On 25/05/2013 at 02:40, McQueen said:

How on earth does a parent remain there after their 13 year old daughter has been ejected? Unreal.

Agreed. Poor form.

The girl's actions were disgraceful, but let's remember she is a girl. 13 years old, apparently. I'm not condoning what she said, but many people make mistakes in life that go unnoticed. Unfortunately she's made one on a national stage and is almost a national villain right now. Again, she deserves to be punished, to learn a lesson, and to understand that what she said is 100% unacceptable, but it'd be nice if people remembered she's 13.

To me, the bigger issue is the pig of a mother/grandmother/friend/relation who was sitting next to her (I'm going to assume they knew one another as she also appeared to open her mouth when Goodes ran past, she seemed to have a smile on her face before the security guards came over, and the girl gave her her jacket as she left). How this person, not a minor at all, could just sit there and let the girl walk out on her own is beyond me. Completely pathetic.

  On 25/05/2013 at 02:50, titan_uranus said:

The girl's actions were disgraceful, but let's remember she is a girl. 13 years old, apparently. I'm not condoning what she said, but many people make mistakes in life that go unnoticed. Unfortunately she's made one on a national stage and is almost a national villain right now. Again, she deserves to be punished, to learn a lesson, and to understand that what she said is 100% unacceptable, but it'd be nice if people remembered she's 13.

To me, the bigger issue is the pig of a mother/grandmother/friend/relation who was sitting next to her (I'm going to assume they knew one another as she also appeared to open her mouth when Goodes ran past, she seemed to have a smile on her face before the security guards came over, and the girl gave her her jacket as she left). How this person, not a minor at all, could just sit there and let the girl walk out on her own is beyond me. Completely pathetic.

I agree. Mum made absolutely no attempt to move. Staggering

  On 25/05/2013 at 02:58, why you little said:

I agree. Mum made absolutely no attempt to move. Staggering

It highlights a flaw in the ejection procedure in that a person of that age can be thrown out. The AFL needs to put in place steps where the age of the offender is confirmed and if necessary, as last night was, have them escorted by a legal guardian.

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:18, McQueen said:

It highlights a flaw in the ejection procedure in that a person of that age can be thrown out. The AFL needs to put in place steps where the age of the offender is confirmed and if necessary, as last night was, have them escorted by a legal guardian.

Not the point.

Mum made no attempt to follow her daughter.

She didn't care.

Does anyone know it was her mum? (haven't read the papers today) or are we assuming.

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:25, rjay said:

Does anyone know it was her mum? (haven't read the papers today) or are we assuming.

Mum Aunt Friend, it doesn't really matter.

She made no attempt to move...What a Guardian.

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:23, why you little said:

Not the point.

Mum made no attempt to follow her daughter.

She didn't care.

Straight thru to the keeper...

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:28, McQueen said:

Straight thru to the keeper...

No. Why should parents be spoonfed every rule??

I thought it would have been a maternal instinct for a mother or Guardian to leave with her.

At no stage did the mother/guardian even start to stand up.

Why is it always up to the AFL to stipulate everything?

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:27, why you little said:

Mum Aunt Friend, it doesn't really matter.

She made no attempt to move...What a Guardian.

Ok, so we're assuming. It could be someone she just sat next to at the football but if she was connected then she should have given her support of course.

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:33, why you little said:

No. Why should parents be spoonfed every rule??

I thought it would have been a maternal instinct for a mother or Guardian to leave with her.

At no stage did the mother/guardian even start to stand up.

Why is it always up to the AFL to stipulate everything?

Because it's their duty of care, WYL.

People do need spoon feeding. Take yourself sometimes for instance.

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:41, McQueen said:

Because it's their duty of care, WYL.

People do need spoon feeding. Take yourself sometimes for instance.

No it's not.

The AFL put on the entertainment, they are not the almighty anything.

If people need spoon feeding about maternal care then the race is living on borrowed time.

Last nights match, besides the ugly episode at the end, convinced me that we are desperately short of blokes who can play a position then shift into the middle. Swans have eight genuine mids. I'm guessing that we don't.

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:34, rjay said:

Ok, so we're assuming. It could be someone she just sat next to at the football but if she was connected then she should have given her support of course.

No one is assuming. The girl handed the rug (or jacket?) to the person next to her, so it seemed pretty obvious there was a connection.

  On 25/05/2013 at 04:05, Return to Glory said:

Last nights match, besides the ugly episode at the end, convinced me that we are desperately short of blokes who can play a position then shift into the middle. Swans have eight genuine mids. I'm guessing that we don't.

I agree. Those upstairs have let our club slide into oblivion..almost.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-05-25/adam-goodes-media-conference

Shocking action by the young girl but I agree with Goodes when he said it's not her fault - it's the culture that she lives in that is to blame.

I feel for Goodes but appluad the way he went about it.

Maybe if one could find a positive from this it's the awarness and response that has followed. I regret to admit that before this event I had given little thought to the idea of racism in AFL.

It has alerted me to the issue and I am sure it has alerted many others. I know we are dealing with the minority in todays society although maybe now action can be taking to rid AFL of these people and culture.

I think this event will make that minority think twice before making racist remarks in the future.

  On 25/05/2013 at 02:50, titan_uranus said:

The girl's actions were disgraceful, but let's remember she is a girl. 13 years old, apparently. I'm not condoning what she said, but many people make mistakes in life that go unnoticed. Unfortunately she's made one on a national stage and is almost a national villain right now. Again, she deserves to be punished, to learn a lesson, and to understand that what she said is 100% unacceptable, but it'd be nice if people remembered she's 13.

