Yazz, Chapman and Bullying.

[BazzaBlue]

Reading all these arguments about players having the right to retaliate physically because the antagonist deserved it and how this somehow can be used to justify violence in general. What a load of s**t.

Yes, this sort of behaviour will occur in competitive sport and always will – and we have a system in place to punish people for it. Done. Both Yarran and Carrots have come out saying it wasn’t right, good.

All I can say is I have worked in forensic settings and seen lives of young adults destroyed with one punch (e.g. 19 year old jailed for 5 years after one punch, with no crim hx - this guy was verbally harassing his mother at a pub - lost apprenticeship and spent best part of his early adulthood in prison). The “victim” in this case had permanent brain damage, personality changes, loss of functioning, father of three and so forth). This is one example of many and yes it is an extreme case but is enough to convince me interpersonal violence is never justified in these situations.

Yes, I was involved in a few fights at school because of bullying, and I know what its like to not want to go to teachers – in some instances it “worked-out” in others it made it worse, and I never felt good about myself for hurting others – I was lucky I nor others never got seriously hurt. Unfortunately we still don’t have great solutions to this problem which often leaves kids feeling like fighting is the only option. It’s ******* sad.

 

[ShanDog]

Reading all these arguments about players having the right to retaliate physically because the antagonist deserved it and how this somehow can be used to justify violence in general. What a load of s**t.

Yes, this sort of behaviour will occur in competitive sport and always will – and we have a system in place to punish people for it. Done. Both Yarran and Carrots have come out saying it wasn’t right, good.

All I can say is I have worked in forensic settings and seen lives of young adults destroyed with one punch (e.g. 19 year old jailed for 5 years after one punch, with no crim hx - this guy was verbally harassing his mother at a pub - lost apprenticeship and spent best part of his early adulthood in prison). The “victim” in this case had permanent brain damage, personality changes, loss of functioning, father of three and so forth). This is one example of many and yes it is an extreme case but is enough to convince me interpersonal violence is never justified in these situations.

Yes, I was involved in a few fights at school because of bullying, and I know what its like to not want to go to teachers – in some instances it “worked-out” in others it made it worse, and I never felt good about myself for hurting others – I was lucky I nor others never got seriously hurt. Unfortunately we still don’t have great solutions to this problem which often leaves kids feeling like fighting is the only option. It’s ******* sad.

I agree with you 100% Bazza, but to keep the conversation within the perspective of footy, those who suggest the instigators of physical confrontations are allowed to get away with too much have a pretty valid point. Chapman and Yarran were being physical with each other so any possible verbal abuse can pretty much be ignored - I saw chapman throw some arms around that hit Yarran in the throat area and in retaliation, Yaz swung at his head. That's why there is a 'Chapman deserved it' sentiment with many people; he started it.

In a real world situation, Chapman would be the one under the police microscope. In football, for some reason his antics are permissable. It's an unfair system.

 

[JustaBattler]

1. Why does the AFL tolerate shirt front jumper grabbing and jumper punches?
2. Why are expert jumper puncher's tolerated and allowed to get away with it?
3. What is the difference between a clenched fist jumper punch and a clenched fist non jumper punch?
4. Why does the AFL encourage sniping behaviour and bully tactics by not treating the jumper puncher - as a puncher?
5. Why aren't AFL Clubs ( like Carlton) who purport to like playing the game 'clean' and have 'clean hands' - not organising for a forensic analysis via video and putting evidence to the AFL when a player has been jumper punched or punched ? Where is the duty of care in all this?


As to those who say head injuries are serious why are they not asking the questions asked above? why are they not demanding basic levels of review and questioning the dodgy and incendiary practises condoned by many Cubs and put into effect week in week out against smaller bodied players or players who have no interest in brawling?

Yes Yarran's free swinging arm punch to Chapman broke rules - his 4-6 week suspension is guaranteed. However Carlton has every right to ask the questions above of the AFL and its umpiring regime. We are talking about a player with a blemish free record against a player known to embrace thuggery on field - however the AFL in its infinite wisdom not only didn't see fnd itself comfortable enough with evidence of Essendon's drug regime - but comfortable enough to rub out a player with no track record of throwing punches - obviously under provocation for 6 weeks according to Whately.

Meanwhile a Richmond player who ran up to a player off field and elbowed him in the back of the head got two weeks last year - two weeks for an off field incident far far more thuggish and potentially damaging - an elbow delivered whilst jumping into the air - to the back of an unsuspecting player's head - 2 weeks.

A better run Carlton machine would have been on the front foot immediately after the game - insisting Chapman was te instigator and making it public that Carlton is sick of its star players being open game against thugs like Chapman - who are well past being able to play fairly on younger players.

 

[Blue Pulse]

I agree with you 100% Bazza, but to keep the conversation within the perspective of footy, those who suggest the instigators of physical confrontations are allowed to get away with too much have a pretty valid point. Chapman and Yarran were being physical with each other so any possible verbal abuse can pretty much be ignored - I saw chapman throw some arms around that hit Yarran in the throat area and in retaliation, Yaz swung at his head. That's why there is a 'Chapman deserved it' sentiment with many people; he started it.

