Player Watch #20 Riak Andrew

[bedford]

I guess you have to ponder how ********er came to be an insult when used in anger towards another man the way Clarkson did.

Clarkson's response was after he had his Captain knocked out by a dog act !

 

[.Shotties.]

Clarkson's response was after he had his Captain knocked out by a dog act !

So?

 

[dosser]

Imagine things that have been said to him growing up

Absolutely right, so one argument is that he should know better. Having said that, I only stopped using homophobic slurs about 15 years ago because my kids wouold pull me up on it. It would annoy me but then I got to thinking about it and they were right. I don't say those sort of things any more, so there is hope for even the worst of us!

 

[bedford]

Absolutely right, so one argument is that he should know better. Having said that, I only stopped using homophobic slurs about 15 years ago because my kids wouold pull me up on it. It would annoy me but then I got to thinking about it and they were right. I don't say those sort of things any more, so there is hope for even the worst of us!

Agree totally

 

[Adnico26Parker]

5 weeks

 

[Cadsky]

Does that end his season? Hope he learns from it and comes back hungry next season

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Does that end his season? Hope he learns from it and comes back hungry next season

Yes

 

[Adnico26Parker]

 

[kickthething]

An interesting comparison in these incidents is when we have seen racial slurs reported in the past both parties are usually identified, with some very public apologies, why is it not the case here?

 

[caesar88]

An interesting comparison in these incidents is when we have seen racial slurs reported in the past both parties are usually identified, with some very public apologies, why is it not the case here?

Most likely because of the issue of the sexuality of the player who reported it.

They could be non-LGBTQ but will be wrongly identified as being LGBTQ because they took offence to the slur.

They could be LGBT but aren't out to their friends, families, work colleagues etc.

It could get messy.

 

[joeykanga]

Most likely because of the issue of the sexuality of the player who reported it.

They could be non-LGBTQ but will be wrongly identified as being LGBTQ because they took offence to the slur.

They could be LGBT but aren't out to their friends, families, work colleagues etc.

It could get messy.

Or maybe because he was just playing a game and it's really no one's business. Maybe he is maybe he isn't...it's a far stretch to imply he's hiding his sexuality or not wanting to be associated. Maybe he'd rather just be his own private person and its neither of those suggestions. Do we really need the involvement of that player in this process. It's irrelevant unless they wish to be involved.

 

[caesar88]

Or maybe because he was just playing a game and it's really no one's business. Maybe he is maybe he isn't...it's a far stretch to imply he's hiding his sexuality or not wanting to be associated. Maybe he'd rather just be his own private person and its neither of those suggestions. Do we really need the involvement of that player in this process. It's irrelevant unless they wish to be involved.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just guessing why the player on the receiving end of homophobic slurs is never identified in media reporting.

 

[catchem02]

Come on man really is that worth 5 weeks but you can knock a players head off and give serious injury but get 3 weeks and some media reckon it was nothing. Not that I condone that discrimination

 

[Dubai Quacker]

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just guessing why the player on the receiving end of homophobic slurs is never identified in media reporting.

You don’t ever reveal or publicise the name of whistleblowers.

The AFL is no different to any employer in that regard.

 

[rustycrate]

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just guessing why the player on the receiving end of homophobic slurs is never identified in media reporting.

Yeah that will encourage people to raise issues.
Good one.

 

[.Shotties.]

Come on man really is that worth 5 weeks

Yes.

Not that I condone that discrimination

Just don't punish it harshly.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

One of the essentials of justice is that it is proportionate.

I don’t follow the footy suspensions and fines closely, but that seems excessive to me, specially compared to penalties handed out for physical violence.

 

[McRobie]

Yes.

Just don't punish it harshly.

So you’re here saying a slip of the tongue is worse than KOing someone with an intentional act of violence?
Ok

 

[.Shotties.]

So you’re here saying a slip of the tongue is worse than KOing someone with an intentional act of violence?
Ok

No, and there's nothing in my post that implies that.

 

[McRobie]

No, and there's nothing in my post that implies that.

Incorrect you wanted 5 weeks, you get 3/4 weeks for cleaning someone up and KOing them.

 

[.Shotties.]

Incorrect you wanted 5 weeks, you get 3/4 weeks for cleaning someone up and KOing them.

Christ this is always tedious.

Again, you're piecing together your assumptions, not anything I've said. I think five weeks for homophobic abuse is fine. I've not commented on other suspensions, but I'll say I think intentional acts of violence that lead to brain trauma should be longer. The fact that it isn't punished in that manner doesn't somehow reflect my opinion.

I note that you've changed your wording between posts to omit the word "intentional", but I'd be interested to know the player who got a suspension of 3/4 weeks for an "intentional act of violence which KOed someone".

 

[McRobie]

Christ this is always tedious.

Again, you're piecing together your assumptions, not anything I've said. I think five weeks for homophobic abuse is fine. I've not commented on other suspensions, but I'll say I think intentional acts of violence that lead to brain trauma should be longer. The fact that it isn't punished in that manner doesn't somehow reflect my opinion.

I note that you've changed your wording between posts to omit the word "intentional", but I'd be interested to know the player who got a suspension of 3/4 weeks for an "intentional act of violence which KOed someone".

Theres plenty of intentional acts that get 3/4 weeks just because it doesn’t fall under “intentional” in the stupid MRO matrix doesn’t mean it isn’t.
I agree it is tedious having people trying their best to come across as the most righteous person in the room by demanding months of suspension for a kid that had a slip of the tongue.

 

[.Shotties.]

Theres plenty of intentional acts that get 3/4 weeks just because it doesn’t fall under “intentional” in the stupid MRO matrix doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Okay, shoot. Let's hear them.

I agree it is tedious having people trying their best to come across as the most righteous person in the room by demanding months of suspension for a kid that had a slip of the tongue.

Who's doing that? I'm not.

Do I ACTUALLY think calling someone a ****** is worse than an intentional act of violence that causes a brain injury? No. Do I think five weeks for homophobic abuse is fine? Yep. The AFLs weighting of offences doesn't really enter into my thinking here.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

Before things go too far down the various potential rabbit holes and peripheral topics related to his recent suspension... just a quick reminder that this thread is about Riak Andrew. Anything deviating too far from that topic may be moved or removed as required.

Thanks all.
Mods.

 

[giantsully]

This seems extreme to me, especially for a young fella who appears not to have had the cultural context to make the connection between his comment and the potential for offence. But the players seem OK with it, so perhaps I'm just out of touch.