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

[RCAB]

I have a genuine question. Somebody posted a link to an article by a gay Crow supporter referring to themselves as ‘queer’. Queer by definition means odd or peculiar and to me sounds every bit as derogatory as other slurs that have been used. Why is this word acceptable to the gay community?

Generally not considered an insult, even though it used to be and for some people may still carry some hurt.

But that word has been reclaimed and been used by LGBTQI community as an umbrella term which encompass a lot of people. It's more of an inclusive label and a rejection of shame, rather than derision, particularly by younger generations.

Certainly not a slur like the homophobic f-word. Not even close.

 

[radiojake]

I still can't believe that their statement after the suspension landed was about how Rankine had apologised to Quaynor but nothing about the broader issue.

Just wondering where any official statement exists where Quaynor was mentioned
thanks

 

[sr36]

Just wondering where any official statement exists where Quaynor was mentioned
thanks

The official statements don't say Quaynor. But everyone knows it was Quaynor. The official statements also don't say "faxxot" but everyone knows that was the word used too.

I didn't use quotation marks. I was pointing out the content of what they said and not the exact words. Your attempt at a gotcha moment is terrible.

 

[radiojake]

The official statements don't say Quaynor. But everyone knows it was Quaynor

It's certainly interesting that we don't know who Finlayson or Graham targeted with their slurs

Why do we know it was Quaynor?

 

[Humblebob]

It's certainly interesting that we don't know who Finlayson or Graham targeted with their slurs

Why do we know it was Quaynor?

Because Adelaide Fc, instead of accepting fault and the judgement, made a mess of it and dragged it out long enough that it was investigated and reported on

 

[sr36]

It's certainly interesting that we don't know who Finlayson or Graham targeted with their slurs

Why do we know it was Quaynor?

This conversation would be much easier if you were open, rather than trying to imply things through questions.

I think this is what happened: It was initially believed it was Quaynor based on an attention seeking knob on Twitter who took a complete guess on Day 1. I think it was a guess because the rest of their story was wrong. There were some inaccurate rumours in Adelaide that it was Daicos, but the Quaynor rumour grew and in the face of the rumour, the media didn't say - it's not Quaynor, which made it bloody obvious it was Quaynor. And now everyone is open about it being Quaynor.

 

[radiojake]

Because Adelaide Fc, instead of accepting fault and the judgement, made a mess of it and dragged it out long enough that it was investigated and reported on

All parties made this a mess, including the AFL and the media

why should Adelaide be criticised for defending their player? How is bringing a defense to a tribunal 'making a mess' ?

 

[RCAB]

All parties made this a mess, including the AFL and the media

why should Adelaide be criticised for defending their player? How is bringing a defense to a tribunal 'making a mess' ?

Just because you don't like the criticism doesn't mean it's not accurate.

 

[Humblebob]

All parties made this a mess, including the AFL and the media

why should Adelaide be criticised for defending their player? How is bringing a defense to a tribunal 'making a mess' ?

You were the one asking the question mate, all i did was answer it.

Adelaide made a mess of it by campaigning for a lighter sentence based on Izak's hurt feelings throughout the match, that invited media and public scrutiny, beyond what would have been had they just accepted that what he said was not on, that there was already precedence and that his year was done.
With all things considered and the issue of homophobia in both society and the game being such a front of centre issue, it's fair to call into question whether it was smart of the club to drag it into investigative territory. They were never going to get it thrown out and there was never a denial that he said it.

The negatives far outweighed what could have been gained, pick you battles, this wasn't it.

They have every right to want to challenge, given the circumstance, but your question was why do we know about the other parties? Wasn't it? Or were you being cute and trying to lead us down another path? lol

 

[radiojake]

It was both

The media scrutiny was absurd and Adelaide have been smashed for trying to mitigate the punishment as much as possible which is what every single club would do when their player is at the tribunal

Technically there was no appeal by Adelaide as there was never a 5 week sanction delivered, only MacGuire using his show to make the claim - why was that information leaked?

Definitely shouldn't have taken four or five days for a verdict to happen, Izak definitely shouldn't have said what he said and I was not advocating no punishment, and the media should cop it's fair share of blame for the shit that happened at Adelaide Oval crowd Thurs night

 

[Humblebob]

It was both

The media scrutiny was absurd and Adelaide have been smashed for trying to mitigate the punishment as much as possible which is what every single club would do when their player is at the tribunal

Technically there was no appeal by Adelaide as there was never a 5 week sanction delivered, only MacGuire using his show to make the claim - why was that information leaked?

Definitely shouldn't have taken four or five days for a verdict to happen, Izak definitely shouldn't have said what he said and I was not advocating no punishment, and the media should cop it's fair share of blame for the shit that happened at Adelaide Oval crowd Thurs night

All i'm hearing is 'we're the victims'

 

[radiojake]

All i'm hearing is 'we're the victims'

Then your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired

 

[Humblebob]

Then your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired

Nah. I understand what you're trying to do, i'm just not buying it.

Accept fault, educate, do it better next time. Really simple stuff.

Everything is qualified with a #but, finger pointing to minimise responsibility. Schoolyard stuff.

