It used to be the case that players would not rat on one another at the tribunal and would leave what happened on the ground to be settled on the ground.

Yet it seems no longer to be the case as Collingwood ratted - "dobbed in" if your prefer - on Izak Rankine. Sydney's Blakey had been similarly insulted but said nothing. Collingwood, with Maynard of all people taking the high moral ground, has driven this.

It interests me that no one in the media has remarked on Collingwood's role and the fact that it simultaneously diminishes the prospects of one of its stronger rivals for the premiership.

I understand that folks don't want to diminish the sense of wrong here, but surely Collingwood's role and consequent benefit is worthy of recognition.

What do others think?

7 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

It used to be the case that players would not rat on one another at the tribunal and would leave what happened on the ground to be settled on the ground.

Yet it seems no longer to be the case as Collingwood ratted - "dobbed in" if your prefer - on Izak Rankine. Sydney's Blakey had been similarly insulted but said nothing. Collingwood, with Maynard of all people taking the high moral ground, has driven this.

It interests me that no one in the media has remarked on Collingwood's role and the fact that it simultaneously diminishes the prospects of one of its stronger rivals for the premiership.

I understand that folks don't want to diminish the sense of wrong here, but surely Collingwood's role and consequent benefit is worthy of recognition.

What do others think?

The conversation around this has been drawn out and fixated on peripheral issues, rather than confronting what actually occurred.

Poor take OP.

I think there’s a significant difference between generations. Not suggesting either is better or worse, but they’re different.

I said it over on the other thread and I'll say it again here.

Many not seeing the forest for the trees

Collingwood 1 Everyone else 0

People should always pay close attention to anything Collingwood 😉

Who benefits ??

( the Footy equivalent to follow the $$ )

15 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Poor take OP.

Please elaborate.

16 hours ago, pitmaster said:

It used to be the case that players would not rat on one another at the tribunal and would leave what happened on the ground to be settled on the ground.

Yet it seems no longer to be the case as Collingwood ratted - "dobbed in" if your prefer - on Izak Rankine. Sydney's Blakey had been similarly insulted but said nothing. Collingwood, with Maynard of all people taking the high moral ground, has driven this.

It interests me that no one in the media has remarked on Collingwood's role and the fact that it simultaneously diminishes the prospects of one of its stronger rivals for the premiership.

I understand that folks don't want to diminish the sense of wrong here, but surely Collingwood's role and consequent benefit is worthy of recognition.

What do others think?

Well said, mate. It was not as if Rankine deliberately followed and targeted a knowingly gay player all night and hurled insults at him.

It was a throwaway, heat of the moment slur that wasn’t necessarily aiming to target a group of people. A bit of context in this regard would have gone a long way.

The club and their inbred fans didn’t seem to overly care that Brayshaw was deliberately concussed, but played victim over meaningless words?

The double standards that exists is an absolute joke.

Why do the AFL allow Qatar airlines to be a major Sydney sponsor while they are one of the pioneers of “pride round” 🤡

Edited Friday at 23:252 days by VNightCityLegend

4 minutes ago, VNightCityLegend said:

It was a throwaway, heat of the moment slur that wasn’t necessarily aiming to target a group of people. A bit of context in this regard would have gone a long way.

Here’s a bit of context….

LGBTQIA+ youth are 3 times more likely to commit suicide. You can try and ‘throw’ that away all you want, but it’s not going anywhere. This stuff literally contributes to suicide, and creates significantly poorer mental health outcomes for LGBTQIA+ people.

The slur was aimed squarely at the idea that LGBTQIA+ people are less than. If that wasn’t the idea the very slur itself wouldn’t exist.

As a gay person I’ve never felt so uncomfortable on Demonland as I have the last few days. I had no idea so many privileged bigots exist here, and how emboldened they feel to expose everyone to their ignorance.

Enjoy your context, but don’t throw it away. Learn from it. Be better.

This is all on Rankine. He's either a bigot or as dumb as a brick, or both. Nothing to do with Collingwood.

35 minutes ago, VNightCityLegend said:

meaningless words

You have NO idea. None.

18 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Here’s a bit of context….

LGBTQIA+ youth are 3 times more likely to commit suicide. You can try and ‘throw’ that away all you want, but it’s not going anywhere. This stuff literally contributes to suicide, and creates significantly poorer mental health outcomes for LGBTQIA+ people.

The slur was aimed squarely at the idea that LGBTQIA+ people are less than. If that wasn’t the idea the very slur itself wouldn’t exist.

