here, referencing a Simpson's episode from thirty years ago.

Oh okay, I thought you were using the reference to make the point I'm way out of touch. I missed the tone despite the emoji (I'm emoji blind)

[The bulldog tragician]

Homophobia and racism are similar in that they’re maligning a class of people, not just an individual. This is where the Zorko/Petty thing is different. It’s revolting and hurtful to the person who sledges someone with that issue. Sadly our own Will Minson a horrible example of that, sledging about Cornes’ sick child, but it wasn’t about disparaging everyone with ill children.

I think homophobia hasn’t been seen as similarly bad to racism. A few years ago I spoke to security at Marvel because a moron was calling our players p**flyers and fairies. They would not act because it wasn’t racism “which everyone knows is bad.”??

Clarkson should definitely have been censured more severely but let’s not let that stupidity take us away from condemning Finlayson. When he said it, he intended as an insult, just as there was a phase where teenagers said “that’s so gay” as an insult. How did that even pop into his head?

My son is gay and still can’t walk down a street holding hands with a partner without insults so I wouldn’t underrate homophobia compared to racism. Both are abhorrent and continually give a message of not being welcome and of being lesser persons.

[angelopetraglia]

Homophobia and racism are similar in that they’re maligning a class of people, not just an individual. This is where the Zorko/Petty thing is different. It’s revolting and hurtful to the person who sledges someone with that issue. Sadly our own Will Minson a horrible example of that, sledging about Cornes’ sick child, but it wasn’t about disparaging everyone with ill children.

I think homophobia hasn’t been seen as similarly bad to racism. A few years ago I spoke to security at Marvel because a moron was calling our players p**flyers and fairies. They would not act because it wasn’t racism “which everyone knows is bad.”??

Clarkson should definitely have been censored but let’s not let that stupidity take us away from condemning Finlayson. When he said it, he intended as an insult, just as there was a phase where teenagers said “that’s so gay” as an insult. How did that even pop into his head?

My son is gay and still can’t walk down a street holding hands with a partner without insults so I wouldn’t underrate homophobia compared to racism. Both are abhorrent and continually give a message of not being welcome and of being lesser persons.

Well said and I think there would hopefully be a different approach from the Marvel security in this current environment. There is no place for that in our game.

[Uninformed]

From reading this thread it is obvious that different people judge a variety of words differently. Some as offensive and a so called 'slur' some see the same word or phrase as being a big nothing.

But I think the AFL and the opinioniate are tacking it from the wrong end. If the slur-er is the problem then it can't be fixed. The slur has been made, the slur-ee is in pain and will be so forever in relation to this. No matter how many fines you make, how many rules you make, or how many actions you take, it will never make the pain go away for them. It is part of them now and forever. Also, you can never rid the world or slur-ers. You will always bump into people who don't like you or something about you, for whatever reason. There will always be those who want to hurt you and try to find the most hurtful thing to say.

Tackling the slur-er will never be the solution. It never can be, because the hurt is in the mind of the victim. It is the slur-ee's felt experience.

If we are to fix the problem we must fix the victims felt experience. The first thing to note is that the felt experience of the victim is part of their mindset and so only they can fix that. No one else can fix it for them. Not the AFL, not rules on speech, not even a good psychologist. They have to fix it themselves. We can give some guidance on how to approach doing this, but only the person can actively change their mindset.

This is very confronting because you have to find and admit the fault within yourself that produces a reaction of hurt and pain. Most people will never stop blaming the slur-er and so will never fix the real problem. The real problem could be excessive attachment to a part of you - be it race, sexual preference, gender or whatever you think is special about little ol' you. The problem could be a lack of real self confidence, some ego based insecurity. Whatever it is, it takes some introspection to identify it and then it is relatively easy to overcome.

Once you overcome your inner problems, it doesn't matter what anyone says about you. Nothing will disturb you. Problem solved!

[jeemak]

I get the intent.....but.........I think you might be asking a lot of people.

[Uninformed]

I get the intent.....but.........I think you might be asking a lot of people.

I would imagine so. But it really is the only solution, don't you think?

[The bulldog tragician]

From reading this thread it is obvious that different people judge a variety of words differently. Some as offensive and a so called 'slur' some see the same word or phrase as being a big nothing.

But I think the AFL and the opinioniate are tacking it from the wrong end. If the slur-er is the problem then it can't be fixed. The slur has been made, the slur-ee is in pain and will be so forever in relation to this. No matter how many fines you make, how many rules you make, or how many actions you take, it will never make the pain go away for them. It is part of them now and forever. Also, you can never rid the world or slur-ers. You will always bump into people who don't like you or something about you, for whatever reason. There will always be those who want to hurt you and try to find the most hurtful thing to say.

