Katie Brennan appeal - Wins battle with AFL

[Catters 070911]

You can tell by a lot of these posts who the true AFLW haters are, can't you?

They're the ones who are defending the tribunal's decision on a tackle costing a girl an AFLW Grand Final. Her opponent wasn't hurt out of it, so it is an overreaction.

 

[keithrichards]

You can tell by a lot of these posts who the true AFLW haters are, can't you?

They're the ones who are defending the tribunal's decision on a tackle costing a girl an AFLW Grand Final. Her opponent wasn't hurt out of it, so it is an overreaction.

I’ve always felt that Sam Lane and Daisy Pearce were AFLW haters.

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

5:01 of video above - what sort of pre-game entertainment is that s**t meant to be?

 

[Aeglos]

You can tell by a lot of these posts who the true AFLW haters are, can't you?

They're the ones who are defending the tribunal's decision on a tackle costing a girl an AFLW Grand Final. Her opponent wasn't hurt out of it, so it is an overreaction.

I bet the dickhead that gets pinged for driving 50km/h over the limit argues losing his licence is an overreaction as well as he didn’t hurt anyone.

 

[demondavey]

"The rules are set upon"

Yeah, but the rule is stupid.

If you think the tackle was dangerous, why not just ban the tackle for AFL altogether. Hey, someone might accidentally force someone's head into the ground and cause them a "concussion".

You know what else people sign up to? The chance of copping a concussion when they play a contact sport, where the chances of getting a head hit is more likely than the man in the street. Once they cross the white line, they are physically agreeing to cop whatever happens out there, within reason (and the last time I looked, tacking is within the rules). Concussion is an occupational hazard of playing football. Sure, do some things to minimise it, but stopping tackles being laid isn't the solution.

Next thing, boxers will want to sue for concussion and head-hits.

The rules are stupid in your opinion. Maybe if they were so stupid the clubs could refute them as a class?

There are some so rules that we abide by as citizens that suck. Get on with it.

It’s not the tackle that is the issue, its the execution of the tackle. You can’t pin the arms and sling the opponent down like that. It’s exactly the same as the AFL. Sure it’s a occupational hazard, I get that. But rules are placed to try and stop head knocks like that. How many tackles are executed without there being a serious head knock? Probably hundreds over a weekend.

Just because the rule is stupid doesn’t make it sexual discrimination. It makes it what it is, a stupid rule! So you’ve negated yourself there.

 

[demondavey]

You can tell by a lot of these posts who the true AFLW haters are, can't you?

They're the ones who are defending the tribunal's decision on a tackle costing a girl an AFLW Grand Final. Her opponent wasn't hurt out of it, so it is an overreaction.

You’re missing the point. It’s not about her missing the GF. The GF was just the next game in sequence.

Answer this. Had Brennan had history for rough conduct? Had she been reprimanded already?

 

[Kwality]

Yer, if Paddy missed a GF because of a pissweak tackle that caused no injury, I'm sure you would be saying that was justice. She wont get a ring but she will show the AFL up for their shithouse rules and they will change them.

She wont show the AFL anything, win ot lose, she is just a tool in the hands of PC well heeled legal types, the use & abuse of Katie Brennan is about to get real !!!

 

[Kwality]

Disagree. The QC's in Federal Court get paid just about as much in an hour as what female footballers earn for playing the whole season. As if the AFL would want it to go that far, they cant afford it to. As well as that, it will be a public relations disaster for the AFL, they cannot afford the risk of being labelled as discriminatory, it will kill the reputation of McLachlan and his cronies. Put your house on KB getting what she wants and rightly so.

So the Bulldogs legal man called his QC mate on the Saints board for a favour & its no credit to either of them.
I'm no fan of Gil.

As for Katie personally did she not sign the AFLW contract, maybe she forgot it, or she is just being used & abused by the legal types ego tripping.

 

[Strange Cat]

You can tell by a lot of these posts who the true AFLW haters are, can't you?

They're the ones who are defending the tribunal's decision on a tackle costing a girl an AFLW Grand Final. Her opponent wasn't hurt out of it, so it is an overreaction.

The rules were fine for her previously in the year when she was suspended but because she’s too dumb to not do a dangerous tackle before the grand final the sysytem is sexist and we are all haters.

sounds legit

 

[Kwality]

You can tell by a lot of these posts who the true AFLW haters are, can't you?

They're the ones who are defending the tribunal's decision on a tackle costing a girl an AFLW Grand Final. Her opponent wasn't hurt out of it, so it is an overreaction.

Put your head into gear, Katie is being used & no one cares who went premiers, all courtesy of the Bulldogs el supremo. Ego trip trumps AFLW premiership !!

 

[gordo2016]

The rules are stupid in your opinion. Maybe if they were so stupid the clubs could refute them as a class?

There are some so rules that we abide by as citizens that suck. Get on with it.

