Roast Bucks Starts The Booing Debate

[jmac70]

I was there at Vic Park that day, JMac. It was way beyond disgusting & a blight on the club. I see where you're coming from on Buddy, though he wasn't singled out, or subject to sustained booing on Sunday.
I'm fine with the Moore-led respect approach and club sensitivity, but don't think there was a lot going on in this case, unless it happened in the breaks between quarters?

I just think that with all the work the club is doing to address racism, the fans could have maybe given some thought about what can mean to boo an Indigenous athlete.

I guess it becomes a mob mentality and some see it as a right. I don’t really get it, but am happy the club responded.

 

[FIGJAM]

I haven't read much of this debate, but when I heard about Longmuire's deflection, I went back & watched it all again out of curiosity as I couldn't remember all that much booing, apart from Papley.
Papley got the loudest & most consistent boos, mostly for the elbow into Nick's back & partly for being a dick in general, I guess.
Heeney copped a bit while taking some early shots at goal.
Maybe they both would've copped more if they'd got more touches - who knows? Certainly, Papley would've I guess.
And then there is Buddy.
I counted 3 times for the whole match - none especially loud. Three times in two hours.
Twice during early play, including his first touch. The first attracted a very small number of boos; the second a bit more, but not as much as even 'Heeney-level' & nowhere near as much as Papley.
The last one was when Franklin took a set shot in the last. It was probably 'Heeney-level', but as he took the shot quickly, it soon changed to cheers as he missed.
No wonder Buddy said he wasn't bothered as there wasn't much to it.
Personally, somebody would have to do something pretty full on before I'd boo. Like a punch behind play, or maybe leaving the club for Carlton? I get that it's theatre & all, so if a few people want to boo, meh. But I think large numbers booing for little or no reason is a bit lame really. I could still see booing the umps as justifiable.
Anyway, Horse managed to deflect from a 3-5 record, some media wonks jumped up & down for attention, Moore seemed to drive a respect message for the club, which is fine & Buddy seemed to shrug it off, to his credit because, as far as I could tell, nothing much happened. If you don't believe that, watch it again yourself

According to some people in here who love the smell of their own brew and are self-branded as morally superior to everybody else who disagrees with them, undertaking an objective analysis of this nature makes you a bigot!

 

[Brad Goodman]

Not even close to Micky O's greatest hits list of scandals..

He's as big a fan of booing as he is of consent.

 

[ipswichpies]

Must be time to just about close this thread,the same arguments over and over are just getting more and more puerile,Side by Side and that includes all of us no matter our background or likes or dislikes.I am not posting in this thread no longer, 49 pages over a storm in a teacup.

 

[chestbrah]

WHO ARE WE BOOING THIS WEEK?

 

[sr36]

WHO ARE WE BOOING THIS WEEK?

Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha.

 

[Lord Randy]

So there was an incident that incited the booing?

 

[brysie]

Who were the journalists who asked the question of Longmire and McRae? From the press conferences, both McRae and Longmire's responses to the question seemed reasonably innocuous.

In my view some of the commentary following the outrage has been astounding - the presenter on SEN last night (Cam Luke I think) was suggesting that opposition fans should be celebrating Buddy (e.g. by clapping him when he got the ball) and that it would be great if Collingwood were the first to do this, as it's likely his final year and the last time we see him on the MCG.

It really is bizarre and seems to be a consequence of the rise of social media / saturation of football coverage, where people feel compelled to talk or tweet endlessly about the game.

 

[Hardas]

Yeah, some see Buddy's face-to-face with Murphy as a bit more or less innocuous (after Murph sat Papley on his arse). Not a lot in it for mine but enough to set some off (including my sister).

I noticed with a wry smile that the Fox website went with something like 'there was no incident that could have led to the booing'. I take it that suited their narrative better.

Anyway... onward & upward.

 

[sr36]

Who were the journalists who asked the question of Longmire and McRae? From the press conferences, both McRae and Longmire's responses to the question seemed reasonably innocuous.

In my view some of the commentary following the outrage has been astounding - the presenter on SEN last night (Cam Luke I think) was suggesting that opposition fans should be celebrating Buddy (e..g by clapping him when he got the ball) and that it would be great if Collingwood were the first to do this, as it's likely his final year and the last time we see him on the MCG.

It really is bizarre and seems to be a consequence of the rise of social media / saturation of football coverage, where people feel compelled to talk or tweet endlessly about the game.

We were booing Buddy the first time Sydney played in front of us since the Goodes incident. It was moronically unaware. We gave the media a free hit at negative a story that was going to get traction.

 

[Harry O]

We were booing Buddy the first time Sydney played in front of us since the Goodes incident. It was moronically unaware. We gave the media a free hit at negative a story that was going to get traction.

Moronically unaware…. Ok then….

 

[Hazz]

Who could forget Jack Watts? Well I had until your mention of him, but an image almost instantly formed in my memory of a hapless Watts being met simultaneously by 3 Collingwood players coming from different directions. We certainly showed him what AFL football was going to be like for an undeserving number one draft pick. He never really recovered from that harsh introduction to the competition.

Malthouse was great as misdirection, but I don't remember him crying to the media in the post match to divert attention away from his own failings on that QB many years ago now.

Its the double standards that irks me.

Instruct your players to physically intimidate opposition players outside of general play = OK in Longmires book and in the eyes of the media.
Booing a certain player = Not OK in Longmires book.
Booing other certain players = Not worth mentioning in Longmires book.