Tackling the slur-er will never be the solution. It never can be, because the hurt is in the mind of the victim. It is the slur-ee's felt experience.

If we are to fix the problem we must fix the victims felt experience. The first thing to note is that the felt experience of the victim is part of their mindset and so only they can fix that. No one else can fix it for them. Not the AFL, not rules on speech, not even a good psychologist. They have to fix it themselves. We can give some guidance on how to approach doing this, but only the person can actively change their mindset.

This is very confronting because you have to find and admit the fault within yourself that produces a reaction of hurt and pain. Most people will never stop blaming the slur-er and so will never fix the real problem. The real problem could be excessive attachment to a part of you - be it race, sexual preference, gender or whatever you think is special about little ol' you. The problem could be a lack of real self confidence, some ego based insecurity. Whatever it is, it takes some introspection to identify it and then it is relatively easy to overcome.

Once you overcome your inner problems, it doesn't matter what anyone says about you. Nothing will disturb you. Problem solved!

I’m genuinely not sure if your post is satire.

Human rights are exactly that. Should Rosa Parks have just looked inside herself and identified the ego problem that made her feel she should be able to sit in any seat on a bus?

[hujsh]

I get the intent.....but.........I think you might be asking a lot of people.

It almost reads like victim blaming but I don't think that's what it's meant to be.

[jeemak]

I would imagine so. But it really is the only solution, don't you think?

There's another solution, which is probably going to take just as much collective effort, and that's everyone just giving an inch to be a little bit more tolerant rather than a bunch of individuals having to give a mile to deal with the intolerance of others.

It's harder and takes more energy to not learn stuff and to be an intolerant arsehole than it does to learn along the way and not be an intolerant arsehole. And that's what we should be teaching everyone from day dot.

[Uninformed]

I’m genuinely not sure if your post is satire.

Human rights are exactly that. Should Rosa Parks have just looked inside herself and identified the ego problem that made her feel she should be able to sit in any seat on a bus?

No I am being serious in an attempt to help. I am not commenting on social warriors and activists like the gentle Rosa Parks.

My aim was the person who feels hurt by what others say about them. It doesn't mean giving up on righting wrongs, just to manage your mindset so as not to be hurt.

[Uninformed]

It almost reads like victim blaming but I don't think that's what it's meant to be.

I am not blaming anyone. I have enough faults within myself that need fixing before I could even dream of blaming someone else.

I am just sketching out an approach that might be helpful to those in pain.

[jeemak]

No I am being serious in an attempt to help. I am not commenting on social warriors and activists like the gentle Rosa Parks.

My aim was the person who feels hurt by what others say about them. It doesn't mean giving up on righting wrongs, just to manage your mindset so as not to be hurt.

So you're saying you've given up on the greater good coming to action, and that personal responsibility is key. A libertarian viewpoint?

[Uninformed]

There's another solution, which is probably going to take just as much collective effort, and that's everyone just giving an inch to be a little bit more tolerant rather than a bunch of individuals having to give a mile to deal with the intolerance of others.

It's harder and takes more energy to not learn stuff and to be an intolerant arsehole than it does to learn along the way and not be an intolerant arsehole. And that's what we should be teaching everyone from day dot.

I get the intent...but I think you are asking a lot of people.

Even the great Mao was unable to implement such a programme of 'education'. He got close, but still couldn't quite get everyone to agree on what they should think or say. And that was with death penalties rather than suspension from playing!

I think most parents try and teach their kids manners, but the only manners you can really mind are your own.

I admit that my approach would have a low success rate, but occasionally you might find a victim brave enough to have a look inside. Not saying it is not tough, but show me another way, or point out the fault in my method.

Nothing wrong with encouraging people to be well mannered and polite too though.

[jeemak]

The track record of humanity's tolerance growing over time suggests you're wrong.

Some of us just think it needs to happen faster than it already is, and that people are capable of it with the right direction from an early age.

[Uninformed]

If you can get yourself on track you will be doing better than most.

[jeemak]

Now you're just looking for a fight! :D

[Uninformed]

So you're saying you've given up on the greater good coming to action, and that personal responsibility is key. A libertarian viewpoint?


Gotta start somewhere.

[jazzadogs]

I'm a straight white man, and was surprised by the reaction to the word c*******er. It's not a word I use often, but when I have it has been as a general insult with no real consideration of the meaning behind it. It was a good opportunity to reflect, and I was able to be part of discussions with some LGBT friends which helped me understand. I think this Finlayson incident is another instance where people can choose to reflect on their own attitudes - it is absolutely up to the people using the words to acknowledge the hurt they can cause.

