I think suspensions should be attributed to football incidents/acts only.
He said something silly/stupid how anyone can think a 5-6 game suspension is appropriate punishment is bewildering.
-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Player Watch #20 Riak Andrew
- Thread starter caesar88
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I think suspensions should be attributed to football incidents/acts only.
He said something silly/stupid how anyone can think a 5-6 game suspension is appropriate punishment is bewildering.
Because it could lead to players being suspended for saying the wrong pronouns on a football field
martin_19_88
Draftee
- May 15, 2024
- 11
- 35
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Do you feel this way about racist slurs as well? I hardly think it's appropriate for a player using a racist slur to be allowed to carry on as normal, so why should it be any different for homophobic slurs?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Each time this issue crops up, the exact same debate ensues on Bigfooty.
And it’s the same every time - entrenched views on both sides & virtually no middle ground.
The argument will rage on …. is the AFL being a stereotypical virtue signalling corporation? Or is the AFL taking a dignified, principled stance?
My personal view: it’s a bit of both. Suspension is justified. But 4-6 weeks seems disproportionate when compared to some of the violent acts that get less.
Regardless of mine or anyone else’s view on the matter - Riak will cop a significant penalty, as the AFL has planted a flag in the ground on this matter & in fairness, they are being clear & consistent on it. For now.
Last edited:
Has this kind of scare scenario ever come to pass?
Because the homophobic part of the slur is contrived, not literal, in it's use. Unlike racist slurs being pretty direct in their meaning and use..
Clarko got done for saying 'c*******r'. How is that homophobic? Straight people also do that..
Sure it's easier to be mature enough to not use slurs, but they're being labeled and punished publicly as homophobic when it is not the case. Now Riak's public image is being tarnished as a homophobe, who apprently needs to win back the trust of our gay supporters, when it more than likely isn't even the case.
Funny how that community wants language to be fluid, except when it comes to specific words, where all of a sudden they can only have a single literal meaning..
Last edited:
I can meet you halfway here.
When Clarko got done, it actually took me a minute to process and understand how that was considered a slur. On the surface it was just an old-school insult. In saying that, I think it's reasonable for the AFL to say that sort of language isn't acceptable for a head coach. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that if it was uttered on field between players, it would go no further.
The other slur however? Zero tolerance. You can argue that a person using a word doesn't definitely speak to them being a bigot, and I might agree with you, but what it does speak to is their carelessness around using bigoted language, that in 2025, is rooted in hate. No place for it.
Banyo Bloods
Norm Smith Medallist
Absolutely i agree at best it gets rid of needless slurs. Much like remonstrating with umpires, i've never understood why players bother getting worked up verbally on the field.
Clarko's wasn't a homophobic slur, but it was labelled and punished as such. You can ban him for a game and give him a slap on the wrist in a means to just stop slurs from occurring, absolutely - but you can't go labelling them homophobic and slapping large bans on that pretence.
Nah depends on the way it's delivered. Much like how the word 'C***t' can actually be used as a word of endearment.
'C*******r' likewise can just be someone you don't like rather than a negative connotation for a male who takes johnson's. And it's simply not homophobic if directed at a straight woman. Still a slur, just means different things to different people.
- Sep 10, 2006
- 22,240
- 26,151
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
I don't see the need make excuses for, or minimise his behaviour just because he plays for my football team.
It's completely contrived though. You can choose to take offence to whatever you want, but you can't expect everyone to justify it for you and live by your connotation. No one has the right to adjust anyone else's use of language unless the word has a very clear cut connotation (i.e skin colour slurs). The examples above are simply not homophobic by nature.
caesar88
Hall of Famer
- Apr 26, 2016
- 42,431
- 89,419
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Thread starter
- #117
This is just asinine now. What are you gonna do, declare war on the English language? Words have meaning whether you like it or not.
This whole thing reads like, you acknowledge that slurs are hurtful to a particular portion of society, but you just don't care because you're not in that portion yourself.
Banyo Bloods
Norm Smith Medallist
I don't see the need to make excuses for people that insult others online just because they support my team. You are patting yourself on the back whilst throwing out your socially acceptable insult in the process. Insult is an insult whether you judge one worse than the other. What he's done is wrong but you're no better, yet you can't see it.
Are you suggesting that calling someone an effing idiot and a f*****t are equivalent?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Banyo Bloods
Norm Smith Medallist
No I’m suggesting insulting someone is no better. Both insults are poor no matter what level of offence is taken or implied. What you’re implying is that I don't think one is worse than the other. It's not the case at all or you know maybe it is, I don't really know how I feel. Perhaps to someone with a family member with a learning disability that particular insult is worse to them always subjective. This is the whole point I’m making don’t be selective of your level of insult just be a bit nicer.
And to further illustrate this I was beyond horrible to a member on here because he grinded my gears. He passed away and I’ve almost stopped posting as I feel terrible for being that person on reflection and quite often what I say just feels like I'm peeving somebody off if I don't keep it positive. In no way am I defending Riak. Read my posts, it’s pulling up another insult to an insult.
The word 'c*******r' has 0 homophobic meaning to it whether you like it or not, it's literally listed in the dictionary as a term of abuse meaning 'contemptible person'. Even if you break it down, the literal meaning still has 0 reference to being gay. The fact that these slurs are also usually delivered without the intent of discrimination just doubles down on it. By saying it is contrived, i'm saying attempting to label a word like that as homophobic, when it clearly isn't, is unreasonable, therefore doesn't give you the right to be taken seriously just because you have chosen to take offence to it, regardless of your minority group.
To be clear, that was the specific example i was talking about.
And I was responding to a comment of making a comparison of it being the same as racist slurs - which i explained is not the same because racial slurs, in their meaning, are very direct in their connotation, whereas there are very few abusive words that are inherently homophobic (if not only one, being 'f****t').
Who knows, that might be the word that was used by Riak. But again, words like that can be thrown without any homophobic intent hence why i think the length of these bans are a bit much. And I think Clarko's ban was completely unjustified in being labelled as homophobic.
Last edited:
- Jul 5, 2012
- 30,410
- 51,977
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
I would never use, as a term of abuse, the term I believe Riak used. Jesus Christ don't people have any control over their mouths?
Having said that, I think the penalty being talked about is way harsh. Catnip for the neanderthals.
Having said that, I think the penalty being talked about is way harsh. Catnip for the neanderthals.
If a term used was intended as derogatory to that person then they are, ipso facto, applying that derogatory view to all who may resemble that term. That is the point here.
I don't know what he said, but he obviously used a term (whether a status or an act) as a form of abuse. This means that he regarded that status or act as derogatory. That is the problem. It may have not been intended to be homophobic, however it reveals an attitude that he may or may not have thought through or even been aware of.
I assume he will learn from this, but it is a harsh lesson when it is played out in public.
I don't know what he said, but he obviously used a term (whether a status or an act) as a form of abuse. This means that he regarded that status or act as derogatory. That is the problem. It may have not been intended to be homophobic, however it reveals an attitude that he may or may not have thought through or even been aware of.
I assume he will learn from this, but it is a harsh lesson when it is played out in public.
Imagine things that have been said to him growing up
I guess you have to ponder how ********er came to be an insult when used in anger towards another man the way Clarkson did. I can agree it's used more generally now, but it absolutely came out of a slur.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