 

[madmug]

Lots of opinions. Mine is that homophobic slurs need to be stamped out. However, I think the AFL's approach & penalty needs reviewing. I believe a first offence should generally be a 1 week minimum suspension, a decent fine & a warning that a repeat will warrant a MUCH more severe sentence. 4-5 weeks first off is just inflaming indignation & causing aggravation in the footy community. Its inconsistent with other sentences of dangerous tackles or other violent actions. We are much more accustomed to seeing the general approach in the judicial system of the penalty fitting the community expectations. The community expectation is that in extreme cases of any 'illegal behaviour' or with repetition of such behaviour is when the hammer should be dropped on the perpetrator/s.

 

[radiojake]

Nah. I understand what you're trying to do, i'm just not buying it.

Accept fault, educate, do it better next time. Really simple stuff.

Everything is qualified with a #but, finger pointing to minimise responsibility. Schoolyard stuff.

mate I literally haven't used the word 'but' in this thread until this very post

 

[radiojake]

Accept fault, educate, do it better next time. Really simple stuff

By the way, agree with this
Doesn't mean what I've been saying is wrong

 

[RCAB]

It was both

The media scrutiny was absurd and Adelaide have been smashed for trying to mitigate the punishment as much as possible which is what every single club would do when their player is at the tribunal

Technically there was no appeal by Adelaide as there was never a 5 week sanction delivered, only MacGuire using his show to make the claim - why was that information leaked?

Definitely shouldn't have taken four or five days for a verdict to happen, Izak definitely shouldn't have said what he said and I was not advocating no punishment, and the media should cop it's fair share of blame for the shit that happened at Adelaide Oval crowd Thurs night

If it was not five weeks... then why did the AFL mention there were "compelling medical reasons" when they came to its decision? Are you saying it was 6 weeks instead?

 

[VinnieB]

It's certainly interesting that we don't know who Finlayson or Graham targeted with their slurs

Why do we know it was Quaynor?

Well, Rankin calling him to apologise may be a clue.

 

[SC_Power]

All parties made this a mess, including the AFL and the media

why should Adelaide be criticised for defending their player? How is bringing a defense to a tribunal 'making a mess' ?

It’s not the action, it’s the “justification” used to defend their player.
Somehow medical reasons (kept confidential quite correctly) make a 5 game suspension excessive, but a 4 match suspension fair.
That raises concerns for the process quite rightly. Clearly targets the potential consequence (a Grand Final) not the action.
Ever seen the AFL outwardly confirm that is possible? I’ve only ever seen them state that missing a Grand Final doesn’t count in setting a penalty.

 

[radiojake]

If it was not five weeks... then why did the AFL mention there were "compelling medical reasons" when they came to its decision? Are you saying it was 6 weeks instead?

Because over the course if the investigation they came to the 4 week result

There was no initial 5 week sanction that was then appealed

 

[radiojake]

Ever seen the AFL outwardly confirm that is possible?

Jaidyn Stephenson betting suspension ending just before finals (and the whole letting him play VFL the day after Collingwood AFL played) wasn't negotiated at all?

 

[RCAB]

Because over the course if the investigation they came to the 4 week result

There was no initial 5 week sanction that was then appealed

Why was there compelling medical reasons mentioned?

 

[Underarm]

Because over the course if the investigation they came to the 4 week result

There was no initial 5 week sanction that was then appealed

Semantics. It was going to be 5 before Adelaide submitted their "compelling medical evidence" on the Thursday.

 

[radiojake]

Semantics. It was going to be 5 before Adelaide submitted their "compelling medical evidence" on the Thursday.

That's the narrative because Eddie McGuire (no conflict of interest at all) annouced the five week ban on the Monday night despite no official statement

I just don't understand why Adelaide are copping heat for trying to get the best outcome for their player, club and supporters out of a shit situation

 

[Dogs Ball]

I thought AFL said they had finished their investigations and he was found guilty. The precedent for the sanction had been set at a minimum 5 weeks. (Actually, wasn't it supposed to increase each incident? Which means maybe it was initially 6 weeks not 5.) AFL then asked Adelaide to submit a reason why it shouldn't be 5 (6?) weeks. Which is part of the AFL/Club protocol in instances such as this.

My recollection is based on how it was reported on SEN.

Is this not what happened?

Yes, I feel also that it took too long to decide how many weeks he should get, allowing the media more time to spin more angles in the story before the final number of weeks was handed down for the sanction. The process back and forth feels from the outside that it took too long, but who are we to say it didn't happen as fast as possible? Maybe the AFL will learn one day to do this better, I won't be holding my breath.

Regardless of the above, I struggle to see how the club (or its fans) couldn't just take the punishment on the chin and instead used/supported a medical reason to reduce this suspension for a shameless act. Take full responsibility for ones actions regardless of "reasons". I would have been prouder of my club, if they were faced with this circumstance, and considered it indefensible within the structure of the club's (and the AFL's) aim to be standard setters in the broader community.

Is all of this representative of Adelaide's club culture? Sadly, I am beginning to think so.

If Adelaide make the GF, Rankine plays. I thought (hoped) the AFL's manipulative tribunal record around finals had reach its lowest when Barry Hall got off, for his off-the-ball hit to play in the GF. Personally I feel this one is worse. It's ugly. The thought brings a sour taste to my mouth.

So, instead, like some neutral fans being supportive of Adelaide's finals campaign, I am one who want's them to make the GF the least. (NTAC)