What's offensive for one person, might not be for another
Stamp it out by having a minimum 3 or 4 week penalty
Prevent, not fix
No Oppo Supporters General AFL Discussion #13 - Carlton Posters ONLY!
- Thread starter mike ockerts
- Start date
- Tagged users None
What's offensive for one person, might not be for another
Stamp it out by having a minimum 3 or 4 week penalty
Prevent, not fix
Suspension is not the answer imo. Should be a big fine.
Death threats, then we are getting more serious and talking lengthy suspensions.
That goes beyond sticks and stones etc.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Death threats, then we are getting more serious and talking lengthy suspensions.
That goes beyond sticks and stones etc.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
- Aug 22, 2014
- 13,693
- 49,735
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Random musings on this subject.
I think the reason we see heavier penalties for racism are because the comments are directed at a person based on their race. Go up to a white bloke and call him a n***** and you're getting a bemused look. Do it to a player with first nations or African heritage and it's a whole different story. You're picking out a core facet of that person's history, culture, family, background, origin, whatever, and denigrating it as a way of denigrating them. There's also the likelihood that the individual has experienced that sort of abuse outside football, and copping it on the footy field is adding to prior damage.
To date, we're yet to have an AFL footballer come out as gay. Part of that might be fear of judgement or repercussion, either from their teammates, opponents or fans of the game. Part of it might be not wanting to carry that torch of being "the first". Part of it might be because it's nobodies damn business. But whatever the reason - without knowing a player is gay, throwing around homophobic terms as a means of insulting them is more of an outdated method of saying you think they're weak. Does that excuse it? Absolutely not. But calling someone gay when there is no knowledge or evidence that they are gay....well, it's hard to assess the damage the comment may or may not have caused. If anything, the assumption would likely be that the damage is more general in nature, in that gay people who hear or read of the comments may find it upsetting to know that prominent sports people are perpetuating the discriminatory language. It's a general social issue, rather than one of targeted discrimination of an individual.
Insultingly call me gay and I'm thinking "geez, this dickhead doesn't like me". Call my gay mate gay and you're potentially dredging up years of bullying and abuse.
I guess the question then is, do we punish the comments on the assumption that the person they were directed at could be gay? After all, we don't know...we don't need to or have a right to know...they could be and therefore does the penalty need to allow for that possibility? Is that the only way to protect those who might be gay but not be ready or inclined to come out?
From a societal standpoint, perhaps we should treat both types of comment the same regardless. There's a risk that if you don't, you're seen to be putting the rights of one minority group above the other.
That's where I land on the discussion of different penalties. It's a position of "I have no skin in this game and so I have limited insight", with a bit of fence sitting as a result.
My initial instinct was to lean towards racism directed at an individual of another race or cultural group being worse than using a homophobic term to try and insult someone who, to the best of your knowledge, isn't gay. I think in the course of writing the post though, I've shifted my view to treating both as equally serious for a variety of reasons.
I think the reason we see heavier penalties for racism are because the comments are directed at a person based on their race. Go up to a white bloke and call him a n***** and you're getting a bemused look. Do it to a player with first nations or African heritage and it's a whole different story. You're picking out a core facet of that person's history, culture, family, background, origin, whatever, and denigrating it as a way of denigrating them. There's also the likelihood that the individual has experienced that sort of abuse outside football, and copping it on the footy field is adding to prior damage.
To date, we're yet to have an AFL footballer come out as gay. Part of that might be fear of judgement or repercussion, either from their teammates, opponents or fans of the game. Part of it might be not wanting to carry that torch of being "the first". Part of it might be because it's nobodies damn business. But whatever the reason - without knowing a player is gay, throwing around homophobic terms as a means of insulting them is more of an outdated method of saying you think they're weak. Does that excuse it? Absolutely not. But calling someone gay when there is no knowledge or evidence that they are gay....well, it's hard to assess the damage the comment may or may not have caused. If anything, the assumption would likely be that the damage is more general in nature, in that gay people who hear or read of the comments may find it upsetting to know that prominent sports people are perpetuating the discriminatory language. It's a general social issue, rather than one of targeted discrimination of an individual.
Insultingly call me gay and I'm thinking "geez, this dickhead doesn't like me". Call my gay mate gay and you're potentially dredging up years of bullying and abuse.
I guess the question then is, do we punish the comments on the assumption that the person they were directed at could be gay? After all, we don't know...we don't need to or have a right to know...they could be and therefore does the penalty need to allow for that possibility? Is that the only way to protect those who might be gay but not be ready or inclined to come out?
From a societal standpoint, perhaps we should treat both types of comment the same regardless. There's a risk that if you don't, you're seen to be putting the rights of one minority group above the other.
That's where I land on the discussion of different penalties. It's a position of "I have no skin in this game and so I have limited insight", with a bit of fence sitting as a result.
My initial instinct was to lean towards racism directed at an individual of another race or cultural group being worse than using a homophobic term to try and insult someone who, to the best of your knowledge, isn't gay. I think in the course of writing the post though, I've shifted my view to treating both as equally serious for a variety of reasons.
Fines are a deterrent for sure but not a patch on suspension.
Set a benchmark and the players will fall in line.
This is as much about setting community standards for all levels of football as much as it’s about Finlayson as an individual.
This is what baffles me about the Clarko penalty!!
Sure players are role models and heroes to people but coaches are supposed to be ambassadors of the game and as such have incredible responsibility to represent the code at its best.
Clarko is a recidivist and has failed in public often. To only fine him when he is probably one of the highest paid coaches ever in the game is soft!!!