I work with children with disabilities, and we are very mindful of our language with a general preference for person-first language. But different people prefer different things. For example, being called "autistic" may be offensive to one person because they are not defined by their diagnosis, and they would prefer the term "has a diagnosis of autism" - but for others it might be the reverse.

I had a friend of mine, well educated and generally very respectful, use the term 'retarded' the other day. I spoke to them about why I don't think that word should be used as an insult. But other colleagues believe that the list of offensive words related to disability is larger - crazy and lunatic being two that surprised me, as I had never applied those connotations to those words.

I guess the point of all of this is that offence is absolutely in the eye of the receiver, but responsibility does fall upon the offender to apologise and learn. Most people will make mistakes with their language - use the wrong pronoun, use an insult you learnt when you were a kid etc - but the responsibility is 100% on you to listen, apologise and learn. Particularly in regards to historically oppressed groups like particular races, LGBTQI+, disability and more.

I think Finlayson has been harshly treated because he has shown a willingness to listen, apologise and learn. The AFL has, as is so often the case, bungled their handling of a tricky situation.

[Sedat]

So just to summarise:

1. Calling someone a f***** is completely unacceptable and punishable by 3 weeks - no prior offences and total contrition/ownership of the offence, complete with unreserved apologies in person and on camera/in print, do not matter and actually watered down the punishment from 6 weeks to 3
2. Calling someone a c********* is mildly frowned upon and quietly swept under the carpet with no real punitive sanction, even though the offender has a lengthy rap sheet of questionable behaviour - a suspended sentence, a fine, and a small written statement hastily tossed out on Friday arvo 'take out the trash' time will suffice
3. Deliberately boycotting an entire sanctioned official AFEL round celebrating the basic human rights of the gay and lesbian (and others) community, because you hold the belief that gay and lesbian people have no right to exist, is all good to go - in fact you can do this very publicly two years in a row and even be lauded for it by most sections of the media/AFEL community

Just to be crystal clear, if you applaud 1 and have no problem with 2 and 3, you are not serious about the issue of homophobia and actually deserve no place at the table to discuss it - but that won't stop the AFEL from continuing to do so.

The AFEL have shown themselves to be utter cowards. They were totally silent for 2 years and tacitly approved the obviously homophobic behaviour in relation to point 3, and they lacked any semblance of leadership/proactivity on point 2. Then realising the folly of their ways a month ago, they have gone total scorched earth on point 1 in an attempt to show 'leadership', when in actual fact they hid like the cowards they are for 5 full days after the offence was uttered/admitted/unreservedly apologised for to ascertain the mood of the baying mob, most of whom were shamefully silent during points 2 and 3.

I won't even mention a certain AFEL club happily taking sponsorship money from an organisation owned by a nation that punishes being gay by death.

Had the AFEL shown an even basic level of leadership on this issue from the get-go, the 3 week sanction given to Finlayson would not have caused a ripple. I've still yet to hear anyone justifying his use of the slur in question - it was unacceptable and everybody has been on a unity ticket on this. But you cannot be conditional in relation to homophobia, period. No ifs, buts or maybes.

[hujsh]

So just to summarise:

1. Calling someone a f***** is completely unacceptable and punishable by 3 weeks - no prior offences and total contrition/ownership of the offence, complete with unreserved apologies in person and on camera/in print, do not matter and actually watered down the punishment from 6 weeks to 3
2. Calling someone a c********* is mildly frowned upon and quietly swept under the carpet with no real punitive sanction, even though the offender has a lengthy rap sheet of questionable behaviour - a suspended sentence, a fine, and a small written statement hastily tossed out on Friday arvo 'take out the trash' time will suffice
3. Deliberately boycotting an entire sanctioned official AFEL round celebrating the basic human rights of the gay and lesbian (and others) community, because you hold the belief that gay and lesbian people have no right to exist, is all good to go - in fact you can do this very publicly two years in a row and even be lauded for it by most sections of the media/AFEL community

Just to be crystal clear, if you applaud 1 and have no problem with 2 and 3, you are not serious about the issue of homophobia and actually deserve no place at the table to discuss it - but that won't stop the AFEL from continuing to do so.

The AFEL have shown themselves to be utter cowards. They were totally silent for 2 years and tacitly approved the obviously homophobic behaviour in relation to point 3, and they lacked any semblance of leadership/proactivity on point 2. Then realising the folly of their ways a month ago, they have gone total scorched earth on point 1 in an attempt to show 'leadership', when in actual fact they hid like the cowards they are for 5 full days after the offence was uttered/admitted/unreservedly apologised for to ascertain the mood of the baying mob, most of whom were shamefully silent during points 2 and 3.

