Player Watch #20 Riak Andrew

[RUNVS]

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.

So what if Riak Andrew went back in time to March 2001, would he be capable of stopping 9/11?

 

[McRobie]

Okay, shoot. Let's hear them.

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.

Well you’ve contradicted yourself here and yes you are trying to appear to be most righteous one in the room at the expense of condemning this kid who made a mistake.

No one’s saying what he did is right but whacking him with 5 weeks is absurd.

The only folks who want to give him 5 are those who want to say “look what I supported” “look at my moral superiority”.

He needs to be punished but not crushed into oblivion for sake or others faux moral glorification.

 

[catchem02]

Well you’ve contradicted yourself here and yes you are trying to appear to be most righteous one in the room at the expense of condemning this kid who made a mistake.

No one’s saying what he did is right but whacking him with 5 weeks is absurd.

The only folks who want to give him 5 are those who want to say “look what I supported” “look at my moral superiority”.

He needs to be punished but not crushed into oblivion for sake or others faux moral glorification.

Let’s just remember that a slip of the tongue which we are all guilty of has cost a young man nearly a 1/4 of a season so the punishment in my mind doesn’t match the crime when there is far worse events on the field get glossed over very quickly. Through my work I have done these courses in the last few months and my take is that there should be counselling and education if a problem arises in the first instances as a first warning so wouldn’t a game suspension and put through a education programme be sufficient in this first instance for Riak .

 

[bedford]

Let’s just remember that a slip of the tongue which we are all guilty of has cost a young man nearly a 1/4 of a season so the punishment in my mind doesn’t match the crime when there is far worse events on the field get glossed over very quickly. Through my work I have done these courses in the last few months and my take is that there should be counselling and education if a problem arises in the first instances as a first warning so wouldn’t a game suspension and put through a education programme be sufficient in this first instance for Riak .

How sensible , well done

 

[.Shotties.]

Well you’ve contradicted yourself here

No I haven't.

 

[S120]

Well you’ve contradicted yourself here and yes you are trying to appear to be most righteous one in the room at the expense of condemning this kid who made a mistake.

No one’s saying what he did is right but whacking him with 5 weeks is absurd.

The only folks who want to give him 5 are those who want to say “look what I supported” “look at my moral superiority”.

He needs to be punished but not crushed into oblivion for sake or others faux moral glorification.

This is a convenient story you're telling yourself. Just like it would be for those who support the ban to say the only people who oppose the five week ban are homophobes.

 

[Caj]

Ridiculous suspension and dobbed in by the North player which makes it even worse

Absolute overkill by the AFL, shouldn’t be any more than a free kick if heard by the umpires

 

[kelpie_X]

Let’s just remember that a slip of the tongue which we are all guilty of has cost a young man nearly a 1/4 of a season so the punishment in my mind doesn’t match the crime when there is far worse events on the field get glossed over very quickly. Through my work I have done these courses in the last few months and my take is that there should be counselling and education if a problem arises in the first instances as a first warning so wouldn’t a game suspension and put through a education programme be sufficient in this first instance for Riak .

Too sensible for the AFL

 

[caesar88]

Well you’ve contradicted yourself here and yes you are trying to appear to be most righteous one in the room at the expense of condemning this kid who made a mistake.

No one’s saying what he did is right but whacking him with 5 weeks is absurd.

The only folks who want to give him 5 are those who want to say “look what I supported” “look at my moral superiority”.

He needs to be punished but not crushed into oblivion for sake or others faux moral glorification.

"Look what I supported"... yeah, decency! Being nice! Not being an arseh*le who doesn't care about people's feelings! Yuck!

For the record, the punishment for homophobic slurs was 2 weeks when Clarkson copped it. It was 3 weeks for Finlayson. The AFL was then very clear that further indiscretions of this kind would lead to harsher punishments.

So the rules were laid down crystal clear. The punishment for homophobic slurs was 2-3 weeks it seems. Anything further is punishment for receiving warnings and then ignoring them. Doing so is a lot of things... insolence, arrogance, impunity. But it's not a mistake.

 

[joeykanga]

Let’s just remember that a slip of the tongue which we are all guilty of has cost a young man nearly a 1/4 of a season so the punishment in my mind doesn’t match the crime when there is far worse events on the field get glossed over very quickly. Through my work I have done these courses in the last few months and my take is that there should be counselling and education if a problem arises in the first instances as a first warning so wouldn’t a game suspension and put through a education programme be sufficient in this first instance for Riak .

Don't you think the recent incidents where other players have been suspended and the education they get at the clubs on these very subjects before and during their time there as well as being around role models who are accepting of everyone is enough education. Surely there's already lots of education. How much education can one have.

 

[bedford]

Don't you think the recent incidents where other players have been suspended and the education they get at the clubs on these very subjects before and during their time there as well as being around role models who are accepting of everyone is enough education. Surely there's already lots of education. How much education can one have.