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Aug 16, 2015
- 11,036
- 18,589
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Dramoth
Premium Platinum
St Kilda is and always has been a ******* cesspool.
myblueroan
Premium Gold
- Aug 16, 2015
- 11,036
- 18,589
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
I really scratch my head at some of the stuff media personalities, commentators and footy show hosts spit out sometimes.
Watching the First Crack and Huddo brings up a time out style scenario that occurred in the 2nd quarter when Taylor was knocked out, as Adam Kingsley was coaching from the bench, all the GWS players went to the bench area and he was able to address them.
Hudson went on to claim that it was an unfair advantage as Ross Lyon was coaching from the box and he couldn’t do it. King chiming in that it took Ross 2.5 minutes to get down to the ground and if it was at the MCG it would take 5 minutes.
They then suggested the AFL should ban coaches addressing players mid game.
Here’s a hot tip guys, if coaches want to personally address their players as they come on and off the ground, then maybe, just maybe coach from the boundary line, like Kingsley was doing and on the off chance that someone is knocked out, you will get to talk to the whole group.
Do these people not understand that coaches coach from the ground or up in the box because they think one or the other gives their team an advantage?
Watching the First Crack and Huddo brings up a time out style scenario that occurred in the 2nd quarter when Taylor was knocked out, as Adam Kingsley was coaching from the bench, all the GWS players went to the bench area and he was able to address them.
Hudson went on to claim that it was an unfair advantage as Ross Lyon was coaching from the box and he couldn’t do it. King chiming in that it took Ross 2.5 minutes to get down to the ground and if it was at the MCG it would take 5 minutes.
They then suggested the AFL should ban coaches addressing players mid game.
Here’s a hot tip guys, if coaches want to personally address their players as they come on and off the ground, then maybe, just maybe coach from the boundary line, like Kingsley was doing and on the off chance that someone is knocked out, you will get to talk to the whole group.
Do these people not understand that coaches coach from the ground or up in the box because they think one or the other gives their team an advantage?
- Mar 19, 2014
- 3,588
- 8,037
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos
Yeah, heard that and thought it was a really pathetic point of view.
One of their team mates had just been knocked out, personally I would want to make sure the rest of the playing group is okay and still focused. Hard to do, but trying to install some peace of mind into the players that Taylor was in the best of care and giving updates when available.
Whoa.
One of our supporters actually said that Collingwood would be screwed if Murphy was forced to retire and this was weeks ago.
Tough but very mature decision for him, hopefully he lives a long and healthy life.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Whoa.
One of our supporters actually said that Collingwood would be screwed if Murphy was forced to retire and this was weeks ago.
Really sad when you hear news like this, regardless of what club they play for.
I actually liked Murphy - got the most out of himself and a really tough competitor - a real quiet achiever.
I wish him all the best and a long, healthy life.
RPCB
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #1,589
I have seen supporters of other clubs (not about this news) who take enjoyment in the injuries of players from their rivals and that is weird. Fortunately, I haven’t seen any of that on here about any players from other club and I hope I never do. Good group of people on here.
- Moderator
- #1,590
Very sad and would have been a very tough decision for Nathan to make but it would have been on medical advice.
He retires as a Premiership player and wishing Nathan all the best for the future and whatever it may bring.
He retires as a Premiership player and wishing Nathan all the best for the future and whatever it may bring.
I read an article that Nathan has suffered 10 concussions. Poor guy couldn’t catch a break.
And yet MRO still picks and chooses which cases he looks at. It's pathetic.
I read an article that Nathan has suffered 10 concussions. Poor guy couldn’t catch a break.
Quality young lad - wish him well in the future - has something in his locker that most AFL players never have - I hope he can take some consolation from that
Stickitupthem
Team Captain
- Jun 2, 2019
- 568
- 1,542
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Perfect weekend coming
Blues win no injuries
* lose
Aaints lose
Cats hard game
Storm win no injuries
Blues win no injuries
* lose
Aaints lose
Cats hard game
Storm win no injuries
- Oct 4, 2015
- 11,465
- 20,191
- AFL Club
- Carlton
AFL concedes umpiring error made in Draper non-call
While saying it was the correct approach at the time, the AFL has admitted an umpiring error was made in not penalising Sam Draper for holding the ball on Friday night
www.afl.com.au
So, another game they've cost the Crows...
Looked like Adelaide might have got away with an incorrect disposal with about 2 mins to go….swings and roundaboutsAFL concedes umpiring error made in Draper non-call
While saying it was the correct approach at the time, the AFL has admitted an umpiring error was made in not penalising Sam Draper for holding the ball on Friday night
So, another game they've cost the Crows...
- Nov 27, 2016
- 17,656
- 34,153
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Apparently caught a knock fairly often though...I read an article that Nathan has suffered 10 concussions. Poor guy couldn’t catch a break.
Too soon?
On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app
ESKIE
Keeping it Cool.
- Feb 28, 2009
- 31,987
- 53,842
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Where’s the best deal for Kayo? Club has a digital membership which is an option, does anyone have any ideas ?
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,136
- 10,118
- AFL Club
- Carlton
AFL team's performances following match v Carlton:
Brisbane L L
Richmond L W
NM L L (both 70+)
Freo L L
Adelaide L
Bit of a pattern emerging?
Brisbane L L
Richmond L W
NM L L (both 70+)
Freo L L
Adelaide L
Bit of a pattern emerging?
- Moderator
- #1,599
Had Kayo with Telstra for 2 years (50% off but no longer available) but this year did it through the Club.
So much cheaper than $35 a month through Kayo/Telstra.
Our Digital M/ship is $260 and much better value and there are extras you get as well Esky
Digital Membership | Carlton Football Club
Browse all the inclusions for the Digital Membership from the Carlton Football Club.
membership.carltonfc.com.au
Similar threads
- Locked