I won't even mention a certain AFEL club happily taking sponsorship money from an organisation owned by a nation that punishes being gay by death.

Had the AFEL shown an even basic level of leadership on this issue from the get-go, the 3 week sanction given to Finlayson would not have caused a ripple. I've still yet to hear anyone justifying his use of the slur in question - it was unacceptable and everybody has been on a unity ticket on this. But you cannot be conditional in relation to homophobia, period. No ifs, buts or maybes.

What? Do you have any examples of that because I'd be shocked if true

[Bulldog Joe]

So just to summarise:

1. Calling someone a f***** is completely unacceptable and punishable by 3 weeks - no prior offences and total contrition/ownership of the offence, complete with unreserved apologies in person and on camera/in print, do not matter and actually watered down the punishment from 6 weeks to 3
2. Calling someone a c********* is mildly frowned upon and quietly swept under the carpet with no real punitive sanction, even though the offender has a lengthy rap sheet of questionable behaviour - a suspended sentence, a fine, and a small written statement hastily tossed out on Friday arvo 'take out the trash' time will suffice
3. Deliberately boycotting an entire sanctioned official AFEL round celebrating the basic human rights of the gay and lesbian (and others) community, because you hold the belief that gay and lesbian people have no right to exist, is all good to go - in fact you can do this very publicly two years in a row and even be lauded for it by most sections of the media/AFEL community

Just to be crystal clear, if you applaud 1 and have no problem with 2 and 3, you are not serious about the issue of homophobia and actually deserve no place at the table to discuss it - but that won't stop the AFEL from continuing to do so.

The AFEL have shown themselves to be utter cowards. They were totally silent for 2 years and tacitly approved the obviously homophobic behaviour in relation to point 3, and they lacked any semblance of leadership/proactivity on point 2. Then realising the folly of their ways a month ago, they have gone total scorched earth on point 1 in an attempt to show 'leadership', when in actual fact they hid like the cowards they are for 5 full days after the offence was uttered/admitted/unreservedly apologised for to ascertain the mood of the baying mob, most of whom were shamefully silent during points 2 and 3.

I won't even mention a certain AFEL club happily taking sponsorship money from an organisation owned by a nation that punishes being gay by death.

Had the AFEL shown an even basic level of leadership on this issue from the get-go, the 3 week sanction given to Finlayson would not have caused a ripple. I've still yet to hear anyone justifying his use of the slur in question - it was unacceptable and everybody has been on a unity ticket on this. But you cannot be conditional in relation to homophobia, period. No ifs, buts or maybes.

While I agree with most of what you say, I take exception to the AFLW player boycotting Pride Round.

If that is her belief/religious principle she is and should be absolutely entitled to the action taken. That is her freedom of expression.

[Grantysghost]

Clarko also said to a female journo youll get yours?

Yours = what exactly?

I found this waaaaaay worse than anything else
It's threatening harm.

[bornadog]

Clarko also said to a female journo youll get yours?

Yours = what exactly?

I found this waaaaaay worse than anything else
It's threatening harm.

I took it as harm, or some sort of retribution - should almost be charged for assault for that one

[Sedat]

If that is her belief/religious principle she is and should be absolutely entitled to the action taken. That is her freedom of expression.
Of course she can - that's the beauty and the privilege of living in a society that has freedom of expression and religious freedom. As an aside, so can Folau (different code I know) and that Essendon CEO who was in the role for 5 minutes.

Clearly her stance unequivocally violates the AFEL's position (who is ultimately her employer), so it was incumbent upon the AFEL to send the strongest possible message in support of the cause by denouncing any form of homophobia. Tumbleweeds for 2 years running - hence the AFEL are utterly disqualified and discredited from having a valid opinion on homophobia. They only give a shit when it affects the optics and the 'brand'.

[angelopetraglia]

Of course she can - that's the beauty and the privilege of living in a society that has freedom of expression and religious freedom. As an aside, so can Folau (different code I know) and that Essendon CEO who was in the role for 5 minutes.

Clearly her stance unequivocally violates the AFEL's position (who is ultimately her employer), so it was incumbent upon the AFEL to send the strongest possible message in support of the cause by denouncing any form of homophobia. Tumbleweeds for 2 years running - hence the AFEL should be utterly disqualified and discredited from having a valid opinion on homophobia.

