- Thread starter
- #876
You clowns are all banned from The Mob for one week.
Game Day Round 2 Adelaide v Brisbane
- Thread starter DREAM TEAM BUFF
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You clowns are all banned from The Mob for one week.
just ban cameras from the change rooms because this will happen again as long as their are cameras in the change rooms.
Yep and we get Basil Zemplas cracking "Dean Cox" jokes too while the footage plays
They should all be ashamed. As has already been stated, there was a massive uproar when StKilda school girl showes pics of NDS and NR's junk, yet the media seem to be ok with making fun of this situation
Its a disgrace
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 78,138
- 155,548
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #879
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 82,419
- 83,927
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Going by our past record, the $'s would probably go to Melbourne to pay for their "tanking" fine.Wouldn't the money go to him?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 78,138
- 155,548
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #882
Silly meWouldn't the money go to him?
fairfooty
Premiership Player
Wonder what today's figure would be? ET's was for a grainy indistinct photo in a limited circulation magazine pre-internet days. This is in a a different universe... Hendo once in a lifetime opportunity here to get rid of cameras out of change rooms once and for all.
fairfooty
Premiership Player
Interesting article from InDaily today....
TV stations should duck for cover
David Washington – Analysis
THERE is a precedent in Australian sporting history for media companies paying a very high price for publishing unwanted and revealing images of athletes.
With Crow Ricky Henderson embarrassed by the weekend’s television broadcast clearly showing the player’s genitals in the changerooms during Adelaide’s AFL match against Brisbane, there are reminders of a famous defamation trial of the early 1990s.
In that case, star Rugby League player Andrew Ettingshausen was photographed – in arty, grainy black and white – in the showers during the Australian national team’s tour of Britain.
The photographer was welcome on the tour, but the league star argued he didn’t expect or endorse the taking and publication of nude images. The offending image was published in the Australian magazine, HQ, and Ettingshausen’s lawyers successfully argued publication constituted defamation – because it was “capable of subjecting the entirely blameless plaintiff to more than a trivial degree of ridicule”.
As well as resulting in a then significant pay-out to Ettingshausen of $100,000 (which had been reduced on appeal from the even more astronomical $350,000), the defamation trial also provided what has been described as “one of the most famous pieces of cross-examination in Australian legal history”.
Tom Hughes QC, representing Ettingshausen, was questioning the editor of HQ, Shona Martyn, about her opinion of the photograph. For this exchange to make sense, you need to know that Martyn had a relatively thick New Zealand accent.
HUGHES: It is a penis isn’t it?
MARTYN: I assume if it is in that part of the body, may be it could be or it might not be.
HUGHES: What else could it be … is it a duck?
In the case of the unfortunate Henderson, who is reported to be very embarrassed, the extent of his exposure is much greater than what happened to Ettingshausen. Back then, the internet was barely a twinkle in the eye of its creator. The only people who saw the photograph were those who bought the relatively little-read HQ magazine (now, sadly, defunct, as it was an excellent magazine).
The photo, as the above exchange indicates, was relatively indistinct, compared to the living colour, high-definition, shared-immediately-across-the-cyber-universe footage of Henderson.
Crows chairman Rob Chapman is livid at the breach of Henderson’s privacy by Foxtel and, reportedly, another television network.
That should not have happened,” he told ABC radio this morning. “We’re even dirtier that people chose to re-broadcast it which adds to the embarrassment of the individual and the club.”
There are fixed cameras in every AFL change room across the country but, as Chapman points out, there should be a delayed telecast of footage from an area where, naturally, people actually change their clothes. “For God’s sake, it is a changeroom,” he said.
Chapman says he’s placing the responsibility “fair and square” on the shoulders of the broadcaster, and was this morning seeking answers about how it happened. He even referenced the “famous ET shower scene” which he described as “very, very wrong”.
However, he played down any talk of legal action, saying the club was likely to “put it behind us and move on”, as long as he could get an assurance that players’ privacy would be protected in the future.
The question will be whether Henderson feels the same as the realization sinks in that the footage will forever be available on the internet.
Foxtel and any other television station who broadcast the offending images may be about to duck for cover.
TV stations should duck for cover
David Washington – Analysis
THERE is a precedent in Australian sporting history for media companies paying a very high price for publishing unwanted and revealing images of athletes.
With Crow Ricky Henderson embarrassed by the weekend’s television broadcast clearly showing the player’s genitals in the changerooms during Adelaide’s AFL match against Brisbane, there are reminders of a famous defamation trial of the early 1990s.
In that case, star Rugby League player Andrew Ettingshausen was photographed – in arty, grainy black and white – in the showers during the Australian national team’s tour of Britain.
The photographer was welcome on the tour, but the league star argued he didn’t expect or endorse the taking and publication of nude images. The offending image was published in the Australian magazine, HQ, and Ettingshausen’s lawyers successfully argued publication constituted defamation – because it was “capable of subjecting the entirely blameless plaintiff to more than a trivial degree of ridicule”.
