Hard to say without knowing what was said.

Should not be allowed to play VFL, bit of a joke really, I suspect he'd get paid something for that whereas he wouldn't get match payments if he were suspended.

Out of character? No, racism is not our of character in my book.

Oh and Grant Thomas made me cringe when he kept referring to the indgigenous community on Footy Classified last night. Hands up who wants to point out where Nigeria is on a map...

Oh and Grant Thomas made me cringe when he kept referring to the indgigenous community on Footy Classified last night. Hands up who wants to point out where Nigeria is on a map...

It was even more annoying that no one on the panel pointed it out to him.

The VFL should suspend him too.

Dimwit of the highest order.

Hard to say without knowing what was said.

No it isn't. Racial Vilification is exactly what it is.

I am in the same boat here....When i first heard of this complaint i had no idea it was fired multiple times during the match.

I thought it was just a once off..4 weeks in the 2's is a pitiful excuse.

He should be sacked on the spot.

Totally agree. Apparently some of Sherman's teammates were trying to intervene during the match too. I'd be surprised if the Dogs weren't exploring this option already.

No it isn't. Racial Viluification is exactly what it is.

Yes & No.

For instance, when I first went to London I was talking about the cricket and about Australia playing against the "Pakis" (ie. the Pakistanis).

I was blissfully ignorant that it was considered a racist term there towards anyone of "Asian" descent, as it wasn't at home in Australia, and was confused when accused of being overtly racist.

I'm not saying that the Sherman case is similar, but I could have been accused of racially vilifying someone with my comments at the time, purely by accident.

As a result, I'm now acutely aware that someone can say something with no intention of it being racist, but it's subjective and dependent on the "audience."

There are degrees of things, and without knowing what was said, I think it is hard to make a value judgment on what his intention was or the appropriate punishment.

I mean, as a pure hypothetical, who's to say Sherman didn't say "come on, you're supposed to be fast, you should be able to jump high, have a look at you..." in reference to Wilkinson's reputation and athletic build, but it may have been misconstrued as a reference to his skin colour and racial stereotypes.

Perception in this case becomes reality, and Sherman trying to explain it wasn't intended in a racial context would be of no benefit - the horse would have bolted and he can only go with it.

I don't want to defend Sherman, but the simple fact is there is a lot we don't know.

Gary's slip up in the heat of the moment comments, on footy classified, were ridiculous. In today's day and age, why would people even think of commenting on someone's colour or nationality? Racism is archaic and primative and does not belong in society today...

No need to slip up in the heat of the moment, if it dosen't even cross your mind...

Yes & No.

For instance, when I first went to London I was talking about the cricket and about Australia playing against the "Pakis" (ie. the Pakistanis).

I was blissfully ignorant that it was considered a racist term there towards anyone of "Asian" descent, as it wasn't at home in Australia, and was confused when accused of being overtly racist.

I'm not saying that the Sherman case is similar, but I could have been accused of racially vilifying someone with my comments at the time, purely by accident.

As a result, I'm now acutely aware that someone can say something with no intention of it being racist, but it's subjective and dependent on the "audience."

There are degrees of things, and without knowing what was said, I think it is hard to make a value judgment on what his intention was or the appropriate punishment.

I mean, as a pure hypothetical, who's to say Sherman didn't say "come on, you're supposed to be fast, you should be able to jump high, have a look at you..." in reference to Wilkinson's reputation and athletic build, but it may have been misconstrued as a reference to his skin colour and racial stereotypes.

Perception in this case becomes reality, and Sherman trying to explain it wasn't intended in a racial context would be of no benefit - the horse would have bolted and he can only go with it.

I don't want to defend Sherman, but the simple fact is there is a lot we don't know.

"Ignorance is no excuse" The basic premise of law.

If you travel to another country Artie, you should do a little research first (on the plane maybe)

With Racial Vilification, it is not so much the words but the intent. And if it happened over the course of the afternoon then i believe the intent is well known.

Sherman got off bloody lightly, As a disabled person he wouldn't want to meet me.