Never enough , remember some like him are still immature and everyone is different . It's overkill and as a great post earlier said , personal education and if he stuffs up after that throw the book at him

 

[zyzzbruh]

"Look what I supported"... yeah, decency! Being nice! Not being an arseh*le who doesn't care about people's feelings! Yuck!

For the record, the punishment for homophobic slurs was 2 weeks when Clarkson copped it. It was 3 weeks for Finlayson. The AFL was then very clear that further indiscretions of this kind would lead to harsher punishments.

So the rules were laid down crystal clear. The punishment for homophobic slurs was 2-3 weeks it seems. Anything further is punishment for receiving warnings and then ignoring them. Doing so is a lot of things... insolence, arrogance, impunity. But it's not a mistake.

So if the AFL come out and says any further indiscretions of this kind will now be 20 weeks, are we to sit back and accept it because what they say goes and they are being 'crystal clear'?

Just look at it rationally, for the slip of a tongue surrounding a topic where slurs of the kind are indirectly linked to it in meaning and intention, 2-3 weeks is a fair and reasonable punishment - that is still a significant ban. Just because they say so, doesn't mean 5 weeks is right. Governing bodies around the world aren't always right in setting their standard of perceived moral superiority, pretty clear when looking at certain parts of the world at the moment, so it's not as simple as just accepting it.. This is a very clear and obvious overreach for the sake of grandstanding in regards to this topic. Not saying it's not important, ofcourse it is, but they are overcompensating handing out 5 weeks.

 

[Kbroome]

So if the AFL come out and says any further indiscretions of this kind will now be 20 weeks, are we to sit back and accept it because what they say goes and they are being 'crystal clear'?

Just look at it rationally, for the slip of a tongue surrounding a topic where slurs of the kind are indirectly linked to it in meaning and intention, 2-3 weeks is a fair and reasonable punishment - that is still a significant ban. Just because they say so, doesn't mean 5 weeks is right. Governing bodies around the world aren't always right in setting their standard of perceived moral superiority, pretty clear when looking at certain parts of the world at the moment, so it's not as simple as just accepting it.. This is a very clear and obvious overreach for the sake of grandstanding in regards to this topic. Not saying it's not important, ofcourse it is, but they are overcompensating handing out 5 weeks.

U have just said that 5 games is too much - subjective decision, and then made another subjective decision that 2-3 games is a good marker.

The facts are that Clarkson got 2

Finlayson got 3

Powell got 5

Graham got 4

Andrew got 5

You can see the escalation clause that the AFL stated would happen after multiple incidents especially close together.

I’m happy with the length of suspension he has been given because it aligns with what the AFL outlined 18 months ago

 

[zyzzbruh]

U have just said that 5 games is too much - subjective decision, and then made another subjective decision that 2-3 games is a good marker.

The facts are that Clarkson got 2

Finlayson got 3

Powell got 5

Graham got 4

Andrew got 5

You can see the escalation clause that the AFL stated would happen after multiple incidents especially close together.

I’m happy with the length of suspension he has been given because it aligns with what the AFL outlined 18 months ago

Yes 2-3 is my subjective decision at which beyond that i start questioning processes if i feel it becomes unreasonable. It appears yours just aligns with whatever the AFL says without any thought of questioning whether their practices are reasonable and correct on principle, which was my whole point..

For arguments sake, if the AFL's escalation clause had the suspension blow out to 20 games, would you just continue to accept it because it aligns with the clause? or would you get to a point where you're like ok that's unreasonable now.

I clearly don't agree with the clause as it stands, and as i said in my post, governing bodies aren't always right on the things they implement. They are not the beholder of all moral standards in society, so their clauses and processes aren't immune to criticism or just being plain wrong.

 

[Kbroome]

Yes 2-3 is my subjective decision at which beyond that i start questioning processes if i feel it becomes unreasonable. It appears yours just aligns with whatever the AFL says without any thought of questioning whether their practices are reasonable and correct on principle, which was my whole point..

For arguments sake, if the AFL's escalation clause had the suspension blow out to 20 games, would you just continue to accept it because it aligns with the clause? or would you get to a point where you're like ok that's unreasonable now.

I clearly don't agree with the clause as it stands, and as i said in my post, governing bodies aren't always right on the things they implement. They are not the beholder of all moral standards in society, so their clauses and processes aren't immune to criticism or just being plain wrong.

I also agree in principle with the length of suspension. People these days get so much education on language to use not use. What is offensive etc. it’s not like they don’t know in the first place.

I believe also that 5-6 games is right for the mistake. We have seen 4-5 players be punished before for similar incidents and got similar suspensions. I also thing that words like the ones he used has more of an impact on the community that an accidental tackle that a player hits their head on the ground.

 

[bedford]

I also agree in principle with the length of suspension. People these days get so much education on language to use not use. What is offensive etc. it’s not like they don’t know in the first place.