They walk that fine line. For example. They celebrate Bachar Houli and his foundation. Then on the other hand they are celebrating the LGBTQ+ community with the pride round.

https://scontent.fmel8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/32640614_1911465022199250_39934760537030656_n.png?_nc_cat=10 4&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=VJxGbg3RWAQAb6E-Xt5&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel8-1.fna&oh=00_AfDMIN97xVSrIem7qfe-WC3cDjRH5a4dqCfC_R6y9niXEQ&oe=663EB2E9


https://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-feed-data/ae5e1d6b-7bb3-4f18-8f57-ff69b08804f1.jpg/r0_0_800_600_w800_h600_fmax.jpg

[Bulldog Joe]

Of course she can - that's the beauty and the privilege of living in a society that has freedom of expression and religious freedom. As an aside, so can Folau (different code I know) and that Essendon CEO who was in the role for 5 minutes.

Clearly her stance unequivocally violates the AFEL's position (who is ultimately her employer), so it was incumbent upon the AFEL to send the strongest possible message in support of the cause by denouncing any form of homophobia. Tumbleweeds for 2 years running - hence the AFEL are utterly disqualified and discredited from having a valid opinion on homophobia. They only give a shit when it affects the optics and the 'brand'.

I will disagree on this one but respect your passion on it.

[hujsh]

They walk that fine line. For example. They celebrate Bachar Houli and his foundation. Then on the other hand they are celebrating the LGBTQ+ community with the pride round.

https://scontent.fmel8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/32640614_1911465022199250_39934760537030656_n.png?_nc_cat=10 4&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=VJxGbg3RWAQAb6E-Xt5&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel8-1.fna&oh=00_AfDMIN97xVSrIem7qfe-WC3cDjRH5a4dqCfC_R6y9niXEQ&oe=663EB2E9



Sorry but those things appear completely unrelated. As far as I can tell neither Bachar nor his foundation have any stance on pride/homosexuality. If the implication is that any Muslim organization is inherently homophobic I have to vehemently disagree. Yes today many Islamic nations have homophobic attitudes or laws but that does not reflect all Muslims nor does it accurately reflect the history of the religion which was probably more tolerant of homosexuality before more Western views began to be imported (eg the Ottoman Empire).

Now if I'm missing something with regards to Bachar or his foundation I'm happy to be corrected there but it seems pretty focused on getting Muslim kids more into footy. I'm not sure homophobia quite gels with their stated missions either.

[angelopetraglia]

Sorry but those things appear completely unrelated. As far as I can tell neither Bachar nor his foundation have any stance on pride/homosexuality. If the implication is that any Muslim organization is inherently homophobic I have to vehemently disagree. Yes today many Islamic nations have homophobic attitudes or laws but that does not reflect all Muslims nor does it accurately reflect the history of the religion which was probably more tolerant of homosexuality before more Western views began to be imported (eg the Ottoman Empire).

Now if I'm missing something with regards to Bachar or his foundation I'm happy to be corrected there but it seems pretty focused on getting Muslim kids more into footy. I'm not sure homophobia quite gels with their stated missions either.

They are not competely unrelated. There is some correlation between his religion and their attitidue to the LGBQT+ community. Bachar is deeply religous. It is a crucial part of his his identity. Good on him too for celerbating his culture and for giving back to teh community and being a spokesperson. But his religions view is pretty clear. I'm guessing his view on it from what I have seen.

It is not a hill I'm going to die on. My point is, if you celebrate every single minority/marginalised group you are going to end up walking a very fine line.

But my post was in response to this.

"Greater Western Sydney confirmed on Wednesday Zreika, who was the first Muslim to play in the AFLW, had chosen once again not to wear the Pride jumper, which AFLW players use to recognise, support and celebrate the LGBTQI+ community, and therefore would not participate in that round’s game."

[hujsh]

It is a correlation based on what we have seen play out. Bachar is deeply religous. It is a crucial part of his his identity. His religions view is clear. I'm guessing his view on it from what we have seen.

But it was in response to this.

"Greater Western Sydney confirmed on Wednesday Zreika, who was the first Muslim to play in the AFLW, had chosen once again not to wear the Pride jumper, which AFLW players use to recognise, support and celebrate the LGBTQI+ community, and therefore would not participate in that round’s game."

I'm just saying it's not as simple as 'they're Muslim so they must also be homophobic'. It's a better assumption today than it used to be but it's still a big assumption that I think is unfair personally. Bachar isn't Zreika. They are both of Lebanese descent and it is a very conservative place but Bachar was born and raised here and has bent some rules (fasting during Ramamdan) despite his devotion.