To me, the bigger issue is the pig of a mother/grandmother/friend/relation who was sitting next to her (I'm going to assume they knew one another as she also appeared to open her mouth when Goodes ran past, she seemed to have a smile on her face before the security guards came over, and the girl gave her her jacket as she left). How this person, not a minor at all, could just sit there and let the girl walk out on her own is beyond me. Completely pathetic.

Agree 100%.

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:18, McQueen said:

It highlights a flaw in the ejection procedure in that a person of that age can be thrown out. The AFL needs to put in place steps where the age of the offender is confirmed and if necessary, as last night was, have them escorted by a legal guardian.

  On 25/05/2013 at 03:23, why you little said:

Not the point.

Mum made no attempt to follow her daughter.

She didn't care.

Both right as I see it - if the girl got lost, or hurt or whatever, there is no doubt the AFL would be seen as responsible, and it could cost them millions. Mum (or whoever) didn't follow, but should have - or been chucked out as well because if you're a parent or guardian you are responsible for the actions of children in your care.

I wasn't sure what the fuss was about initially - I thought Goodes was being a bit precious, given that Bobby Skilton is still known as the Chimp, Fitzroy were the Gorillas etc.. After a bit of research I found that the term used is particularly offensive to indigenous players, and that explains AGs reaction. But the girl said she didn't intend it to be racist, and seemed genuine enough. Until now I didn't realise it was racist either - I thought it was just ordinary abuse. So based on AGs initial reaction, the AFL takes action, and publicly humiliates a 13 year old, without giving her a chance to explain her actions? Potential legal issues here I suspect.

It opens a can of worms. Harry O'Brien's admitted remarks were uncouth, and may have upset the player he spoke to. Should he be reported for that? Calling an umpire a "white maggot" - assuming he is Caucasian - could also be interpreted as racist, and I'm sure it hurts their feelings too. The situation is very complicated, when you have to consider a player's ethnic (and presumably cultural, religious, and physiological) status before deciding what terms can be used to deride his performance.

I don't think racist abuse should be allowed. For that matter I don't think obscenity has any place at the football, but the AFL seems to care about one much more than the other. Perhaps the AFL could provide a list of accepted abusive terms which will not cause any offence to players, officials or other supporters?

  On 25/05/2013 at 02:37, autocol said:

The point is that white, anglo-saxon christian-derived men should really keep their traps shut when complaining about people who are trying to fight prejudice and oppression.

Do you even comprehend how bizarre that sentence is? You want to combat prejudice and to do so you want to limit people's freedom of expression.

Though I didn't see the game I saw that the Pies still laid 90 tackles - I wish we could that. It's clear that they work for the ball when they don't have it, but it looks like the Swans were just too good.

  On 25/05/2013 at 18:19, Chook said:

Do you even comprehend how bizarre that sentence is? You want to combat prejudice and to do so you want to limit people's freedom of expression.

No, he doesn't want to limit freedom of expression, he wants to to have some insight and stop pretending to be a victim. And develop some some sense of responsibility, perspective and shame.

I had a relative attend Genazzano - private girls' school. She argued that rural aboriginal kids should not get an allowance as such when applying for Uni because "I've had to work hard too". You have the same total lack of perspective.

  On 25/05/2013 at 22:34, timD said:

No, he doesn't want to limit freedom of expression, he wants to to have some insight and stop pretending to be a victim. And develop some some sense of responsibility, perspective and shame.

I had a relative attend Genazzano - private girls' school. She argued that rural aboriginal kids should not get an allowance as such when applying for Uni because "I've had to work hard too". You have the same total lack of perspective.

I can guarantee you I have more perspective of what it's like to be an Indigenous Australian than you do. I was born in an Aboriginal community, have an Aboriginal name and family (which in their culture does not require blood ties - quite an enlightened idea if you ask me), and my father speaks fluent Youlgu.

Suggesting that white folks shouldn't be entitled to talk about the issue of racism is not going to fix the issue. We need to get to the point that whenever a person says racist things or discriminates against others, it reflects poorly on them. Impinging upon a person's right to make an arse out of themselves is not the answer.

As to your point about subsidies for Indigenous Australians, I'm absolutely in favour of that - but only if it is applied correctly. Just throwing money at disadvantaged segments of the population is not going to ensure that those disadvantages are going to go away. Of course Indigenous Australians should get subsidies when applying for Uni - not because they're Indigenous, but because they've been disadvantaged by events they cannot control.

I could go on about this forever, but suffice it to say I think I have a sufficiently broad perspective to talk in a balanced way about the issue - regardless of the colour of my skin.

  On 25/05/2013 at 18:28, Django said:

Though I didn't see the game I saw that the Pies still laid 90 tackles - I wish we could that. It's clear that they work for the ball when they don't have it, but it looks like the Swans were just too good.

Bang! Great call. It shows the care the players have for the jumper doesn't it. I suspect Buckley just doesn't quite 'have it' as a coach (felt that he wasn't really a team man as a player which might not reflect well in his coaching message), however all credit to him and his club that they clearly still get their players to exhaust every effort in every game to give themselves a chance to win.

  On 25/05/2013 at 02:58, why you little said:

I agree. Mum made absolutely no attempt to move. Staggering

Too pi55ed. The staggering came later.

  On 25/05/2013 at 04:19, hardtack said:

No one is assuming. The girl handed the rug (or jacket?) to the person next to her, so it seemed pretty obvious there was a connection.

That's what you call an assumption, maybe a good well reasoned assumption but an assumption non the less.