2 minutes ago, 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.

And I’m also so sorry.

Just now, BoBo said:

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.

For the avoidance of doubt, I doubt anyone here would disagree what happened was wrong.

To dispel any ambiguity, what was said is plain wrong - there’s no grey there or nuance.

SomePeople are talking here about the length of punishment and most effective punishment.

1 minute ago, Superunknown said:

For the avoidance of doubt, I doubt anyone here would disagree what happened was wrong.

To dispel any ambiguity, what was said is plain wrong - there’s no grey there or nuance.

SomePeople are talking here about the length of punishment and most effective punishment.

I can quote the numerous instances of posters cowardly insinuating that there is grey area or nuance if you like?

Use of the AFL being a ‘moral arbiter’ or incredibly ‘moral arbitrator’ for even taking a stand against homophobia being 2 extremely dumb examples.

Can do it like by line if you want?

But what will inevitably happen is people will back off the original comments as ‘what I meant to say was’

28 minutes ago, 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.

If somone calls a player any element on the field, or is that o.k? But if a player is offended and so therefore will the AFL act?

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by picket fence

1 minute ago, picket fence said:

If somone calls a player a hetero on the field, or is that o.k? But if a player is offended and so therefore will the AFL act?

Ahh yes, all those heteros that have been verbally, physically abused/killed/burnt alive/systematically exterminated In genocides for centuries.

@Superunknown this is my first example. Don’t think I need to explain any further.

Edit: THE example of grey area and nuance. Chefs kiss.

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by BoBo

P.S. @picket fence thank you very much for proving my point.

3 minutes ago, picket fence said:

If somone calls a player any element on the field, or is that o.k? But if a player is offended and so therefore will the AFL act?

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here PF but I’ll try to answer what I think you’re asking by saying that it’s important to remember that the AFL field is a workplace. The AFL have a responsibility to create both a physically and mentally healthy workplace. There are undoubtedly AFL players who are gay, and they don’t want those players to feel unsafe at work.

Therefore they won’t allow players to go unpunished for using offensive language in the workplace that is steeped in historical bigotry. They have been applying their judgement around this very consistently for 2 years, and have done so here.

It’s all as simple as it sounds.

8 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here PF but I’ll try to answer what I think you’re asking by saying that it’s important to remember that the AFL field is a workplace. The AFL have a responsibility to create both a physically and mentally healthy workplace. There are undoubtedly AFL players who are gay, and they don’t want those players to feel unsafe at work.

Therefore they won’t allow players to go unpunished for using offensive language in the workplace that is steeped in historical bigotry. They have been applying their judgement around this very consistently for 2 years, and have done so here.

It’s all as simple as it sounds.

Yes I get that, the question I have is if I believe that something is said that to someone is offensive, but to another is innoffensive at what time would my workplace act? I'm not talking about Homophobia but other comments which are considered grey areas?

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by picket fence

1 hour ago, Superunknown said:

For the avoidance of doubt, I doubt anyone here would disagree what happened was wrong.

To dispel any ambiguity, what was said is plain wrong - there’s no grey there or nuance.

SomePeople are talking here about the length of punishment and most effective punishment.

Correct,no grey area or nuance at all , but, does the punishment fit the crime in this case??

29 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here PF but I’ll try to answer what I think you’re asking by saying that it’s important to remember that the AFL field is a workplace. The AFL have a responsibility to create both a physically and mentally healthy workplace. There are undoubtedly AFL players who are gay, and they don’t want those players to feel unsafe at work.

Therefore they won’t allow players to go unpunished for using offensive language in the workplace that is steeped in historical bigotry. They have been applying their judgement around this very consistently for 2 years, and have done so here.

It’s all as simple as it sounds.

You say that the AFL field is a workplace, but it's not like any normal workplace. It's a contact sport. It's a competitive game. It is unlike most workplaces as we know it.