Your eloquence belies your understanding of the situation. In isolation, no one particularly cares Nicky D was targeted by the Swannies, that’s what happens to great players. It’s being mentioned because it happened simultaneously as Swans hierarchy, who no doubt instructed said targeting of a pre-pubescent boy, are up in arms because the riff-raff deigned to boo one of their players who happens to be indigenous. Rightly or wrongly, people are pointing it out as a moral hypocrisy.

agree 100% at a base level. But “how we got here” is a bit more nuanced than I initially thought.

I’ve been quite strong on Longmires role in this as being a pure deflection tactic, but I’ve since seen a longer video where he was actually responding to a question from a reporter rather than initiating on the issue himself. Longmire implies he didn’t hear the booing himself, apparently, and certainly does not look to have come in with that agenda as I’d previously thought. So I’ll walk back some of my vitriol against Longmire. The moralizing double standards are still there of course, and I still hate that the media care more about noises than physical violence.

So, with this in mind, as usual we are left with a reporter, not sure who, beating up the issue initially (who’d have thunk it) with a loaded question.

 

[brysie]

We were booing Buddy the first time Sydney played in front of us since the Goodes incident. It was moronically unaware. We gave the media a free hit at negative a story that was going to get traction.

I don't doubt that - I'm just curious to know who the journalist(s) was that asked the question.

I also don't think there's ever going to be a settled position on this. Some people won't be prepared to admit any fault, others will moralise and seek to attribute complete fault, and the debate will be further polarised. My observation was more a comment about the role of the media in facilitating or contributing to that polarisation.

 

[sideswipe]

I don't doubt that - I'm just curious to know who the journalist(s) was that asked the question.

I also don't think there's ever going to be a settled position on this. Some people won't be prepared to admit any fault, others will moralise and seek to attribute complete fault, and the debate will be further polarised. My observation was more a comment about the role of the media in facilitating or contributing to that polarisation.

It isn't "moralising" to take the practical stance of "it is a bad idea to boo indigenous players. Don't do it".

 

[sr36]

I don't doubt that - I'm just curious to know who the journalist(s) was that asked the question.

I also don't think there's ever going to be a settled position on this. Some people won't be prepared to admit any fault, others will moralise and seek to attribute complete fault, and the debate will be further polarised. My observation was more a comment about the role of the media in facilitating or contributing to that polarisation.

Yep. I don't have an issue with booing, but the media scour the competition looking for things that are controversial and we gave them a good story which put us in a bad light. End of the day that's about it. Although I don't think booing indigenous players who don't appear to have done anything to warrant it is acceptable - due to the historical context and thus the social harm it can do.

 

[brysie]

It isn't "moralising" to take the practical stance of "it is a bad idea to boo indigenous players. Don't do it".

I didn't say that everyone has moralised, but it's clear from the posts on this forum that some take it as an opportunity to moralise.

 

[sideswipe]

I didn't say that everyone has moralised, but it's clear from the posts on this forum that some take it as an opportunity to moralise.

Quote one please?

 

[loki04]

We were booing Buddy the first time Sydney played in front of us since the Goodes incident. It was moronically unaware. We gave the media a free hit at negative a story that was going to get traction.

Yet if Longmire worded his response differently it would of become a non story as the booing was neither intense or often enough to warrant the inference to 2015 and Goodes.

He should of added Papley and Heeney into it and said he is not a fan of booing. Fans love to show displeasure for opposition champions and try be a 19th man to put them off the game.
But I am not a fan and think they should be celebrating a long and great career.


Instead he used loaded wording and inferences to Goodes, bigotry and racism.

As targeted booing of an indigenous man and why would you boo him inferring the only reason he can think of is bigotry.

The clubs statement played into this and basically left the Collingwood faithful out to dry.

 

[loki04]

Quote one please?

Does he have the time? There's a fair lot of it.

 

[sideswipe]

Does he have the time? There's a fair lot of it.

Why don't you do likewise? Shouldn't be hard if there is a "fair lot"(?) of it. Go on, go ahead. Pick out some moralising.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

WHO ARE WE BOOING THIS WEEK?

The U.S. Department of Justice for their ongoing extradition and prosecution attempts pertaining to Julian Assange.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[loki04]

We were booing Buddy the first time Sydney played in front of us since the Goodes incident. It was moronically unaware. We gave the media a free hit at negative a story that was going to get traction.

Maybe there is a lesson in that for you, in that the crowd treated him as just another player.
The booing was colourblind.
Only the guernsey colours mattered.

People weren't worried about perception because they didn't stop to give him special treatment for his skin colour and race.

 

[loki04]

Why don't you do likewise? Shouldn't be hard if there is a "fair lot"(?) of it. Go on, go ahead. Pick out some moralising.

No worries since you seem to have the time, you can just re read the thread including some of your own posts.

I'm not your PA or librarian.

You can always pick them because they never post with middle ground they never have balance in their posts. Often highlighting how good their moral compass is and others aren't. Usually for the likes.

It's always just very very left leaning, then try to shut discourse with either a racist card, bigot, gas lighting terms or an inference to that.
Its a great tactic used by the left, so as not have to acknowledge the grey areas.

 

[Wearmouth]

Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha.

Blasphemous….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sideswipe]

No worries since you seem to have the time, you can just re read the thread including some of your own posts.

I'm not your PA or librarian.

You can always pick them because they never post with middle ground they never have balance in their posts.

It's always just very very left leaning, then try to shut discourse with either a racist card, bigot, gas lighting terms or an inference to that.
Its a great tactic used by the left, so as not have to acknowledge the grey areas.

Soft Loki, very soft. You were challenged to provide some substance, yet simply couldn't do it.

An unsubstantiated claim of moralising is almost a form of moralising itself.

Not sure "the left" would include me in their ranks.