I copped many a barrage of villification in the schoolyard years ago, and those kids knew exactly what they were doing.

I've had experiences with players parents who have been dreadfully upset by the vindictive negativity of fan forums towards their sons. I know that the abuse Brent Grgic received had a significant impact on his confidence and desire to play footy. The vilification of Brent Grgic on this site and others was the lowest form of cowardice and bulling I've seen and just as bad if not worse than a "one off" incidence of racial vilification.

In my mind abuse is abuse. Racial abuse is unacceptable, religious abuse is unacceptable and I don't understand how people, who can so clearly see how wrong these forms of abuse are can get on this forum and think it's quite proper, their "right" in fact, to vilify football players, umpires and officials.

I don't defend racial abusers, I just think the same principles apply to all.

I don't think it is about people claiming certain forms of abuse are acceptable. You are right; abuse is unacceptable. However there are different forms which require different punitive measures.

Stealing is unacceptable but should a pesky shoplifter get the same punishment as a malicious armed robber?

I don't think it is about people claiming certain forms of abuse are acceptable. You are right; abuse is unacceptable. However there are different forms which require different punitive measures.

Stealing is unacceptable but should a pesky shoplifter get the same punishment as a malicious armed robber?

Well I am truly glad that there is at least one other here who thinks abuse of whatever nature is unacceptable.

I was beginning to think seeing as how it was just me and my mate that I must be deluded.

And yes criticism is just fine.

Regarding people as less than garbage for their perceived failings is what I'm about.

And no - I'm not saying that others on the site are unacceptable - simply we should be aware of the probable impact of what we say.

And iI accept there is worse elsewhere : so what?

It's a perspective, people.

I think religious abuse is tolerable .That doesn't mean I single someone out for being religious or having a faith .It means I believe that I should be able to abuse Religion itself .Whether it be a major or minor denomination ,I don't mind having people believing it or trusting in a faith-but I reserve the right to say that all Religion is bogus and If you are stupid enough to believe in one then keep your sheep thoughts to yourself .

I certainly don't see Religion as a sacred cow , so to speak.May the Great Sky God strike me dead now if I'm wrong. ---Nope , still here .

Why should we not abuse Religion on the stupidity of its Advocates alone .That means all major and minor cults .

I think religious abuse is tolerable .That doesn't mean I single someone out for being religious or having a faith .It means I believe that I should be able to abuse Religion itself .Whether it be a major or minor denomination ,I don't mind having people believing it or trusting in a faith-but I reserve the right to say that all Religion is bogus and If you are stupid enough to believe in one then keep your sheep thoughts to yourself .

I certainly don't see Religion as a sacred cow , so to speak.May the Great Sky God strike me dead now if I'm wrong. ---Nope , still here .

Why should we not abuse Religion on the stupidity of its Advocates alone .That means all major and minor cults .

I presume you make an exception for Victoria's favourite religion then?

Hardly think the VFL should have to put up with a suspended player for vilification. Should just have been suspended.

Hope he sits out the front of the entire team and they throw rotten fruit at him leading teams style.

The big question is if what he's done worse than what Aker did and if you have set a precedent for unacceptable

behaviour shouldn't this be maintained for consistency.

Therefore it follows he should be sacked cause I'd argue he's bought the club into more disrepute than Aker.

I didn't realize until this morning that he abused the boy for the ENTIRE match. AND that he was a first game player making his debut in the AFL.

Imagine how the kid and his family must have felt, having their son's debut in the AFL sullied by that moron.

If it was a one-off sledge, that's bad enough and deserved the four weeks. But to have a go at him all day shows that it was much more than just an off-the-cuff piece of stupidity.

Should have got 8 weeks and a $50 grand fine. The AFL needed to make the heaviest statement possible. This crap filters down through the leagues if it's not knocked on the head at the top.

