Opinion Non-Crows AFL 12: It's the confectionery with 1000 uses

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Should be the same, or even more than Tex.

Are the AFL saying homophobic vilification is a lesser crime than racial vilification?

Especially when one was direct, the other indirect.

Yeah pretty much unfortunately, I’ve noticed it’s more socially acceptable amongst fans as well

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

What I don't understand is why would the AFL making changes 'today' have any impact on lawsuits from years ago?

To avoid more in the future

 

[GreyCrow]

Trying to figure out if you know who I am in real life
Because I'm not sure we've ever discussed anything like this, and I'm unsure why you'd seek my opinion.

Anyway. I think the areas which are causing a degredation on the speed are mostly reviews/ruck rules.

The reviews I think need to be changed. In short, umpires are not to call for reviews, it's up to the umpires to make their decision. Then there's an automatic review which the ARC can call for if needed, but have until the resumption of play to make a change. None of that stuff like Keane's touched on the weekend while they're holding up play in the middle while it's looked at. The only time the arc is to get longer than resumption of play is a players review. BUT they need to go a cricket/nfl type route. You get it right. You keep it, but if you get it wrong. Lost and you cant review it again for the rd.

The other one in regards to ruck rules. This needs an overhaul. Scrap all ruck rules from at least the last ~20 years (I can tolerate the double circle, all rules since then can f*** off) - Get rid of the nominating ruckman. Bang, save seconds every stoppage. Get rid of banning the 3rd man up. Bang, you get a Patrick Dangerfield clearing the stoppage with a hitout like he used to do for us.

A few other rule changes I want are as follows
1) Get rid of the stand rule. It has no effect on the game. But a minor insignificant breach causes a 50. What happens in a 50? The clock stops as the ball is moved
2) Last possession SANFL STYLE (Not AFLw Style). Gives a free, player gets 10 seconds to bring it in. Better than a throw in where you have to wait for the rucks to nominate, get there, then the hangtime in the throw in.

I think all 4 of these rule changes (1. Elimination Ruck nominations, 2. Allowing 3rd man up 3. Eliminate stand rule, 4. Introduce Last Possession) would fix minor flaws in the game, and in the process, shorten games, and speed them up (will reduce stoppages).

It was more how the time on time off is enforced. I think you are or were an umpire

Thank you for the response which was answered well

 

[MrBarry]

To avoid more in the future

Then get players to sign wavers.... It's pretty easy, they are changing the sport rather than actually just putting measures in place to avoid lawsuits.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Elijah Holland turfed from Carlton?

 

[footy4ever]

Trying to figure out if you know who I am in real life
Because I'm not sure we've ever discussed anything like this, and I'm unsure why you'd seek my opinion.

Anyway. I think the areas which are causing a degredation on the speed are mostly reviews/ruck rules.

The reviews I think need to be changed. In short, umpires are not to call for reviews, it's up to the umpires to make their decision. Then there's an automatic review which the ARC can call for if needed, but have until the resumption of play to make a change. None of that stuff like Keane's touched on the weekend while they're holding up play in the middle while it's looked at. The only time the arc is to get longer than resumption of play is a players review. BUT they need to go a cricket/nfl type route. You get it right. You keep it, but if you get it wrong. Lost and you cant review it again for the rd.

The other one in regards to ruck rules. This needs an overhaul. Scrap all ruck rules from at least the last ~20 years (I can tolerate the double circle, all rules since then can f*** off) - Get rid of the nominating ruckman. Bang, save seconds every stoppage. Get rid of banning the 3rd man up. Bang, you get a Patrick Dangerfield clearing the stoppage with a hitout like he used to do for us.

A few other rule changes I want are as follows
1) Get rid of the stand rule. It has no effect on the game. But a minor insignificant breach causes a 50. What happens in a 50? The clock stops as the ball is moved
2) Last possession SANFL STYLE (Not AFLw Style). Gives a free, player gets 10 seconds to bring it in. Better than a throw in where you have to wait for the rucks to nominate, get there, then the hangtime in the throw in.

I think all 4 of these rule changes (1. Elimination Ruck nominations, 2. Allowing 3rd man up 3. Eliminate stand rule, 4. Introduce Last Possession) would fix minor flaws in the game, and in the process, shorten games, and speed them up (will reduce stoppages).

