Katie Brennan appeal - Wins battle with AFL

Remove this Banner Ad

She will have her critics like anyone who challenges the system and she will have just as many people who support her. You can say she has been advised poorly, but she makes her own decisions and there can only be one winner by taking this to the Human Rights Commission and that is her. They will mediate with the AFL and the big boys of the AFL will hardly risk going to Federal Court and face the prospect of losing a discrimination case against an AFWL player. The only reputations who will be ruined will be those in the AFL, Brennan will be laughing all the way to the bank. Has played it to a tee and will end up getting exactly what she wants. Brennan has been a trailblazer for women's football and will be remembered as the woman who took on the boys club and won. Reputation and profile will grow and she will make shitloads out of it. Good luck to her.
All the AFL have to do is demonstrate that there are different rules applied to different leagues in men's competitions to show that this isn't a men vs women debate, but simply that the different leagues have different rules. Some leagues have send-off rules, the SANFL has the last touch rule, players in lower leagues get paid less than their AFL counterparts despite 'playing the same game'. There are many examples.

This is a cynical ploy, (which you even admit) to back the AFL into a corner in a kind of emotional blackmail based on 'how it will look', rather than a genuine grievance beyond 'it's not the same, therefore, sexism'.

If KB does win, this will be a Pyrrhic victory. Anyone who suspected that the AFLW was an exercise in virtual signalling rather than an attempt to create a genuine league will be convinced of the former. Brennan isn't a trailblazer, rather a pyromaniac, and she's just doused the AFLW in petrol and lit the match.

And before we go down the path of suggesting that KB is being told to 'know her place', remember that the Swans aren't fondly remembered for their cynical manipulation of the tribunal system which saw Dunkley play a GF by getting a court injunction (later lost). They were well within their rights to do it, but it was a dick move.

A better move would have been to accept the decision, but then try and have future changes made by simply going directly to the AFL or the AFLPA. She would have appeared magnanimous and may well have achieved her objective. Instead her and the WB look like a bunch of whiny brats which has dragged down the whole competition.
 
Brennan may be limiting future employment opportunities with this. Displaying herself as entitled and a trouble maker (more accurate than trailblazer) portrays a risk when looking to employ if things do not go the way she wants.

Not so much about a lack of agreeableness that some argue would be more accepted coming from men (I do not agree with that premise) but about playing cards to do political damage to the reputation of the organization they are associated with.

Why would you want to associate yourself with somebody like that?
 
Brennan may be limiting future employment opportunities with this. Displaying herself as entitled and a trouble maker (more accurate than trailblazer) portrays a risk when looking to employ if things do not go the way she wants.

Not so much about a lack of agreeableness that some argue would be more accepted coming from men (I do not agree with that premise) but about playing cards to do political damage to the reputation of the organization they are associated with.

Why would you want to associate yourself with somebody like that?
I doubt it. Any female who takes on the boys club of the AFL will have thousands of people wanting to associate themselves with them. She has played it perfectly, watch what happens.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Playing it perfectly in the sense she is trying to get maximum leverage by carrying on like a pork chop and shouting sexist. She hasn't won anything yet, she missed a grand final. She'd be feeling like an idiot.
 
Playing it perfectly in the sense she is trying to get maximum leverage by carrying on like a pork chop and shouting sexist. She hasn't won anything yet, she missed a grand final. She'd be feeling like an idiot.
Most likely doing it to garner as much attention for herself (and as a result her business)as possible with no regard for the reputation of the league or the other women that are a part of it.
 
The rules are stupid in your opinion. Maybe if they were so stupid the clubs could refute them as a class?

There are some so rules that we abide by as citizens that suck. Get on with it.

It’s not the tackle that is the issue, its the execution of the tackle. You can’t pin the arms and sling the opponent down like that. It’s exactly the same as the AFL. Sure it’s a occupational hazard, I get that. But rules are placed to try and stop head knocks like that. How many tackles are executed without there being a serious head knock? Probably hundreds over a weekend.

Just because the rule is stupid doesn’t make it sexual discrimination. It makes it what it is, a stupid rule! So you’ve negated yourself there.


If the AFL and all of you are SO concerned about the possibility of concussion through tackles, then there is a simple solution- get rid of tackles in AFL altogether.

Don't have tackling, at all. That way, there is no possibility of concussion happening in a tackle, if tackles don't occur.

Now, I am not serious and don't want the tackle gone either, but while AFL is a contact sport, and there is a chance of concussion happening in the game, people need to accept the possibility of it happening, and players knowing it can happen, and deciding if their career is worth risking their future for. No good playing, getting tackled (which is legal) and then suing over it later. They take the risk when they run out onto the field, just like they do that they can get an ACL, broken bones, or a career-ending injury.