I believe also that 5-6 games is right for the mistake. We have seen 4-5 players be punished before for similar incidents and got similar suspensions. I also thing that words like the ones he used has more of an impact on the community that an accidental tackle that a player hits their head on the ground.

What did he say then

 

[.Shotties.]

Just look at it rationally, for the slip of a tongue surrounding a topic where slurs of the kind are indirectly linked to it in meaning and intention

Come on, man. Even if you take the argument that some of the slurs have been normalised, like kids calling things they don't like "gay", they absolutely shouldn't be.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

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.

Sam Kerr said a lot worse to that cop guy

 

[bedford]

Sam Kerr said a lot worse to that cop guy

Correct

 

[zyzzbruh]

I also agree in principle with the length of suspension. People these days get so much education on language to use not use. What is offensive etc. it’s not like they don’t know in the first place.

I believe also that 5-6 games is right for the mistake. We have seen 4-5 players be punished before for similar incidents and got similar suspensions. I also thing that words like the ones he used has more of an impact on the community that an accidental tackle that a player hits their head on the ground.

So 5-6 is your subjective decision then? You'd be unhappy if it were 8-9?

I think they should all be judged individually anyway. Why should I be punished even more just because 2 other blokes got punished prior.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Come on, man. Even if you take the argument that some of the slurs have been normalised, like kids calling things they don't like "gay", they absolutely shouldn't be.

I'm more then happy for the words to be phased out. Just don't think the punishment fits the crime at 5 weeks

 

[.Shotties.]

I'm more then happy for the words to be phased out

Then be clear that it's unacceptable, rather than saying it's a slip of the tongue or if these slurs are directly slurs.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Then be clear that it's unacceptable, rather than saying it's a slip of the tongue or if these slurs are directly slurs.

But fact of the matter is they are slip of the tongue most of the time and their meanings aren't always directly homophobic. Whether the word is unacceptable or not has nothing to do with that. It's just the reality of it. You can pull someone up for being ignorant about it but I'm not going to hang them for it either, especially when you know their intentions don't reflect the offense in the word.

There is a middle ground where you can address the issue personably rather than being indignant about it.

 

[.Shotties.]

But fact of the matter is they are slip of the tongue most of the time and their meanings aren't always directly homophobic.

Most of the time? What are the examples. I know you think ********er doesn't have homophobic grounding when screamed at a man, what else is there that makes up "most"?

Whether the word is unacceptable or not has nothing to do with that. It's just the reality of it. You can pull someone up for being ignorant about it but I'm not going to hang them for it either,

He's not being hanged, or even badly punished in the scheme of life. He doesn't get to play at the highest level of his sport for five weeks.

You can absolutely argue that the AFL is out of whack with how they punish violence compared to this, (which I'd agree with if we're discussing raising the punishment for striking and similar) but this incident took place after multiple warnings about exactly this kinda thing.

especially when you know their intentions don't reflect the offense in the word.

What other intention is there, in this case? He clearly used a slur as an insult.

There is a middle ground where you can address the issue personably rather than being indignant about it.

I'd hazard a guess that there's been plenty of times throughout a young, private-school attending football players life where they've been dealt with personably over "slips of the tongue".


Look, I don't think Riak is a shit bloke. I think it was a heat-of-the-moment **** up and he probably does regret it, but now he serves his punishment which isn't out of line or unclear before the incident.

The constant hand-wringing about "How could he know what this word meant?" and "It was just X, Y, or Z" is a very much along the lines of the people attempting to downplay the abuse Goodes received.

 

[joeykanga]

Most of the time? What are the examples. I know you think ********er doesn't have homophobic grounding when screamed at a man, what else is there that makes up "most"?

He's not being hanged, or even badly punished in the scheme of life. He doesn't get to play at the highest level of his sport for five weeks.

You can absolutely argue that the AFL is out of whack with how they punish violence compared to this, (which I'd agree with if we're discussing raising the punishment for striking and similar) but this incident took place after multiple warnings about exactly this kinda thing.

What other intention is there, in this case? He clearly used a slur as an insult.

I'd hazard a guess that there's been plenty of times throughout a young, private-school attending football players life where they've been dealt with personably over "slips of the tongue".


Look, I don't think Riak is a shit bloke. I think it was a heat-of-the-moment **** up and he probably does regret it, but now he serves his punishment which isn't out of line or unclear before the incident.

The constant hand-wringing about "How could he know what this word meant?" and "It was just X, Y, or Z" is a very much along the lines of the people attempting to downplay the abuse Goodes received.

And it's like the Adam Goodes example where people jump in and say it was unintentional...they were too young to know it was wrong..and the person on the end of the slur suffers because people try to be apologetic and accuse the victim to have a thicker hide What matters is not whether someone meant it it's always about how it can impact the victim. I'm agreeing with you in case I'm not being obvious.