The problem I have is not that the AFL is sanctioning players for this unacceptable language. The problem is that we see many examples each week of cheap shots from player that could be considered physical assault that largely go unpunished. There are also many examples of other unacceptable abusive language that the AFL turns a blind eye to. There were reports that Houston had said or suggested that he'd knock out Rankine like last time, but there's no report? So it's okay to threaten violence and harm but it's 4-5 weeks for using a derogatory term. What did Willie Rioli get? The AFL, as usual, totally lacks any sort of consistency with these issues, they are picking as choosing the issues as they please.

If the AFL want to take any moral high ground and set an example then they would take threats of violence and other actions more seriously.

But they AFL, along with a lot of big corporations, just want to be seen to be doing something.

Revealed: The ‘compelling medical submissions’ that spared Rankine

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/crows-make-final-case-to-have-izak-rankines-fivegame-homophobic-slur-ban-downgraded/news-story/510b2548fa841bc5253298c0f560ab8f

Pretty disappointing they have argued (somewhat successfully with a downgrade to 4 games) that his mental would suffer by missing a GF. WTAF - kids have hanged themselves because that word has been slammed at them over and over again.

Weak as [censored] for arguing it - weaker still for accepting it AFL

37 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Yes I get that, the question I have is if I believe that something is said that to someone is offensive, but to another is innoffensive at what time would my workplace act? I'm not talking about Homophobia but other comments which are considered grey areas?

I don’t reckon it’s about what you, or I, think is offensive. The AFL has decided they don’t want that language in their game, and to be fair to them they’ve been very consistent with how they’ve handled it for 2 years. The decision has been made, and all have been made aware of it.

Izak knew, and so now he has to wear his own poor decision.

It’s a circus

AFL ARE 🤡🤡 CLOWNS 🤡🤡

Rules being made up

Tony Shaw: “The compelling medical advice taken into account on Rankine plea? Izak is feeling sad that he stuffed up badly letting himself,teammates and club down. Well blow me down that deserves 1 week less? AFL is incompetent, amateurish, laughable”.

ADELAIDE star Izak Rankine has been banned for four matches for using a homophobic slur, leaving the door ajar for him to play in the Grand Final this season.

The Crow was suspended after the AFL Integrity Unit investigated an incident following Adelaide's thrilling win over Collingwood on Saturday night.The AFL said "compelling medical submissions" from the Crows and Rankine were part of their considerations when determining the sanction.

2 minutes ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Revealed: The ‘compelling medical submissions’ that spared Rankine

Pretty disappointing they have argued (somewhat successfully with a downgrade to 4 games) that his mental would suffer by missing a GF. WTAF - kids have hanged themselves because that word has been slammed at them over and over again.

Weak as [censored] for arguing it - weaker still for accepting it AFL

Paywall. But is this really what the compelling medical submissions were about??!!

3 hours 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 am not sure that I follow this. I see that any footballer would rather miss 5 home and away games rather than any final. But this not about what the players want; it is about what is fair for a given offence.

Put another way, when Kossie got rubbed out for three weeks in Round 1 of 2023, are you saying that he should have only got one or two weeks if he had done the same thing to a Collingwood player in the first final? It seems to me (an ignorant non-lawyer) that this is the first step on the road to the situation where Barry Hall doesn't get rubbed out for a Grand Final after thumping someone simply because "he would miss a Grand Final".

20 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Correct,no grey area or nuance at all , but, does the punishment fit the crime in this case??

No the punishment does not fit the crime in this case. Because it should have been five weeks. The AFL started setting this precedent last year. If you don't self-report it is a five-week ban.

The absolute circus that went on this week for the AFL to give Adelaide the extra time and leeway to work out some kind of loophole to get it down to four weeks is absolute rubbish. Whately on the call tonight summed it up perfectly its like "horse trading". The so-called evidence to bring the sentence down in this 'medical report' that will never see the light of day is the most bull sh***t thing I have ever heard.

PF if you're asking if players shouldn't be banned for games for homophobic slurs, then I think you need to look further outside football with the current state of the world. A mate of mine from high school was bullied for years for being gay, constantly put down daily by his so-called peers. Last year, with all of that trauma and shame compounding him, he took his own life. Incredibly sad. I would love to have my mate back, I would love for him to have felt more welcomed and accepted at school but its too late now.