It’s not the tackle that is the issue, its the execution of the tackle. You can’t pin the arms and sling the opponent down like that. It’s exactly the same as the AFL. Sure it’s a occupational hazard, I get that. But rules are placed to try and stop head knocks like that. How many tackles are executed without there being a serious head knock? Probably hundreds over a weekend.

Just because the rule is stupid doesn’t make it sexual discrimination. It makes it what it is, a stupid rule! So you’ve negated yourself there.

You keep saying the same thing. We all know sling tackles are dangerous and they can cause serious injuries.That is not the argument. The argument is why should an AFWL player get suspended when male AFL players do not get suspended for the same thing. They get fined. Just because a law is created and people say nothing to refute it, doesn't mean it is right. It always take an injustice before the law is shown as being unfair. This is a clear case of discrimination. The Human Rights Commission will act as a mediator and you can bet your life the AFL will admit the rule is unfair. Otherwise go to Federal Court and risk a public relations disaster, arguing a discrimination case against a female footballer. That is the last thing thing they will want. Common sense will prevail and the law will be changed and Brennan's suspension will be overturned.

 

[demondavey]

You keep saying the same thing. We all know sling tackles are dangerous and they can cause serious injuries.That is not the argument. The argument is why should an AFWL player get suspended when male AFL players do not get suspended for the same thing. They get fined. Just because a law is created and people say nothing to refute it, doesn't mean it is right. It always take an injustice before the law is shown as being unfair. This is a clear case of discrimination. The Human Rights Commission will act as a mediator and you can bet your life the AFL will admit the rule is unfair. Otherwise go to Federal Court and risk a public relations disaster, arguing a discrimination case against a female footballer. That is the last thing thing they will want. Common sense will prevail and the law will be changed and Brennan's suspension will be overturned.

It’s got to do with the WB taking responsibility for Christ’s sake. If the sanctions were such an issue why didn’t the clubs involved actually make an issue of it upon inception? Why not? Because they didn’t think it’d catch them out.

It’s incredibly convenient to cry discrimination when you’ve been dealt a suspension within the laws of the game but that suspension happens to be the GF.

Would the WB kick up this much of a stink if it was just a regular home and away game? Very doubtful. All this does is smacks of sooking like a squib because you haven’t got your own way and Peter Gordon is a serial ******* whinger.

 

[gordo2016]

It’s got to do with the WB taking responsibility for Christ’s sake. If the sanctions were such an issue why didn’t the clubs involved actually make an issue of it upon inception? Why not? Because they didn’t think it’d catch them out.

It’s incredibly convenient to cry discrimination when you’ve been dealt a suspension within the laws of the game but that suspension happens to be the GF.

Would the WB kick up this much of a stink if it was just a regular home and away game? Very doubtful. All this does is smacks of sooking like a squib because you haven’t got your own way and Peter Gordon is a serial ******* whinger.

No body makes issue of a law on its inception. It always takes a misjustice to show the law up as being wrong.

 

[demondavey]

You keep saying the same thing. We all know sling tackles are dangerous and they can cause serious injuries.That is not the argument. The argument is why should an AFWL player get suspended when male AFL players do not get suspended for the same thing. They get fined. Just because a law is created and people say nothing to refute it, doesn't mean it is right. It always take an injustice before the law is shown as being unfair. This is a clear case of discrimination. The Human Rights Commission will act as a mediator and you can bet your life the AFL will admit the rule is unfair. Otherwise go to Federal Court and risk a public relations disaster, arguing a discrimination case against a female footballer. That is the last thing thing they will want. Common sense will prevail and the law will be changed and Brennan's suspension will be overturned.

You have once again contradicted yourself.

‘We all know sling tackles are dangerous and can cause injury’

So you’ve admitted it was a dangerous tackle. She’s also been reprimanded before and if she wasn’t so negligent towards her opponent she’d have a premiership medal.

Just because the rules differ from the AFL doesn’t mean it’s discrimination. The WAFL, VFL, SANFL all have minor variances in there rules. So do you think if a player from the WAFL gets rubbed out for a GF they can argue discrimination?

When you participate in a competition, you adhere to the rules of which are designated. These clubs have enough strength behind them to lobby the AFL for a change in ruling structure if they deem it unfair.

The AFL had the reasoning of putting these rules in place to protect the pockets of the lowly paid AFLW players. They didn’t do it to be discriminatory. The fact the WB have pushed this agenda is an indictment on them and just takes the piss out of the AFLW.

 

[demondavey]

No body makes issue of a law on its inception. It always takes a misjustice to show the law up as being wrong.

The law isn’t wrong. The law was created for a reason. Do you actually think the AFL created this rule so that in the event it’d occur it would create a s**t storm of politically correct boffins pleading injustice and to draw them into controversy?

If you believe that you’re just paranoid.

