NO TROLLS Rankine handed a 4 match suspension by the AFL integrity unit for a homophobic slur against opponent

[iameviljez]

why does IR need 5 to achieve the same result

Bonus penalty for being a complete idiot.

 

[Underarm]

No, it was on her watch.

And one of the only things she's got right.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Then why cant he get 3?
The fact is, its all over the place, and its all over the place because like so many decisions in the AFL, they make it up as they go along.
It should be 1 or 2 weeks 1st offence plus fine and go up from there not chook lotto because the AFL thought it wouldnt happen as often as it has.
JF hasnt reoffended after serving 3, why does IR need 5 to achieve the same result?

Why, well for starters he didn't self report, and no calling the bloke is not self reporting. He wouldn't be up for the 1 week discount (applied in the Jack Graham case 5 weeks down to 4), so you are basically starting at 4 on the lowest end. He needed to be the FIRST person to report it not the last, the AFL will not like the lack of initial accountability. It does seem 5 weeks is the base penaly nowadays, but I won't be surprised if it ends being 4 and that would be acceptable. Basically dangles a carrot if Adelaide want to 'tank' the first final, if not he's out for the year.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Why is the punishment too great? Because of finals? They set the tone on this subject before this situation arose, this is not a special case. This may be a new area for the game but it's been unacceptable in society for long time, a supporter is likely to get a stadium life ban if caught. Stop holding players to a lower standard.

The punishment is too great regardless of whether it is finals games or home and away games.

What the presence of finals in the equation does is brings this into sharper focus. Ie, it should now be easier for people to see the punishment of a 4-5 week suspension is too great for the nature of the offence.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

And one of the only things she's got right.

Correction

THE ONLY THING SHE GOT RIGHT

 

[Norwood1878]

Have they executed him yet ?

Collecting the stones as we speak...Thank god there's no cameras in my living room, i'd get 20 to life for half the shit i call umpires

 

[Ian Dunross]

Can we quit with this stupid narrative that Maynard ended his career as though he was the only opponent who ever concussed Brayshaw? To read this forum you’d think he king hit the bloke and sent a perfectly healthy player from his prime into a wheelchair. He didn’t. He was the last in a long history of incidents that led to Brayshaw calling time. He was no more a part of Brayshaw being finished than Trevor Berbick was the reason for Ali having Parkinson’s. He was a factor. Not the factor.

Brayshaw didn't kick a football again after Maynard collected his head. Maynard ended his career. Was Brayshaw more susceptible to having his career ended by a shirtfront to the head? Maybe. Doesn't change that the Maynard was the one who ended his career.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The punishment is too great regardless of whether it is finals games or home and away games.

What the presence of finals in the equation does is brings this into sharper focus. Ie, it should now be easier for people to see the punishment of a 4-5 week suspension is too great for the nature of the offence.

If players wish to play finals they can show an ounce of self respect and stop handing out slurs as so called 'heat of the moment'. Just don't do it and then guess what you won't be suspended. The only fool in this case is Rankine and he's not one we should feel sorry for at all

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Brayshaw didn't kick a football again after Maynard collected his head. Maynard ended his career. Was Brayshaw more susceptible to having his career ended by a shirtfront to the head? Maybe. Doesn't change that the Maynard was the one who ended his career.

Whether it was Maynard or the next one, he was always suspect to a concussion. I feel for Brayshaw and he may have had a longer career had the concussion protocols been in.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Plenty of people get angry and don't say highly offensive slurs. If a person can't help themselves from saying slurs when they get angry then that is the persons problem. It isn't a problem for the rest of us to accept.

The fact that there have been no repeat offenders must mean the punishments are working.

We don't really know if there are repeat offenders. How long has this been recorded? How many are incidents are reported and how many are let go?

It's not something for us to accept, you are right. We didn't hear it though. We only know about it because a player reported it. It wasn't picked up by a microphone or the crowd.

I think it makes Rankine look like a bit of an a-hole, but I'm not offended by knowing that he said it, and I am not offended on behalf of the player he said it to, unless that player is personally affected by the comment. I would personally allow the LGBTQI+ community to be the spokespersons for any offence taken.

 

[57 Milner]

Why, well for starters he didn't self report, and no calling the bloke is not self reporting.

Don't you think that if he was aware self reporting would be considered in the case for leniciency he would have self reported? Perhaps the club took it apon themselves to go the AFL without advising him to do so. Perhaps there are other circumstances that we are unaware of. I supect some are giving too much credence to John Ralph's framing of the events.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Why, well for starters he didn't self report, and no calling the bloke is not self reporting. He wouldn't be up for the 1 week discount (applied in the Jack Graham case 5 weeks down to 4), so you are basically starting at 4 on the lowest end. He needed to be the FIRST person to report it not the last, the AFL will not like the lack of initial accountability. It does seem 5 weeks is the base penaly nowadays, but I won't be surprised if it ends being 4 and that would be acceptable. Basically dangles a carrot if Adelaide want to 'tank' the first final, if not he's out for the year.

Nah, old mate Greg Swann has arrived to sort out the mess in the AFL since the Graham example, no reason why he couldnt say the penalties are wrong and fix it.

 

[Cyclonus]

Brayshaw didn't kick a football again after Maynard collected his head. Maynard ended his career. Was Brayshaw more susceptible to having his career ended by a shirtfront to the head? Maybe. Doesn't change that the Maynard was the one who ended his career.

This is a bit like when I drink the last few sips of milk and my wife asks "Did you drink all the milk?" and I have to calmy reply "No, but I drank the last of it."