I just don't want to conflate Islam and opposition to Pride any more than we'd automatically assume Christians are homophobic or transphobic

[angelopetraglia]

I'm just saying it's not as simple as 'they're Muslim so they must also be homophobic'. It's a better assumption today than it used to be but it's still a big assumption that I think is unfair personally. Bachar isn't Zreika. They are both of Lebanese descent and it is a very conservative place but Bachar was born and raised here and has bent some rules (fasting during Ramamdan) despite his devotion.

I just don't want to conflate Islam and opposition to Pride any more than we'd automatically assume Christians are homophobic or transphobic

But many practicing religous Christians are indeed homophobic. Hence the issues that Manly had with their pride round and and deeply religous islander players in their team. Seven Manly players refused to wear the jumper. They only refused to wear the jumper, they boycotted the game.

[hujsh]

But many practicing religous Christians are indeed homophobic. Hence the issues that Manly had with their pride round and and deeply religous islander players in their team.

And many aren't. We're also conflating many different branches of Christianity and the varied cultural backgrounds into one big homogeneous blob when we say that.

[jeemak]

While I agree with most of what you say, I take exception to the AFLW player boycotting Pride Round.

If that is her belief/religious principle she is and should be absolutely entitled to the action taken. That is her freedom of expression.

And we should be free to call it out as abhorrent and out of date.

[angelopetraglia]

Why doesn't the AFL Mens competiton yet have a Pride Round? Only a guess. I think it is due to the fear of a similar issue to what happened at Manly. Otherwise they would have already pulled the trigger.

[angelopetraglia]

And we should be free to call it out as abhorrent and out of date.

Agree. 100%. But did the AFL do that?

[Sedat]

I'm just saying it's not as simple as 'they're Muslim so they must also be homophobic'. It's a better assumption today than it used to be but it's still a big assumption that I think is unfair personally. Bachar isn't Zreika. They are both of Lebanese descent and it is a very conservative place but Bachar was born and raised here and has bent some rules (fasting during Ramamdan) despite his devotion.

I just don't want to conflate Islam and opposition to Pride any more than we'd automatically assume Christians are homophobic or transphobic
Um, more than a third of the Lebanese population is Maronite Catholic (quite a high population of Greek Orthodox as well FWIW). It is actually enshrined in Lebanese constitution that the president of the country must be a Maronite Catholic. Some of Lebanon is decidedly less conservative than assumed.

That doesn't matter of course. All that matters in relation to this specific discussion is that someone employed by the AFEL has a specific view on homosexuality (which they have every right to hold) to the point of twice boycotting its very existence during Pride Round (very visibly doing so), and the AFEL on both occasions stayed completely silent, let alone condemned/sanctioned their employee for so blatantly and obviously violating their own policy. Therefore, the AFEL has absolutely zero credibility on the issue, which makes all their self-congratulatory horseshit following the Finlayson sanctions not worth listening to for one second.

[Bulldog Joe]

And we should be free to call it out as abhorrent and out of date.

We are free to disagree but that does not give us the right to discredit them.

[jeemak]

We are free to disagree but that does not give us the right to discredit them.

Sorry, but if they discredit or ignore the legitimacy of a life that has no impact on them whatsoever then I'll discredit them as much as I like.

That's a general comment. In the case of the footballers not wanting to participate in Pride Round that's up to them and I couldn't care less if they don't.

[hujsh]

Um, more than a third of the Lebanese population is Maronite Catholic (quite a high population of Greek Orthodox as well FWIW). It is actually enshrined in Lebanese constitution that the president of the country must be a Maronite Catholic. Some of Lebanon is decidedly less conservative than assumed.

That doesn't matter of course. All that matters in relation to this specific discussion is that someone employed by the AFEL has a specific view on homosexuality (which they have every right to hold) to the point of twice boycotting its very existence during Pride Round (very visibly doing so), and the AFEL on both occasions stayed completely silent on it let alone condemned/sanctioned their employee for violating their own policy. Therefore, the AFEL has absolutely zero credibility on the issue, which makes all their self-congratulatory horseshit following the Finlayson sanctions not worth listening to for one second.

It reads like you've conflated Christianity with progressivism and Islam with conservatism. Don't know if you meant that. I'm not making a claim as to how diverse religiously people in that region are (I'm quite aware many Jews and Christians have lived in that general part of the world for a long time) but more referring to something like this (which granted may be out of date)


A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2007 showed that 79% of Lebanese believed that "homosexuality should be rejected by society", as opposed to 18% who believed "homosexuality should be accepted by society".



