Golden opportuity for gay community to put pressure on afl to show compassion and review their education of players. Does anyone really believe he said it in the literal sense.

2 hours ago, roy11 said:

At least it's consistent with previous incidents of the same nature..

That’s a fair point, but it illustrates that previous incidents could be wrong too

has Houston been investigated for his threats of violence by the way? Sorry, alleged.

1 hour ago, Age said:

This bit on the AFL site had me

"Following an investigation and submissions from Adelaide and Rankine including compelling medical submissions, Rankine has received a four-match sanction and has been ordered to undertake further Pride In Sport training," the League said in a statement.

What medical reasons would there be for using that language?

Tourette's?

Are they grading the use of the f word now? Careless with medium impact?

37 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Missing all the finals plus a home and away game, is worse than missing 5 home and away games to any footballer.

They are different levels of penalty.

I can’t see why people don’t understand that players value finals games far, far, far more than home and away games.

I agree for striking offences. But this case is different.

The point with suspensions here is to make a statement and led by example for the wider community and stamp it out. Suspending rankine for 5 games would absolutely have hammered the point home. The moral of this story now is its unaccepatble in July but a little less unacceptable in August. The joke is on us.

Edited Thursday at 08:564 days by Jjrogan

I agree with the intent of stamping out this behaviour but 4 weeks 🤦

what I don’t like is that Rankine and the Crows clearly are more concerned about clearing him from his transgression, as opposed to comprehending the seriousness and consequences of his actions.

If they cared so much, he should have never put himself in this position and the Crows should have better educated him.

If him missing a potential GF is the only way he and by extension the rest of the players in the AFL will learn, so be it.

I had fully intended to keep out of this but …, so against my better judgement I ask

(1) Are players, supporters and wider society better off or worse off for the AFL taking their aggressive stance in their endeavour to change Societal attitudes?

(2) Is it their place to do so?

(3) If Rankine had used the P…… word instead of the F…… word would he have been treated more leniently?

Id rather the AFL spent more effort on adjudicating the game as opposed trying to posture in society.

Maybe it can try and sort one mess out first.

Clearly the powers that be have tickets on themselves.

No one asked the AFL to be arbiters of morality. They're hardly qualified.

6 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

If Rankine had used the P…… word instead of the F…… word would he have been treated more leniently?

Picket instead of Fence?

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Id rather the AFL spent more effort on adjudicating the game as opposed trying to posture in society.

Maybe it can try and sort one mess out first.

Clearly the powers that be have tickets on themselves.

No one asked the AFL to be arbiters of morality. They're hardly qualified.

On reflection, I had this one wrong

Edited Thursday at 10:194 days by Superunknown

9 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Picket instead of Fence?

I’m surprised with you, normally you’re on the ball with word games.

18 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

If Rankine had used the P…… word instead of the F…… word would he have been treated more leniently?

Why would it matter? A slur is a slur.

47 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

I agree for striking offences. But this case is different.

The point with suspensions here is to make a statement and led by example for the wider community and stamp it out. Suspending rankine for 5 games would absolutely have hammered the point home. The moral of this story now is its unaccepatble in July but a little less unacceptable in August. The joke is on us.

That is not correct.

Are you seriously saying missing a game this week, plus all of the finals, is the same penalty as missing 5 home and away games?

I suggest you speak to an AFL footballer and ask them would they rather miss 5 home and away games, or 1 home and away game plus a finals series.

They are not the same punishment and why should Rankine get more than others.

Just as a little add on, the previous penalty was where the extra insult of the word “f…ing” prefaced the homophobic word. Is that a worse slur, than Rankine used? Just asking, as the penalty should be for the actual offence.

Another interesting fact is for physical acts, the effect on the victim is a factor, like concussion or injury. If the victim in this case is not gay and just laughed it off, should that be a factor? Just asking as a discussion point.

Edited Thursday at 10:004 days by Redleg

Maybe we could extend this "precedent" to Spectators as well. (I think they are part of society).

In which case Collingwood , (Carlton, Essendon,etc.)......would not be able to have many people at their games at all if it was based on the way they talk to opposing (and sometimes their own )players based on the the "standards " they now expect of players (who often are not the brightest tools in the shed, unless they have a footy in their hand).

For what it is worth I do not condone speaking to people like that, buuuuuuut some perspective please !!!

So......in this new world it is more dangerous to call somebody a F....t, P.... than to deliberately/carelessly charge into a player after he has kicked the ball (and put that player out of the sport.

25 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

I had fully intended to keep out of this but …, so against my better judgement I ask

(1) Are players, supporters and wider society better off or worse off for the AFL taking their aggressive stance in their endeavour to change Societal attitudes?

(2) Is it their place to do so?

(3) If Rankine had used the P…… word instead of the F…… word would he have been treated more leniently?

1 Worse of

2 No

4 No

I’ve never seen so many people trying to tie themselves in knots to defend an opposition player who very clearly did the wrong thing. It was dumb, the AFL have a very recent history of applying 3-5 week suspensions for saying this exact word. The applied that again.

All of a sudden it’s not the AFL’s job? Nah. It’s absolutely their job. People are free to say whatever they want at home, but the AFL is responsible for their workplace, and they will punish this behaviour.

A quick chapeau to everyone for debating this is in a very very civil manner.

Kudos.

Just now, The heart beats true said:

I’ve never seen so many people trying to tie themselves in knots to defend an opposition player who very clearly did the wrong thing. It was dumb, the AFL have a very recent history of applying 3-5 week suspensions for saying this exact word. The applied that again.

All of a sudden it’s not the AFL’s job? Nah. It’s absolutely their job. People are free to say whatever they want at home, but the AFL is responsible for their workplace, and they will punish this behaviour.

If they are serious they now need to start doing this for crowds?

I think there’s a level of angst here particularly in relation to incidents like Gus’

Just now, Superunknown said:

If they are serious they now need to start doing this for crowds?

I think there’s a level of angst here particularly in relation to incidents like Gus’

It’s got nothing to do with Gus.

They do apply it to crowds. I’ve seen people kicked out of the footy for homophobia.

10 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Why would it matter? A slur is a slur.

Like most things in life there are degrees, I would think this would apply in the use of insults as well.

9 minutes ago, picket fence said:

1 Worse of

2 No

4 No

Thank you for your response.

16 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Id rather the AFL spent more effort on adjudicating the game as opposed trying to posture in society.

No one asked the AFL to be arbiters of morality. They're hardly qualified.

Completely agree. It’s why the AFL needs to abolish ANZAC day.

Don’t want the AFL to be the arbiters of morality.

Weird to honour a military force that has partaken in illegal invasions. Seems like the AFL is posturing to society.

6 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

A quick chapeau to everyone for debating this is in a very very civil manner.

Kudos.

And I disagree with this too.

As a gay person it’s pretty offensive to have people insinuating different slurs and asking how they’d be adjudicated.

Just don’t do it.

Just now, The heart beats true said:

And I disagree with this too.

As a gay person it’s pretty offensive to have people insinuating different slurs and asking how they’d be adjudicated.

Just don’t do it.

You clearly don’t understand, homophobia is a very complex issue that many posters can’t figure out if it’s right or wrong.

Literally what people are putting forward here.

It’s actually unreal.