Bring back "hand in/on the back" rule. No need then to interpret whether a shove in the back was or wasn't hard enough. Black and white.

So sick of seeing one get paid and the next one let go. It's bullshit.

 

[kirky]

Sorry but does anyone think Greg Swann is going to actually change things given he has been the CEO of both Carlton and Collingwood (yes he has been at Brisbane).

I have my doubts.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Sorry but does anyone think Greg Swann is going to actually change things given he has been the CEO of both Carlton and Collingwood (yes he has been at Brisbane).

I have my doubts.

I'm hopeful as a good operator & genuinely loves the game.

Time will tell though.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Elijah Holland turfed from Carlton?

There were plenty on this board who wanted us to select Holland instead of Thilthorpe...

Club got this one spot on... given the other top picks are all not currently playing.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

There were plenty on this board who wanted us to select Holland instead of Thilthorpe...

Club got this one spot on... given the other top picks are all not currently playing.

Mainly posters on here wanted him because of his SA connection and Crow supporter. McDonald, the other one. RT was always number 1. Pity we didn't pick himfirt but we wanted to kneecap the Dogs with JUH. RT would have made a few dollars being the No. 1 pick, but then the pressure of being the No. 1 pick was off his shoulders.

 

[Cromulant]

How is calling someone homosexual (with what is commonly thought of as a slur) as an insult not homophobic? I'm interested in the thought process.

If someone calls me a ****ter im not that bothered by it, I have been called far worse.

I think offense is taken far too easily nowadays, but if that bothers you.... then thats on you.

 

[Cromulant]

Yeah pretty much unfortunately, I’ve noticed it’s more socially acceptable amongst fans as well

Ask an indigenous person what they'd rather be called.

 

[baldandbroke]

May gets 3 games.

Imo he is unlucky as reckon this was a football incident.

Not a football incident any more - but I do I think this has been poorly handled by the AFL.

Everyone is looking at the wrong precedent imo. It’s not the Alex Pearce incident. It's the Maynard / Brayshaw smother from 2023 - that is where we are (correctly) moving to.

Look at the wording from the AFL after the Brayshaw incident:

… the player’s act will be deemed careless at a minimum "unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)"

This is the new reality - but the league needs to make it clear that this should be the base level of care that EVERY player has in EVERY contest.

I’d expand on the red-light example used by David King further. We not asking anyone to stop at a green light, we are asking them to at least cover the brake when the light turns orange, because the consequences of getting it wrong are dire. When there is a collision, do everything you can to minimise the damage to the brain.

It doesn’t ruin the fabric of the game, it doesn’t make players “soft”, it doesn’t mean that there will be no meaningful contests … it means we are genuinely trying to minimise the dreadful impacts of concussions on people’s lives.

 

[1970crow]

Its the inconsistent nature of the penalties.

They said after the first one "we are going to make an example" and clearly hasn't worked.

FWIW the homophobic slur thing is a bit.... too drastic. Calling someone a *oofter or a ****sucker, isn't a homophobic slur IMO, its just a dumb thing to say.

But thats just my opinion.

5 games is a severe punishment in our game. Severe punishments should be reserved for severe damage. I don’t know enough about what was said and how it’s impacted the person it was directed at, but they’d want to really be struggling with it for 5 games to be warranted.

 

[spenze]

There were plenty on this board who wanted us to select Holland instead of Thilthorpe...

Club got this one spot on... given the other top picks are all not currently playing.

Tried to pick JUH, could have picked Hollands

I've seen rock bands in the 60s with less drug issues than that draft

 

[1970crow]

May gets 3 games.

Imo he is unlucky as reckon this was a football incident.

In the time he had I’m not sure what else he was meant to do. Reckon the other bloke had started fumbling the ball at the time, he was a microsecond away from being first to the loose ball.

 

[1970crow]

Should be the same, or even more than Tex.

Are the AFL saying homophobic vilification is a lesser crime than racial vilification?

Especially when one was direct, the other indirect.

If someone calls a heterosexual a homophonic slur, are they being homophobically vilified though?