I'd be happy to be corrected with more up to date statistics. What I can find more recently still seems mixed at best.

I'm not sure how a constitution requiring the president be a specific religion can be considered anything but 'conservative' either. I'm willing to admit I'm probably lacking proper knowledge and context to judge that specific rule though.

As for the AFL's action or lack thereof during pride round, I have to wonder what actions or statements they realistically can make given people's 'religious freedoms' and whether they'd be worried about sending more harassment towards the women doing the boycotting.

I'd think legally there's a very big difference between fining someone for causing harm and fining someone for not participating in something on moral grounds. It may not fit your view of consistency but I doubt that really matters to the AFL.

[Bulldog Joe]

Sorry, but if they discredit or ignore the legitimacy of a life that has no impact on them whatsoever then I'll discredit them as much as I like.

That's a general comment. In the case of the footballers not wanting to participate in Pride Round that's up to them and I couldn't care less if they don't.

Sorry Jee.

I can't agree with your point but I will make no further comment.

[Uninformed]

I am told a lot of people do not agree with homosexuality. Does that make them homophobic?

[jeemak]

I am told a lot of people do not agree with homosexuality. Does that make them homophobic?

It's not something to agree or disagree with, as much as gravity isn't something you agree or disagree with.

[chef]

I am told a lot of people do not agree with homosexuality. Does that make them homophobic?

What's there to agree or disagree with as you dont get to choose if you want to be or not. It's just who you are.

[jazzadogs]

I am told a lot of people do not agree with homosexuality. Does that make them homophobic?

It might not make them homophobic, but it does make them intolerant and that should not be tolerated by society.

[Uninformed]

It's not something to agree or disagree with, as much as gravity isn't something you agree or disagree with.

But they say they do, so does that make them homophobic?

The moral component of gravity is a bit mystifying.

[Uninformed]

It might not make them homophobic, but it does make them intolerant and that should not be tolerated by society.

But it is okay to be intolerant of them? Five out of the six billion is lot of people to be intolerant of.

[jeemak]

I think we're off track and should get back to the thread topic.

[Uninformed]

What's there to agree or disagree with as you dont get to choose if you want to be or not. It's just who you are.

So the people that do not think that is a good thing are homophobic? Perhaps they are just wrong in some peoples opinion?

[Grantysghost]

What's there to agree or disagree with as you dont get to choose if you want to be or not. It's just who you are.
But chef, if you tolerate them... You might turn gay. Also if they touch you, you might turn gay.

[Grantysghost]

So the people that do not think that is a good thing are homophobic
Perhaps they are just wrong
Fixed!

[chef]

So the people that do not think that is a good thing are homophobic? Perhaps they are just wrong in some peoples opinion?

If you think being gay is a bad thing yes you are homophobic.

These people should just own it rather than hide behind their beliefs.

[angelopetraglia]

If you think being gay is a bad thing yes you are homophobic.

These people should just own it rather than hide behind their beliefs.

Agree with your thoughts. But it is a small issue compared to the issues with homophobia outside the western world. The majority of the population in this country voted for gay marriage. We are tolerant. We can be better. But we don't condone homophobia in this country. Gay rights are celebrated by big business, Government and all of our sporting bodies.

Just compare Australia's tolerance to this. We are debating inner feelings on a topic and how you should be judged for that where there are countries who are literally killing people for being a gay.

There are six countries where there is capital punishment for homosexuality.

Saudia Arabia
Yemen
Iran
Muaritania
Brunei
Nigeria

There are further five countries where the death penalty may be imposed.

Afghanistan
Pakistan
Qatar
Somalia
UAE

The population of those countries is 700m. How many of them are living in fear of being executed because they were born a certain way. Absolutely horrific.

We give the AFL a hard time. What about LIV Golf? It is in Adelaide this week. It is owned by Saudia Arabia. Anyone talking about gay rights at this event?

[Grantysghost]

Why would anyone have a problem with someone being born a certain way, afforded the right to be happy?

Bizarre.

Pickett appealing was classic (back on thread!)

[Uninformed]

Fixed!

Yep. Easier to hang on to prejudice than think rationally.

[jazzadogs]

Pickett appealing was classic (back on thread!)

Mid-air, he decided to throw his elbow out at his opponents jaw. And they appealed!!!!

[jeemak]

Mid-air, he decided to throw his elbow out at his opponents jaw. And they appealed!!!!

That's how cooked the system is.

[GVGjr]

Mid-air, he decided to throw his elbow out at his opponents jaw. And they appealed!!!!

And a few frequent fighter points racked up. It was a long-shot appeal.