 

[Kwality]

No body makes issue of a law on its inception. It always takes a misjustice to show the law up as being wrong.

The contract was signed & now, its inconvenient.
Why not address it thru the Players Association, not the high profile attention seeking HRC? We all know why, the egos of those involved & thats not Katie.

 

[Monkey King]

With such a poor standard of football, you really don’t want players pulling out the “sexism” card just because a tribunal appeal doesn’t go their way. It’s the tribunal Katie ... do you follow the men’s game? It’s a chook raffle.

 

[Aeglos]

You keep saying the same thing. We all know sling tackles are dangerous and they can cause serious injuries.That is not the argument. The argument is why should an AFWL player get suspended when male AFL players do not get suspended for the same thing. They get fined. Just because a law is created and people say nothing to refute it, doesn't mean it is right. It always take an injustice before the law is shown as being unfair. This is a clear case of discrimination. The Human Rights Commission will act as a mediator and you can bet your life the AFL will admit the rule is unfair. Otherwise go to Federal Court and risk a public relations disaster, arguing a discrimination case against a female footballer. That is the last thing thing they will want. Common sense will prevail and the law will be changed and Brennan's suspension will be overturned.

Because they play in completely separate competitions with a separate rule set?
This happens between different leagues, genders and levels of play in every sport in the world. Dunno why Australian Rules should be a special case.
Examples from the NBA (accurate as of 2000)

ROSTERS: WNBA teams have 11 players on regular-season rosters; NBA teams have 12.
THE RULES: The 3-point line: In the WNBA, the 3-point line is 19 feet, 9 inches from the basket just as in college basketball. That compares with 23 feet, 9 inches in the NBA.
BALL SIZE: The circumference of the WNBA ball is 281/2 inches, the same size as the ball used in women's college basketball. The NBA ball is 295/8 to 297/8 inches in circumference.
DURATION OF GAME: WNBA games, like college, include two 20-minute halves. NBA games have four 12-minute quarters. Overtimes in both leagues are 5 minutes and halftimes are 15 minutes.
SHOT CLOCK: WNBA teams must hit the rim within 30 seconds, as in the women's college game. The NBA shot clock is 24 seconds.

Heck, even the NBA has different rules to FIBA.

"But if I were a man this would have happened" is a poor argument because, well, you're not and you don't play in the same competition.
If they want the rules changed because they truly believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime then fair enough, but this sexual discrimination garbage is just that.

Also, not sure of the relevance or whether it will continue, but the umpires in our praccy game yesterday paid more dangerous tackle frees paid then I saw for all of last season so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a directive from the top level to clamp down on them since the end of the last AFL season.

 

[Kwality]

"But if I were a man this would have happened" is a poor argument because, well, you're not and you don't play in the same competition

When the law is your plaything such common sense is a mere inconvenience. Katie is being used.

 

[Alesana]

You keep saying the same thing. We all know sling tackles are dangerous and they can cause serious injuries.That is not the argument. The argument is why should an AFWL player get suspended when male AFL players do not get suspended for the same thing. They get fined. Just because a law is created and people say nothing to refute it, doesn't mean it is right. It always take an injustice before the law is shown as being unfair. This is a clear case of discrimination. The Human Rights Commission will act as a mediator and you can bet your life the AFL will admit the rule is unfair. Otherwise go to Federal Court and risk a public relations disaster, arguing a discrimination case against a female footballer. That is the last thing thing they will want. Common sense will prevail and the law will be changed and Brennan's suspension will be overturned.

Dare to dream

If a man was playing in the AFLW and did the exact same things as Brennan he'd be suspended too, so how is that discrimination?

 

[CatFan79]

Just because the rules differ from the AFL doesn’t mean it’s discrimination.

Exactly.. Thick skulls are hard to penetrate though, even when hard facts are produced.

 

[Monkey King]

And the rules are different because?

Difference does not mean inequality. I’d suggest the difference has more to do with pay scales. I can’t rememeber anyone in my local club from years ago getting fined. Do suburban leagues register fines for low end offences these days, or do they just hand out one match suspensions?

 

[Aardvark]

Interesting read......https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/23/aflw-katie-brennan-human-rights-commission

 

[CatFan79]

Interesting read......https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/23/aflw-katie-brennan-human-rights-commission

Rather than opting to have the women pay smaller fines on a pro rata basis, the AFL went with a different system that results in them being sanctioned more severely.

Bullshit misleading journalism.

The AFLW players union demanded of the AFL there be no fines.. So what alternative other than suspension is there?

 

[Aardvark]

I am unashamedly a huge supporter of AFLW. I believe the biggest danger to it continuing to grow is people using it to advance their political agendas outside the game. Peter Gordon has made a series of bad mistakes pursuing this IMO. Their handling of the original hearing and the appeal was nothing short of inept. By Thursday night when they finally got serious it was far too late. Taking it further as they have just gives the haters far more ammunition.