Separate to that, on principle I don’t agree with an ‘ever-escalating’ penalty. If it’s worth 5 games to a player this week then it’s 5 games again next week.

 

[Coopers]

If someone calls a heterosexual a homophonic slur, are they being homophobically vilified though?

Yes, we went through this already, in great detail

 

[Mostyn]

Its the inconsistent nature of the penalties.

They said after the first one "we are going to make an example" and clearly hasn't worked.

FWIW the homophobic slur thing is a bit.... too drastic. Calling someone a *oofter or a ****sucker, isn't a homophobic slur IMO, its just a dumb thing to say.

But thats just my opinion.

FWIW, reports are that it was the same slur used each time so far, and it's not either of those that you've suggested

 

[ams4crows]

Elijah Holland turfed from Carlton?

Seems like it, yeah

 

[Cromulant]

FWIW, reports are that it was the same slur used each time so far, and it's not either of those that you've suggested

TBH it doesnt really matter what the slur is, if that sort of thing offends you then thats on you. Its not a homophobic slur.... its just a slur.

 

[GameofSloanes]

May gets 3 games.

Imo he is unlucky as reckon this was a football incident.

Theyve been pretty clear that if you bump and hit the head you will be suspended, and for longer if they are concussed, not sure why anyone is surprised tbh

 

[Mostyn]

Mainly posters on here wanted him because of his SA connection and Crow supporter. McDonald, the other one. RT was always number 1. Pity we didn't pick himfirt but we wanted to kneecap the Dogs with JUH. RT would have made a few dollars being the No. 1 pick, but then the pressure of being the No. 1 pick was off his shoulders.

First pick get $10k, the next few picks get $5k.

Filthy would make more than that per quarter.

 

[cmndstab]

Mac Andrew’s brother gets 5 matches for homophobic abuse.

While a relatively light sentence given he’s the 5th player in the last 2 seasons pinged, it does mean his season is effectively done.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1371972

"I am deeply sorry for the word that I used in Saturday's game and any hurt that it has caused," Andrew said in a statement.

"While I did not understand the full impact of the words I used at the time, I certainly do now, and have deep regret for my actions.

Sounds like whatever education or sensitivity training the AFL has in place is not working. How could you "not understand the impact" of using a homophobic slur? He would have had multiple sessions explaining it in great detail. Either he didn't listen, or else he only "understands the impact" when he faces consequences.

Riak's actions from now on will demonstrate whether he genuinely means what he says here, or is just trotting out the expected line to minimise the damage to his reputation.

If someone calls me a ****ter im not that bothered by it, I have been called far worse.

I think offense is taken far too easily nowadays, but if that bothers you.... then thats on you.

Whether or not you personally are bothered by homophobic slurs is irrelevant. Those words have a long and very dark history behind them and there should be absolutely no tolerance towards their usage.

And it is particularly an issue in the AFL, where there seems to be multiple incidents of this shit every year, from rookies, from senior players, even from senior coaches. No wonder we still don't have a single example of an openly gay player.

Five matches feels about right to me.

 

[1970crow]

Yes, we went through this already, in great detail

Who's we, when and was everyone in agreeance?

Personally, if someone calls me a homophobic slur, I wouldn't feel vilified. Just as if someone called me a racist slur, I wouldn't feel racially vilified. Obviously it's unacceptable language in modern Australia (and elsewhere), but I can't agree that you can vilify someone for something they're not. When I was called 'pink' this and 'pink' that playing footy in Alice Springs, I knew that was a slur designed to suggest that my colour had something to do with me being less in the eyes of the opponent. But if he called me a homophobic slur, it would be totally meaningless to me. But I understand that it has meaning to homosexual people and should be stamped out. But it's not vilification if the person themself isn't homosexual.

And Human Rights Vic disagrees with you, so you're wrong. It's very clear that the vilification needs to be based upon the race or religion (or sexuality) of the person being vilified. You can't vilify someone for something that they aren't.

Racial and Religious Vilification

Victoria has laws to protect people from vilification because of their race or religion. The legal definition is behaviour that "incites hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule" for a person or group of people, because of their race or religion. No one should be treated unfairly...

www.humanrights.vic.gov.au