In a real world situation, Chapman would be the one under the police microscope. In football, for some reason his antics are permissable. It's an unfair system.

Bingo!

What I don't understand in AFL is why players are allowed to get away with punches to the ribs or arms of the opposition. Why are you allowed to punch in these areas and get away with it, do they think that young kids don't see these tactics and don't take them into their games? I am no prude and the Yarren/Chapman feud didn't bother me as it will always happen and continue to happen as long they continue to play competitive sports. I saw it from the start and the cause of it and could see that it was going to escalate into what it did.

Yarren will cop his whack from the tribunal and we will all move on, the retaliator will always get pinged by the umpire or video.

With regards to bullying, did anyone see Sooky Goddards tactics on Byrne in the last quarter in the goal square? He was roughing up a first gamer half his size for about 30secs, he stopped using his tactics when Zac came to stand against him and push Byrne up the field.

Goddard like *FC is so brave

 

[Neese]

What shits me is the umpire was aware of the elbows to the ribs and kidneys. Why wasn't a free given or Chapman told to pull his head in?

 

[BluStreak]

What shits me is the umpire was aware of the elbows to the ribs and kidneys. Why wasn't a free given or Chapman told to pull his head in?

I think that it is part of the game that they have not thought through. They see it as part of the combativeness element of our game. But they have tampered with it by not allowing the 'square up'

 

[BazzaBlue]

I agree with you 100% Bazza, but to keep the conversation within the perspective of footy, those who suggest the instigators of physical confrontations are allowed to get away with too much have a pretty valid point. Chapman and Yarran were being physical with each other so any possible verbal abuse can pretty much be ignored - I saw chapman throw some arms around that hit Yarran in the throat area and in retaliation, Yaz swung at his head. That's why there is a 'Chapman deserved it' sentiment with many people; he started it.

In a real world situation, Chapman would be the one under the police microscope. In football, for some reason his antics are permissable. It's an unfair system.

I take you points shan - I am by no means defending Chapman. If he is going to play rough/dirty then he has to expect will get some/if not more in return. As I said in competitive sport it will happen and that should be the end of it - let the MRP deal with it. There is a lot of things that umpires would miss/disregard leading up to that point and whether we like it or not some players make a career of being good at it. Where do you draw the line? Most players don't retaliate they just try to beat their man. Ultimately if you hit the hardest and last you will be punished either in the real world or football.

 

[BluesMan]

I think anyone on here is deluding themselves if they thought carrots or another leader from our club would come out and back up yarrans actions in the media. No way in hell would the club or the AFL stand for our players supporting what yarran did openly.

However behind closed doors, what carrots suggested would happen wont necessarily happen, its just what the AFL wanted to hear so it keeps the integrity of the game up. Think about it before jumping down carrots throat.

 

[aristeas]

So you want more violence in the game?

Way to oversimplify a reasoned argument Thy.

I'm not calling for more violence, or less violence. But in a game where commentators routinely compare us to soccer, and declare that we hve no violence in the stands because all the aggression takes place on the field, well it's the height of hypocrisy to attack (verbally and at considerable length in newspapers andon sports news on TV) Yarran when his only crime is connecting wth a blow and being seen to do it. If he had missed Chapman's head, as he did with most of his angry swings, there would be the usual backslapping and 'it's a man's game' bullshit being spouted.

I love the game. But I remember seeing David Cloke king-hit Swan McKay behind the play at the MCG. It made me furious, but it also drew me into supporting Carlton even more fervently. I remeber watching Des Tuddenham try to take Mark Maclure's head off with a fore-arm to the back of the head, and breaking his arm, and laughing all week at the 'rough justice' of it. in part, that's what stirs up passion, energy and fanatical commitment to the club. Loving our side in its weekly battles against the bullies, thugs and louts of the opposition.

My 'sport', since I was 8, is martial arts. I've spent nearly 40 years dealing with violence in a controlled setting. AFL also involves violence in a controlled setting. My only complaint is the bullshit that gets thrown at Yarran, or any other player, when they connect with an air-swing. Some of the comment makes him sound like Jack the Ripper. If you train someone to box, and to bring their aggression to the game, and send them out with instructions not to take a backward step it's hypocrisy to complain about the results.

Yarran is a great player. He's no thug. If Chapman, a known 'hard nut' tries it on and gets dropped by a haymaker, well I'm behind him all the way. And whining that he's let the club down is a low act.

 

[thylacine60]

Still don't understand your point, aside from the repeated club history lessons. Your efforts at justifying something are all over the place.

 

[LordLucifer]

A better run Carlton machine would have been on the front foot immediately after the game - insisting Chapman was te instigator and making it public that Carlton is sick of its star players being open game against thugs like Chapman - who are well past being able to play fairly on younger players.

*standing ovation* emoticon

 

[MrMan]

What shits me is the umpire was aware of the elbows to the ribs and kidneys. Why wasn't a free given or Chapman told to pull his head in?