If Sherman did do it for the entire match, then no wonder the AFL and dogs wanted this one dealt with quickly, because it raises a whole lot of new questions:

1. Where was the bulldogs leadership ? Why didn't they do more to stop this sooner?

2. What about the umpires? Did they not hear any of it? If they did hear some of it, then why didn't they act sooner?

I don't think it is about people claiming certain forms of abuse are acceptable. You are right; abuse is unacceptable. However there are different forms which require different punitive measures.

Stealing is unacceptable but should a pesky shoplifter get the same punishment as a malicious armed robber?

I know I should let this go but this is exactly my point.

The wonderful racial vilification attitude of the vast majority of people has come about through education. People are now aware of it's impacts and the community has decreed, completely appropriately, that it should be unacceptable. People don't realize how offensive the vindictive abuse of players is to players and their families. I'm telling you that the abuse handed out to players is not the equivalent of "pesky shoplifter" and has the potential to affect people very significantly. Often the ones that are affected are family and close friends.

I see DA's point that perhaps this isn't the place to bring this up but I see it differently. This is exactly the spot because vilification is wrong because of the impact it has on the person being vilified whether that person or his associates are offended.

I"ve not a single problem discussing a players football ability. If a player is poor below his knees, lacks awareness, doesn't make good decisions or whatever that is what footy forums are for. But the personal vindictive abuse that is continually thrown at players (it used to be Bruce and is now Morton) is unacceptable.

Personal vindictive abuse is not "pesky shoplifting" it's "malicious armed robber", hence the relevance to this thread.

Anyway I'll drop it now and hope that some at least have considered the point.

I presume you make an exception for Victoria's favourite religion then?

Only those who have been persuaded by the Demon force .

I know I should let this go but this is exactly my point.

The wonderful racial vilification attitude of the vast majority of people has come about through education. People are now aware of it's impacts and the community has decreed, completely appropriately, that it should be unacceptable. People don't realize how offensive the vindictive abuse of players is to players and their families. I'm telling you that the abuse handed out to players is not the equivalent of "pesky shoplifter" and has the potential to affect people very significantly. Often the ones that are affected are family and close friends.

I see DA's point that perhaps this isn't the place to bring this up but I see it differently. This is exactly the spot because vilification is wrong because of the impact it has on the person being vilified whether that person or his associates are offended.

I"ve not a single problem discussing a players football ability. If a player is poor below his knees, lacks awareness, doesn't make good decisions or whatever that is what footy forums are for. But the personal vindictive abuse that is continually thrown at players (it used to be Bruce and is now Morton) is unacceptable.

Personal vindictive abuse is not "pesky shoplifting" it's "malicious armed robber", hence the relevance to this thread.

Anyway I'll drop it now and hope that some at least have considered the point.

Fan, I agree with most of your sentiments. Perhaps my analogy was a bit too extreme - it was not my intent to trivialise personal vindictive abuse. I'm of the view it is about intent - some may stupidly think that personally abusing Bruce and Morton is an acceptable way to deal with feelings of frustration and anger, even more stupidly they may think it is a way of "firing them up". I don't doubt the impact it may have on the players as well as their friends and families - while it isn't acceptable this isn't the intended outcome.

Racially vilifying someone is far more delibrate in intent it is a slur on them personally as well as their ethnic group this has always been the case. It also represents centuries of oppression and is advocated by proponents of genocide. While the impacts of cyber bullying and verbal abuse are felt by friends and families of the victims, Racism has been an absolute blight on humanity.

Perhaps a more apt analogy would've been murder and manslaughter. Both deserve a heavy sentence but one is with intent the other through carelessness.

1. Where was the bulldogs leadership ? Why didn't they do more to stop this sooner?

2. What about the umpires? Did they not hear any of it? If they did hear some of it, then why didn't they act sooner?

Interesting points...The MFC must thrash this rabble....Here is a club heading for hard times.

Aker is no angel, but i do believe a large % of what he said...When have the Westies EVER got close to 3 flags, let alone Back to Back to Back??

Is it still OK to say "Ranga"?

Only a ginger can call another ginger ginger

Gingers Have Souls!