Isn't there a chance that any tackle could cause concussion to the one being tackled? Why is it only certain types? I'm sure it is a possibility regardless.

Maybe people just need to stop doing risky activities, that could result in them getting hurt.
 
The rules are stupid in your opinion. Maybe if they were so stupid the clubs could refute them as a class?

There are some so rules that we abide by as citizens that suck. Get on with it.

It’s not the tackle that is the issue, its the execution of the tackle. You can’t pin the arms and sling the opponent down like that. It’s exactly the same as the AFL. Sure it’s a occupational hazard, I get that. But rules are placed to try and stop head knocks like that. How many tackles are executed without there being a serious head knock? Probably hundreds over a weekend.

Just because the rule is stupid doesn’t make it sexual discrimination. It makes it what it is, a stupid rule! So you’ve negated yourself there.


If the AFL and all of you are SO concerned about the possibility of concussion through tackles, then there is a simple solution- get rid of tackles in AFL altogether.

Don't have tackling, at all. That way, there is no possibility of concussion happening in a tackle, if tackles don't occur.

Now, I am not serious and don't want the tackle gone either, but while AFL is a contact sport, and there is a chance of concussion happening in the game, people need to accept the possibility of it happening, and players knowing it can happen, and deciding if their career is worth risking their future for. No good playing, getting tackled (which is legal) and then suing over it later. They take the risk when they run out onto the field, just like they do that they can get an ACL, broken bones, or a career-ending injury.

Isn't there a chance that any tackle could cause concussion to the one being tackled? Why is it only certain types? I'm sure it is a possibility regardless.

Maybe people just need to stop doing risky activities, that could result in them getting hurt.
 
Isn't there a chance that any tackle could cause concussion to the one being tackled? Why is it only certain types? I'm sure it is a possibility regardless.

Not sure if serious...

Certain types are much higher risk than others; it's hardly the black and white extreme you're trying to make it to be.
 
People have forgotten an issue here.

The other woman who got tackled by Katie Brennan WAS NOT CONCUSSED!

She got up, and played on. The medical report also cleared the girl of concussion.

Therefore, no consequence.

Tackles are legal in AFL and AFLW. Unless the person being tackled gets concussed then the tackle should be allowed. Katie Brennan missed a Grand Final for doing a tackle in a game where no-one got hurt.

She shouldn't miss a Grand Final because Michael Christian is an idiot.
 
Not sure if serious...

Certain types are much higher risk than others; it's hardly the black and white extreme you're trying to make it to be.


Only then, the types that result in concussion should be legislated against.

However, the girl Brennan tackled wasn't concussed, so what's the problem?
 
Dare to dream :rolleyes:

If a man was playing in the AFLW and did the exact same things as Brennan he'd be suspended too, so how is that discrimination?


Because players tackle all the time and don't get suspended, that's why?

Either it is legal to tackle in football, or it isn't. You can't start making players out on the field, in a split second, think whether they are "executing" a tackle properly.
 
Only then, the types that result in concussion should be legislated against.

However, the girl Brennan tackled wasn't concussed, so what's the problem?

The type of tackle is the kind the carries a higher risk of concussion.

If some player happens to have a head made of cement that doesn't make the action itself any less dangerous.
 
The law isn’t wrong. The law was created for a reason. Do you actually think the AFL created this rule so that in the event it’d occur it would create a s**t storm of politically correct boffins pleading injustice and to draw them into controversy?

If you believe that you’re just paranoid.


I'll remind of that next time you get done speeding and bleat about it.

Let's face it, most of you act so self-righteously, when you probably break the law every day and then justify why it is okay for you to do it.

He who is without sin......
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

All the AFL have to do is demonstrate that there are different rules applied to different leagues in men's competitions to show that this isn't a men vs women debate, but simply that the different leagues have different rules. Some leagues have send-off rules, the SANFL has the last touch rule, players in lower leagues get paid less than their AFL counterparts despite 'playing the same game'. There are many examples.

This is a cynical ploy, (which you even admit) to back the AFL into a corner in a kind of emotional blackmail based on 'how it will look', rather than a genuine grievance beyond 'it's not the same, therefore, sexism'.

If KB does win, this will be a Pyrrhic victory. Anyone who suspected that the AFLW was an exercise in virtual signalling rather than an attempt to create a genuine league will be convinced of the former. Brennan isn't a trailblazer, rather a pyromaniac, and she's just doused the AFLW in petrol and lit the match.

And before we go down the path of suggesting that KB is being told to 'know her place', remember that the Swans aren't fondly remembered for their cynical manipulation of the tribunal system which saw Dunkley play a GF by getting a court injunction (later lost). They were well within their rights to do it, but it was a dick move.