 

[Scotland]

yes but they handed out 4 weeks for homophobic slurs like a month ago so it's not been a few years

Lance Collard got 6 weeks last year and Jack Graham 4 weeks a month ago.

He's not going to get a token fine or one game ban but the AFL do make this stuff up as they go along.

 

[_Mike_]

The fact is, its all over the place, and its all over the place because like so many decisions in the AFL, they make it up as they go along.

The underlying argument is there's a perception that this can be treated in the same way as a physical act on the field. The reality is, that we've seen & argued, is that the MRO/MRP/Tribunal is all outcome based decision making, on the harm received by a player.

To try to force the same on these events is flawed, because it will be on a basis of the likely harm caused to that player which is not always evident, and subjective to the assessor, and can have a delayed impact.

Otherwise the AFL would have to have clinical psychologists/psychiatrists assessing every singe instance and making a determination on how the player receiving the slur may be affected, which IMO is not reasonable or realistic.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Whether it was Maynard or the next one, he was always suspect to a concussion. I feel for Brayshaw and he may have had a longer career had the concussion protocols been in.

There are head knocks and there are head knocks. Would Brayshaw have suffered other head knocks playing footy? Yes. Would Brayshaw have been shirtfronted again playing footy? Probably not. Shirtfronts just don't happen in modern footy - unless of course you're "trying to smother".

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Don't you think that if he was aware self reporting would be considered in the case for leniciency he would have self reported? Perhaps the club took it apon themselves to go the AFL without advising him to do so. Perhaps there are other circumstances that we are unaware of. I supect some are giving too much credence to John Ralph's framing of the events.

He should have been the first person, I mean he should have literally done it the moment he left the field. You know when you have said these things, well most people with a brain do and I don't believe Issac is one that doesn't. It comes across as being cornered and saying 'oh bugger I better be seen to be doing something"

 

[Ian Dunross]

This is a bit like when I drink the last few sips of milk and my wife asks "Did you drink all the milk?" and I have to calmy reply "No, but I drank the last of it."

The better analogy is, you've just made a milk shake using half the bottle of milk. Maynard didn't tap Brayshaw in the head, he shirtfronted him in the head.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Nah, old mate Greg Swann has arrived to sort out the mess in the AFL since the Graham example, no reason why he couldnt say the penalties are wrong and fix it.

Might do it but after the season not now. Just give Rankine 4 and be done. They aren't losing to GC anyway so that's his season and they can say 'oh we gave you a discount'

 

[PenfoldsFan]

The underlying argument is there's a perception that this can be treated in the same way as a physical act on the field. The reality is, that we've seen & argued, is that the MRO/MRP/Tribunal is all outcome based decision making, on the harm received by a player.

To try to force the same on these events is flawed, because it will be on a basis of the likely harm caused to that player which is not always evident, and subjective to the assessor, and can have a delayed impact.

Otherwise the AFL would have to have clinical psychologists/psychiatrists assessing every singe instance and making a determination on how the player receiving the slur may be affected, which IMO is not reasonable or realistic.

Which is why it should be a set sanction and not escalating, that is madness because it implies that the offended person in this example is 'hurt' worse than the JF incident.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There are head knocks and there are head knocks. Would Brayshaw have suffered other head knocks playing footy? Yes. Would Brayshaw have been shirtfronted again playing footy? Probably not. Shirtfronts just don't happen in modern footy - unless of course you're "trying to smother".

Sure but it usually doesn't take much if your head like Brayshaw has been through that much. It's a shame one of the real nice guys in footy

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Might do it but after the season not now. Just give Rankine 4 and be done. They aren't losing to GC anyway so that's his season and they can say 'oh we gave you a discount'

The fact that you have twice as many posts on the matter than the next person suggests you have an axe to grind so I'll leave you to it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That is one hell of a word salad.
We've heard it all before.
The only problem is that you don't understand the inherent flaw in your argument.
You say, 2 things are not the same and therefore are not comparable.
Then you conclude with, therefore the punishment shouldn't be the same.

I'll walk you through it slowly.
You start with : 2 things are not comparable.
Then you proceed to compare the 2.
And conclude that the punishment should not be the same.

s l o w l y
If 2 things are not comparable, then you can't compare the 2. End of.



Precedent. Do you know what that means?

I did half a law degree, and made a living as a punter for 20 years based on my understanding of precedents.

This boils down simply to one question. Is the punishment fair if a player is given a 4-5 week suspension for choosing the wrong word to describe a cowardly effort by an opponent? And let's acknowledge here that wrong word chosen is a seriously offensive slur against homosexual people.

In terms of a striking offence, this would likely be careless rather than deliberate. Low impact rather than high impact. And would receive a sanction of 1-2 weeks maximum. And that is the basis of what I am arguing here. If it was a deliberate and targeted homophobic slur, AND it caused sexual related anguish to the recipient of the remark, that imo is what equates to a 4-5 week suspension.

In legal matters, precedents are routinely followed. Until they are not. And this is a time a new precedent should be set.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Which is why it should be a set sanction and not escalating, that is madness because it implies that the offended person in this example is 'hurt' worse than the JF incident.

ALL players not just JF should have learnt from that incident. They should know there is no excuse, and they were told explicitly that sanctions would increase.

 

[_Mike_]

Which is why it should be a set sanction and not escalating, that is madness because it implies that the offended person in this example is 'hurt' worse than the JF incident.

If the AFL applies an outcome based sanction for using any onfield harassment including but not limited to slurs, then it must be fair, equitable, and consistently applied.

The MRO/MRP/Tribunal can struggle with these things at the best of times.