1000 time this. This BS behaviour would be nipped in the bud instantly if umpires called a free kick as soon as this rubbish started. No one would do it for the rest of the game.

Instead we end up with a player with a cut to the head and another who was standing up for himself being rubbed out for several weeks.

 

[aristeas]

Still don't understand your point, aside from the repeated club history lessons. Your efforts at justifying something are all over the place.

If you think I'm trying to justify anything you really don't get it.

 

[thylacine60]

Already told you that.

 

[Carl Tone]

 

[Neese]

Tim laughing at the umpire trying to separate them is not a good sound
and then the unhappy chappy part
Real professional commentators

 

[aristeas]

Already told you that.

OK. Once more and then I'll give up.

I think it's ridiculous, and grossly unfair, that a multi-million dollar machine like the AFL thrives on violence, but at the same time dumps all over a player who, when pushed past his limits by a known antagonist, reacts and happens to connect with a wild swing.

That he's vilified by journos, who week in week out laud bullying players like Steve Johnson, is hypocritical.

That the commentators on the day were grossly one-sided and refused to do anything other than bag Yarran and support Chapman, no matter what the evidence, is ludicorous and unfair.

That he's hung out to dry by his team-mates and his club, is hypocritical and disloyal. It says terrible things about the club, where everything, up to and including blood, is asked of a player, but nothing is given backt in loyal support.

That he's going to pay a penalty where the other guy walks, is hypocritical and unfair. Particularly aganst a player from the team that has just caused the biggest cheating scandal in history, and largely escaped any real punishment.

That his only hope of avoiding or reducing a penaltyis to play the race card is symptomatic of a system and a climate that thrives on relative sinning against a politically correct morailty where 'victimhood' is the key to social acceptability. IE: If his violent reaction is considered less than an offense against his 'blackness' he may get a lesser penalty.

I love this game. But I have no illusions that it's fair, or just or even well-umpired, on or off the field.

 

[gab213]

Good that Yarran stood up for himself but he could have dealt with Chapman and put him to the ground without punching him, silly act.

 

[Sector 7G]

Would have been interesting to hear Tims reaction if Yazz dropped Jobe rather than Chappie. There is something wrong about a father commentating about his own son and calling him by his first name.

 

[thylacine60]

OK. Once more and then I'll give up.

I think it's ridiculous, and grossly unfair, that a multi-million dollar machine like the AFL thrives on violence, but at the same time dumps all over a player who, when pushed past his limits by a known antagonist, reacts and happens to connect with a wild swing.

That he's vilified by journos, who week in week out laud bullying players like Steve Johnson, is hypocritical.

That the commentators on the day were grossly one-sided and refused to do anything other than bag Yarran and support Chapman, no matter what the evidence, is ludicorous and unfair.

That he's hung out to dry by his team-mates and his club, is hypocritical and disloyal. It says terrible things about the club, where everything, up to and including blood, is asked of a player, but nothing is given backt in loyal support.

That he's going to pay a penalty where the other guy walks, is hypocritical and unfair. Particularly aganst a player from the team that has just caused the biggest cheating scandal in history, and largely escaped any real punishment.

That his only hope of avoiding or reducing a penaltyis to play the race card is symptomatic of a system and a climate that thrives on relative sinning against a politically correct morailty where 'victimhood' is the key to social acceptability. IE: If his violent reaction is considered less than an offense against his 'blackness' he may get a lesser penalty.

I love this game. But I have no illusions that it's fair, or just or even well-umpired, on or off the field.

Yeah but what's your point?

 

[Franc de Borges]

Indictment on the side that our most skilled and arguably best player has to resort to this. Well done to Yazz for not copping anymore s**t.

The only downside is that I now fully expect us to lose to St. Kilda.

 

[thylacine60]

Why?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I can understand how a supporter base may applaud Yarran letting one go to show a bit of fight but I'm sure that internally this will be viewed as a undisciplined, thoughtless and perhaps even selfish act.

Fact is Yarran is a key player at Carlton these days and without him makes it very tough for them to win against anybody atm. Over the next three weeks they have St Kilda, Collingwood and Brisbane - all very winnable games but also compounds the cost of Yarran's brain fade. They will be without one of their top 5 and there is no real reason why that should be the case other than a lack of discipline.

From what I saw, Malthouse didn't seem too worried about it.

 

[JustaBattler]

From what I saw, Malthouse didn't seem too worried about it.

Malthouse isnt too worried about anything these days..

 

[Schraderbrau]

From what I saw, Malthouse didn't seem too worried about it.

Pretty sure 15/16 coaches would think otherwise. I'm think MM is on record though for saying there exists a different set of rules for different players at clubs. It's an approach that definitely worked well for him at the Pies but caused a bit of havoc after he left and I think the game has changed so much in the last few years that almost every other football department in the league would regard that kind of approach as lunacy. Luckily for Yarran he one of the 4-5 players at Carlton who is good enough to have his own set of rules.