A better move would have been to accept the decision, but then try and have future changes made by simply going directly to the AFL or the AFLPA. She would have appeared magnanimous and may well have achieved her objective. Instead her and the WB look like a bunch of whiny brats which has dragged down the whole competition.



The fact is, many of you were against the AFLW from day one, and it wouldn't matter how Katie Brennan acts, you would find things to dismiss it.

She needs to do what is right for her, not worry about an "image" when those who will embrace AFLW will regardless, and those who don't, won't regardless.

No one will change their opinion based on what she decides to do, because no-one on Bigfooty can ever admit that they are wrong.
 
Firstly, Brennan didn't go to the tribunal attempting to claim the tackle wasn't dangerous.

Secondly, you're just wrong.
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-rough-conduct-dangerous-tackles

You got a thing for this lass?


Firstly, typical that you think that my point of view would only be based on if I have feelings for her or not? I don't have, by the way, I am advocating for what is fair.

To suggest that is my motivation would be like me suggesting that you criticizing her makes you gay.

Next time a mod gives you a day off, I hope you remember what you wrote, because you are the one who thinks
Firstly, Brennan didn't go to the tribunal attempting to claim the tackle wasn't dangerous.

Secondly, you're just wrong.
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-rough-conduct-dangerous-tackles

You got a thing for this lass?


I bet you don't follow the law all the time, either. Hypocrite.
 
Michael Christian is an idiot.

I think all haters should just **** off and die.

Let's face it, most of you act so self-righteously

no-one on Bigfooty can ever admit that they are wrong.

Hypocrite.
RUOK-logo-600px.jpg
 
I bet most of you hypocrites would bitch and complain if the captain of your AFL team got rubbed out from a Grand Final for tackling, when the other player wasn't even concussed. You wouldn't care about the rules, but would be bagging the AFL for making your captain miss out on a possible flag.

Most of you are only all right with this because you don't have an AFLW team and hate the AFLW even existing. If it was a men's team, you would be singing a different tune. Bet on it!
 
The fact is, many of you were against the AFLW from day one, and it wouldn't matter how Katie Brennan acts, you would find things to dismiss it.

She needs to do what is right for her, not worry about an "image" when those who will embrace AFLW will regardless, and those who don't, won't regardless.

No one will change their opinion based on what she decides to do, because no-one on Bigfooty can ever admit that they are wrong.
Jesus you’re a bleeding heart aren’t you?
 
The fact is, many of you were against the AFLW from day one, and it wouldn't matter how Katie Brennan acts, you would find things to dismiss it.

She needs to do what is right for her, not worry about an "image" when those who will embrace AFLW will regardless, and those who don't, won't regardless.

No one will change their opinion based on what she decides to do, because no-one on Bigfooty can ever admit that they are wrong.
That’s a lot of assuming isn’t it? A lot. I find it completely an utterly out of line to generalise the way you have about people being against AFLW. I think it’s fantastic personally, it’s a great introduction and I hope it stays and gets a lot stronger. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t have females playing this game at the highest level.

The fact you think she needs to do what is right for her is where your argument greatly loses any credibility. It’s not about worrying about her image, no one is questioning her image, in fact that you think she is hard done by is laughable. You mentioned something about banning tackling? We all know that’s just dross, a really really poorly thought out comment. I am all for banning dangerous tackles. In all levels of Footy.

The fact remains, that just because AFLW subscribed to a different level of punishment than the AFL, there is absolutely no case for sexual discrimination. It’s a governance issue. Not a gender one.

Do you remember when she was issued a reprimand earlier in the year? I don’t. The WB didn’t seem to feel they needed to either. If they were so put out by her unjust treatment they should have flown the flag then as well. The fact she received her second infraction in the last home and away game, putting her in jeapody for the GF, is the sole reason this has turned into a farrago of nonsense.

Why wasn’t sexual discrimination raised as a defence for her first offence? Why? Because the WB didn’t care! They didn’t think it was and they don’t think it is now either, they just know they can peddle that line to have tried to have the ban overturned. And you know what? Katie Brennan has been used like a Judas goat here, she has been left in the cold and dark to drag in quashed sentence.

And you, and all the others like you on BF, have been led down the garden path because apparently you’re so offended at a personal level. You didn’t raise concerns the first time she was reprimanded and you’ve had your emotion overtake your logic and embarrassed yourself in the process.

It sickens me that the WB have ventured down this avenue, but it doesn’t surprise me. The club is run by a president who is a whingeing twit who micromanages the organisation. This is an indictment on all involved down there and you for getting sucked down the rabbit hole.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top