As well as resulting in a then significant pay-out to Ettingshausen of $100,000 (which had been reduced on appeal from the even more astronomical $350,000), the defamation trial also provided what has been described as “one of the most famous pieces of cross-examination in Australian legal history”.
Tom Hughes QC, representing Ettingshausen, was questioning the editor of HQ, Shona Martyn, about her opinion of the photograph. For this exchange to make sense, you need to know that Martyn had a relatively thick New Zealand accent.
HUGHES: It is a penis isn’t it?
MARTYN: I assume if it is in that part of the body, may be it could be or it might not be.
HUGHES: What else could it be … is it a duck?
In the case of the unfortunate Henderson, who is reported to be very embarrassed, the extent of his exposure is much greater than what happened to Ettingshausen. Back then, the internet was barely a twinkle in the eye of its creator. The only people who saw the photograph were those who bought the relatively little-read HQ magazine (now, sadly, defunct, as it was an excellent magazine).
The photo, as the above exchange indicates, was relatively indistinct, compared to the living colour, high-definition, shared-immediately-across-the-cyber-universe footage of Henderson.
Crows chairman Rob Chapman is livid at the breach of Henderson’s privacy by Foxtel and, reportedly, another television network.
That should not have happened,” he told ABC radio this morning. “We’re even dirtier that people chose to re-broadcast it which adds to the embarrassment of the individual and the club.”
There are fixed cameras in every AFL change room across the country but, as Chapman points out, there should be a delayed telecast of footage from an area where, naturally, people actually change their clothes. “For God’s sake, it is a changeroom,” he said.
Chapman says he’s placing the responsibility “fair and square” on the shoulders of the broadcaster, and was this morning seeking answers about how it happened. He even referenced the “famous ET shower scene” which he described as “very, very wrong”.
However, he played down any talk of legal action, saying the club was likely to “put it behind us and move on”, as long as he could get an assurance that players’ privacy would be protected in the future.
The question will be whether Henderson feels the same as the realization sinks in that the footage will forever be available on the internet.
Foxtel and any other television station who broadcast the offending images may be about to duck for cover.
Very interesting thoughts. When I first started modding I shared this article with Stabbie and Vader - not sure they got through it
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Very interesting thoughts. When I first started modding I shared this article with Stabbie and Vader - not sure they got through it
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
I got through some of it mate
But I've had similar opinions about social media forums for a very long time now.
If I were Rick, I'd go for Fox like a ****ing Rottweiler. This is a deplorable situation. The footage was on delay and someone made a conscious decision to put it to air. Who knows how this could affect Rick? How old is he, 24, 25? Is he a sensitive sort of guy? Is he secure about his masculinity? I have no idea, but this sort of thing could be traumatic for some young guys, especially now that the footage has wide circulation on Youtube, along with the expected ribald comments about his pecker.
And no doubt Rick will cop plenty from his on-field opponents for the next couple of weeks, which could affect his performance and Adelaide's fortunes.
I regard this as a very serious transgression. Imagine the howls of outrage if it had happened in female changing room.
ET got a hundred grand for a grainy black and white pic in magazine, and probably no copies still exist. Rick is on the internet for perpetuity.
I hope Rick is having long and serious talks to his legal people.
And no doubt Rick will cop plenty from his on-field opponents for the next couple of weeks, which could affect his performance and Adelaide's fortunes.
I regard this as a very serious transgression. Imagine the howls of outrage if it had happened in female changing room.
ET got a hundred grand for a grainy black and white pic in magazine, and probably no copies still exist. Rick is on the internet for perpetuity.
I hope Rick is having long and serious talks to his legal people.
fairfooty
Premiership Player
Well said.
I reckon a couple of mill + interest + a sizable charity donation of Rick's choice would be a good starting point allowing for the Internet factor and the facts it was deliberate and FF set out to cause damage and harm and it's 20 odd years later since the ET decision. Do it Hendo. It's about time the media got pulled into line and there was significant pain to their hip pocket - maybe they'll then start behaving like thinking human beings instead of the Neanderthals they are.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 78,138
- 155,548
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #890
Absolutely.
First, Hendo should absolutely NOT listen to what the club says. No matter what occurs, the club will never fight anything and always advises to just put it behind us and move on.
We are the weakest, most pathetic, non-confrontational, sit down to pee organisation that exists anywhere in the world. It's lucky we didn't see anyone from our management getting unchanged on camera, we would have seen their vagina.
Hendo has every right to be pissed off. Fox is responsible, so go at them hammer and tongs. Get as many $$$'s as you can and while you're at it, tell the club to get f***ed too.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 25,917
- 65,618
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
How on earth didn't at least one of Hendo's or Danger's goals get a nomination for goal of the year? Lindsay Thomas is up and his goals were nothing special at all. Did anyone from the AFL actually see our game?
- Thread starter
- #893
Danger should have got 8
This is not the thread to be bring up your agenda on the AFC admin Carl, I don't need to read that crap anywhere I go on this board.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 78,138
- 155,548
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #895
Do we still all get to enjoy your unquestioning servitude in every thread though?
- Oct 16, 2011
- 15,580
- 39,243
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
It was pretty good
Similar threads