[angelopetraglia]

Cry baby taunt to Petty https://x.com/foxfooty/status/1778391838614859907?s=46&t=oMlyiNHry1lhUs8p7uzZ_A

[angelopetraglia]

Ralph

Zorko apologised for the initial sledge regarding Petty?s mother in 2022, said he needed to be a better leader. The Demons had sledged Zorko too that night. Then Linc McCarthy mocked Petty for his tears late in 2022. Now Answerth. Why drag yourself into it with the win sealed?

[jazzadogs]

Charlie Cameron suspension downgraded because of his community service. Unreal.

"The AFL Tribunal found that this was ‘medium’ impact, but downgraded the sanction from a one-match ban to a fine based on exceptional and compelling circumstances.

We turn now to exceptional and compelling circumstances.

We find that those circumstances do exist here.

Cameron has played for 10 years without being suspended - 207 games suspension-free puts him in a very small minority.

Only 668 players of the 13,125 who have played the game at the elite level have played 200 games. Almost half of those have been suspended for one match or more.

Cameron is clearly in the unusual category in this regard.

This alone would not be enough in our view to result in us necessarily describing it as an exemplary record or, if it was, to exercise our discretion to downgrade.

We note in this matter Cameron has suffered five fines in his history, including three for rough conduct, the charge he faces tonight.

It is however the case that he has not been suspended for 207 games.

The matters that cause us to downgrade this sanction from a one-week suspension to a fine commensurate with a low impact grading are as follows.

1) While this was careless, it was at the lower range of careless. Cameron knew Lever had one arm free. He is much smaller and lighter than Lever and, as he said, lost control of a tackle. If he didn’t rotate 95-plus kilograms of Jake Lever, he would’ve landed squarely on his 74-kilogramme frame.

It was careless but not grossly careless.

We take into account Cameron’s guilty plea, his acceptance that he could and should have released Lever’s arm.

2) While this was medium impact for the reasons we stated, Lever suffered no injury or apparent discomfort.
The difference between this case and the three examples that were graded low impact was real but not significant.

3) The references from Eddie Betts and Gregory Egert provide impressive details of the work Cameron does in the Indigenous community.

He is a role model with an impressive AFL career, it is something for those he connects with aspire to.


These matters are not irrelevant when we come to exercise our discretion in respect of a first suspendable offence when no injury was suffered and was neither intentional or grossly negligent.

Exceptional and compelling means what it says. It will be a rare case when all of the circumstances combine to result in an exercise of discretion to downgrade a sanction.

This is such a case.

We determine in our discretion the appropriate sanction is the fine that would be imposed on Cameron if this was graded as low impact.

[Axe Man]

I would have been ok with it being downgraded to low impact because it really was pretty minor but all the character stuff is nauseating. The tackle is either worthy of a 1 week suspension or it isn't, doesn't matter who the tackler was.

[Axe Man]

How many weeks for Toby Greene? Similar to 2 metre Peter but this time the victim got up. Can’t wait for GWS to pull out the good bloke defence :D

[Grantysghost]

How many weeks for Toby Greene? Similar to 2 metre Peter but this time the victim got up. Can’t wait for GWS to pull out the good bloke defence :D
One i think

[jeemak]

The apologists have been out in force today. Bet you he gets one, and that's appealed with him getting off.

[EasternWest]

The apologists have been out in force today. Bet you he gets one, and that's appealed with him getting off.

He just plays on the edge mate, and we love Tobes for it.

[bulldogtragic]

He just plays on the edge mate, and we love Tobes for it.

Tobes just has to play like Tobes. There’s no one like him. We just need to let him be him.

[EasternWest]

Tobes just has to play like Tobes. There’s no one like him. We just need to let him be him.

Leave Tobes alone.

All Tobes matter.

[jeemak]

His coach said it's hard being Toby. I almost vomited when I heard it.

[azabob]

Greene one week ban.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1113785/match-review-toby-green-jesse-hogan-and-tom-barrass-learn-their-fate-from-the-mro

[bulldogtragic]

Greene one week ban.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1113785/match-review-toby-green-jesse-hogan-and-tom-barrass-learn-their-fate-from-the-mro

That’s a shame.

[bornadog]

Greene one week ban.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1113785/match-review-toby-green-jesse-hogan-and-tom-barrass-learn-their-fate-from-the-mro

Biggest grub playing AFL. Once a grub, always a grub.

[ledge]

I remember when suspensions were for deliberate acts of thuggery now it’s accidental incidents that happen in a split second.
Soon they will have to drop fairest off the Brownlow or they will have some average player who managed to get about 20 games without tackling anyone.