Rumour Multiple GWS players are set to be suspended to start the 2025 season after distasteful costumes and skits from their post-season function

[greatwhiteshark]

Legality doesn't necessarily determine the amount of damage something causes to society. Gambling is one example, alcohol is another.

I agree with HairyO's point 100%. The AFL's selective morality is a poor look. And hypocritical.

The AFL have no one that calls them out, they own the media and therefor they are a law to themselves.

 

[Bluelegs]

Performing skits implies they had rehearsals. Would love to have seen how they workshopped it.

 

[Bagger72]

Calling it satire doesn't make it any better.

In case you are unaware of the definition

The use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

 

[Gak Attack]

This is wild but good to see the bar has been outed

Getting review bombed already. Bit shit. Although if CCTV thing is true then maybe deserve it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You can guarantee me 100% that every player in the league thinks its fine? That's a pretty revealing statement to be honest. I don't know a single bloke who thinks its fine, and I'd call attention to anyone I knew behaving like that.

I don't think we can even be sure that the GWS players were ok with it. Some may have stayed quiet but sheesh... would it be a surprise if an indigenous or other player of colour came out and said 'actually, that time where a senior player at the club re-enacted slavery with a much younger black team-mate really upset me'.

Even beyond that, it sounds like the players themselves have been doing a bit of reflection. Here's a quote from Toby Greene today:
"As a leader of the club and captain of the team, I am embarrassed that we are in this situation and that I failed to uphold my responsibilities as a leader to prevent it," he said in a Giants statement.
"I am disappointed I did not adequately process the situation, and intervene, in the moment."

I don't think a single incident defines any individual or group as being of 'poor character and unworthy of our support'. It's disappointing, and I'm sure frustrating to a whole range of people. But individuals and groups make mistakes, and how they respond is often just as revealing of their character as the initial act. That's what remains to be seen here.

And also maintaining a sense of perspective, this is bad, but in some ways they'll get off pretty lightly. The players are copping a fine or a short suspension and will keep their jobs. Not many workplaces where that would be the case

Toby green was given that to read, otherwise the day after he would have come out and said it. You are living in a fantasy world mate. This will continue yo happen. Never ever will it stop. It will now go underground mad Monday.
I am not saying I think it’s right I am just saying it happens and it’s harmless fun as they intended it to be.

 

[killerspud]

Nope they are just some lads having some fun. I know you disagree but it’s just fun mate.

So dry humping a blow up sex doll with drunken mates is just a bit of fun? Glad Im a boring type then

 

[SSwans2011]

In case you are unaware of the definition

The use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Satirising DV and SA, particularly in the fashion the players have, is repugnant.

 

[Bagger72]

Satirising DV and SA, particularly in the fashion the players have, is repugnant.

You would probably agree that satirising Andrew Dill-on is equally repugnant.

 

[Sth Melb Hellas]

View attachment 2143259


I'm sure people whinged about those too, but as long as men were still the target audience they could manage.

Nobody complained.

 

[sherb]

In case you are unaware of the definition

The use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

You are seriously kidding yourself if you think these blokes were performing satire.

Besides that, sexual assault is not a topic for satire in any case.

 

[SSwans2011]

You would probably agree that satirising Andrew Dill-on is equally repugnant.

Lol, what?

 

[Bluelegs]

I wonder what happens at cinemas.
Some really disgusting movies out there. I assume staff get the choice to not work, I wouldn’t have a clue.

Movies are classified before they are screened, so it would be pretty easy to look that up and raise any issues with a manager.

 

[killerspud]

They were being satirical is the word you are looking for my precious snowflake

I know you think you're smart because you used the word 'satirical' but the way you used it indicates you have no idea what it actually means

 

[greatwhiteshark]

So dry humping a blow up sex doll with drunken matwa is just a bit of fun. Glad Im a boring type then

If he wasnt dressed up as Jarrod Hayne would it of been an issue?

 

[sherb]

This is wild but good to see the bar has been outed

My point remains.

Why can't the players have a rollicking good day without having to resort to this type of questionable behaviour?

 

[Underarm]

Toby green was given that to read, otherwise the day after he would have come out and said it. You are living in a fantasy world mate. This will continue yo happen. Never ever will it stop. It will now go underground mad Monday.
I am not saying I think it’s right I am just saying it happens and it’s harmless fun as they intended it to be.

Saying its 'harmless' doesn't make it so.

 

[thejester]

Legality doesn't necessarily determine the amount of damage something causes to society. Gambling is one example, alcohol is another.

I agree with HairyO's point 100%. The AFL's selective morality is a poor look. And hypocritical.

All morality is selective, though. I get people's anger over gambling and largely agree with it, but I just don't see it's relevance here - the AFL isn't punishing these guys for having a punt, they're punishing them for re-enacting a sexual assault.

 

[killerspud]

If he was t dressed up as Jarrod Hayne would it of been an issue?

Yeah I think so anytime you are humping a sex doll in public i think calls your judgement into question but thats just me, some people might think thats ok

 

[SSwans2011]

If he was t dressed up as Jarrod Hayne would it of been an issue?

Well obviously not. Context matters.

Feeling compelled to do that in front of others would still be weird behaviour regardless.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

You dont see a little bit of hypocrisy with the AFL taking issue with players misbehaving while raking in billions of dollars from gambling addicts and having no issue with kids being bombarded with gambing ads?

So because the afl accept gambling revenue, they are precluded from having an opinion on anything else, right?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yeah I think so anytime you are humping a sex doll in public i think calls your judgement into question but thats just me, some people might think thats ok

I agree its not something I would do but if I saw it happening and the lads around were all having a laugh I would just think that’s nice look at those young lads having a great time.

 

[EagleShore]

Going a bit too hard in the disco isn't very flattering but it's also not particularly offensive. On the other hand, simulating a sexual assault with a blow up doll is actually just a little bit offensive.

Do you see the difference?

Yeah, I see the difference.

One involves use of illicit drugs in an open nightclub (ie. a place open to adults from the public, not at a private event)

The other involves non-illicit, but distasteful activities at a private function.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Well obviously not. Context matters.

Feeling compelled to do that in front of others would still be weird behaviour regardless.

Of course it’s weird behaviour, that’s what happens on those days.

 

[EagleShore]

So because the afl accept gambling revenue, they are precluded from having an opinion on anything else, right?

They can have a ****en opinion, but as to whether they should be issuing sanctions or fines is another question.

 

[sherb]

All morality is selective, though. I get people's anger over gambling and largely agree with it, but I just don't see it's relevance here - the AFL isn't punishing these guys for having a punt, they're punishing them for re-enacting a sexual assault.

But that doesn't mean selective morality is exempt from being called out. And that's all that is being done in this case.

What makes the AFL's selective morality here worse is that the reason they don't take a stand on gambling is because it would cost them big money.

I agree that this particular point is taking the discussion into wider territory though - ie gambling is not directly related to the Giants players issue.