So I urge anyone who thinks this is 'a bit overboard' to really think more broadly. I guarantee there are players running around in the AFL and local football communities who might not have come out but certainly find this sort of language highly offensive and hurtful. Besides the hypocrisy of the current Rankine situation with the length of his ban, at least the AFL is finally taking this seriously. Any player who casually uses that sort of old-world derogatory, homophobic language again on the field will have to think again.

3 minutes ago, Gibberish said:

If the AFL want to take any moral high ground and set an example then they would take threats of violence and other actions more seriously.

The AFL aren’t taking the moral Higher ground, and they actively aren’t setting an example. Sydney have lobbied for YEARS to have a Pride round. The AFL consistently say no.

I don’t quite understand how people arguing this shouldn’t be that big of a deal think that’s going to help anything. Bigotry should be outlawed and the AFL has said they won’t tolerate it. If it’s a different ‘workplace’ as you argue then why can’t it just be open season? It’s a race to the bottom thinking like that, and everyone loses - but they don’t lose equally. People of colour, gay people and people with different cultural backgrounds lose much more because of historical systemic biases.

It’s frankly really weird how offended some people are getting about an opposition player being suspended for something that has been very clear adjudicated for 2 years.

Anyways I’m bowing out of this conversation. If people can’t understand how the world works then I envy the privilege they walk through life with everyday. It must be nice.

8 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

Paywall. But is this really what the compelling medical submissions were about??!!

Yep that and he already has mental health issues from being knocked out and the transfer from the suns... it would be all too much

Its a [censored] disgrace - and needs to be called out

2 minutes ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Yep that and he already has mental health issues from being knocked out and the transfer from the suns... it would be all too much

Its a [censored] disgrace - and needs to be called out

There’s a new low, right there.

Dunstall, Tony Shaw and others calling them out on iit.

Im sure Derwayne will let rip on it tomorrow - he has been a massive advocate for getting rid of homophobia in footy

Perhaps I'm just being cynical but I think the AFL decided from the get go that he was getting 4 weeks and just needed time to create a flimsy enough narrative to justify the reduced sentence. They were never going to let Maynard miss weeks for what he did. It's why they told the review panel to consider the consequences of suspending him in their deliberations.

13 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

No the punishment does not fit the crime in this case. Because it should have been five weeks. The AFL started setting this precedent last year. If you don't self-report it is a five-week ban.

The absolute circus that went on this week for the AFL to give Adelaide the extra time and leeway to work out some kind of loophole to get it down to four weeks is absolute rubbish. Whately on the call tonight summed it up perfectly its like "horse trading". The so-called evidence to bring the sentence down in this 'medical report' that will never see the light of day is the most bull sh***t thing I have ever heard.

PF if you're asking if players shouldn't be banned for games for homophobic slurs, then I think you need to look further outside football with the current state of the world. A mate of mine from high school was bullied for years for being gay, constantly put down daily by his so-called peers. Last year, with all of that trauma and shame compounding him, he took his own life. Incredibly sad. I would love to have my mate back, I would love for him to have felt more welcomed and accepted at school but its too late now.

So I urge anyone who thinks this is 'a bit overboard' to really think more broadly. I guarantee there are players running around in the AFL and local football communities who might not have come out but certainly find this sort of language highly offensive and hurtful. Besides the hypocrisy of the current Rankine situation with the length of his ban, at least the AFL is finally taking this seriously. Any player who casually uses that sort of old-world derogatory, homophobic language again on the field will have to think again.

So sorry for the heartbreaking loss of your mate including the manner of death and the reasons that drove him to it.

Your first paragraph is spot on. If the punishment did fit the crime when it was five weeks it certainly doesn’t now that it’s been reduced.

Typical AFL circus.

Is Collingwood likely to meet the Crows in Adelaide during finals?
Ulterior motive to go pearl clutching I reckon.

7 hours ago, Age said:

What medical reasons would there be for using that language?

Are they going to play the ‘Tourettes’ card?

Have to say, Gerard Whatley’s summation of events is incredibly accurate and hard-hitting….

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/s/DIfD6vPpbn