As a gay person I’ve never felt so uncomfortable on Demonland as I have the last few days. I had no idea so many privileged bigots exist here, and how emboldened they feel to expose everyone to their ignorance.

Enjoy your context, but don’t throw it away. Learn from it. Be better.

I agree with you on most of this, but calling other people (in particular fellow Dees supporters) privileged bigots for sharing their views - however distasteful to us - when you know nothing of their contexts, is really poor form, and hints of exactly the same lack of consideration that Rankine showed. Learn from this. Be better.

15 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

As a gay person I’ve never felt so uncomfortable on Demonland as I have the last few days. I had no idea so many privileged bigots exist here, and how emboldened they feel to expose everyone to their ignorance.

Ignorant bigots are a dime a dozen, J.

I’m with you x

3 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

I agree with you on most of this, but calling other people (in particular fellow Dees supporters) privileged bigots for sharing their views - however distasteful to us - when you know nothing of their contexts, is really poor form, and hints of exactly the same lack of consideration that Rankine showed. Learn from this. Be better.

If your view is a bigoted view then the cap fits.

2 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

I agree with you on most of this, but calling other people (in particular fellow Dees supporters) privileged bigots for sharing their views - however distasteful to us - when you know nothing of their contexts, is really poor form, and hints of exactly the same lack of consideration that Rankine showed. Learn from this. Be better.

Firstly, who they barrack for has nothing to do with it.

They are privileged bigots simply because they are bigots + they are privileged.

They have the privilege of not having to call 000 because their child is in the locked bathroom with a box cutter calmly telling them that they can’t take it anymore, they can’t go on living and to “Please let me go. It’s cruel to make me go on living when I want to die.”

And you know how I know they have that privilege? Because they wouldn’t be spewing forth their enduring ignorance had they experienced such. That’s how.

17 hours ago, GawnOfTheDead said:

I think there’s a significant difference between generations. Not suggesting either is better or worse, but they’re different.

As a mid 70's y/o man I couldn't agree more.

We were told to toughen up, sticks and stones stuff. I can appreciate the need for change and am made aware of my generational way of thinking daily and am doing my best, however it is still in there and am often bewildered at the astonishment of my children towards me when I speak my mind on particular topics so far as to now I just tend to shut up and listen. It's a different world.

18 hours ago, pitmaster said:

It used to be the case that players would not rat on one another at the tribunal and would leave what happened on the ground to be settled on the ground.

Yet it seems no longer to be the case as Collingwood ratted - "dobbed in" if your prefer - on Izak Rankine. Sydney's Blakey had been similarly insulted but said nothing. Collingwood, with Maynard of all people taking the high moral ground, has driven this.

It interests me that no one in the media has remarked on Collingwood's role and the fact that it simultaneously diminishes the prospects of one of its stronger rivals for the premiership.

I understand that folks don't want to diminish the sense of wrong here, but surely Collingwood's role and consequent benefit is worthy of recognition.

What do others think?

I'm not sure that's 100% how it played out though is it?

From what I've read, Collingwood raised the matter with Adelaide, who then took the high road and self reported to the AFL, knowing the likely match ban consequences.

I do think it still shows a huge hypocrisy with Collingwood though. For quite a few years under Goodwin, the MFC pretty much accepted whatever sanction was handed to it by the MRO / tribunal whenever it was related to protecting the head. When the Maynard KOed Gus, Collingwood could equally have put player welfare before their own interests, but did pretty much the opposite. Eddy's "justice has been done" reaction highlight that self interest.

I'm not sure if Collingwood reporting to the Crows made it inevitable that the AFL got involved, but I really do doubt Collingwood would have behaved the same way if the shoe was on the other foot.

Edited Saturday at 00:572 days by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

10 minutes ago, doc roet said:

We were told to toughen up, sticks and stones stuff.

I haven’t hear that song for a while but If I remember it correctly I believe it went..

‘Stick and stones will break my bones but the systemic bigotry and intolerance created by words builds an ever evolving cultural imbalance designed to keep those at the top empowered, and disenfranchise and ostracise minorities’

It’s actually very interesting that you bring up songs because people used to sing ‘Eeny, meeny, miny, mo’ with very racist language - and that language was only ADDED 100 years after the original 17th century song to indoctrinate children into systemic racism. That’s how ingrained this stuff is.

Culture is evolving, but it’s critical that we recognise where the imbalances are - so that we can create a world that’s better for ALL future generations.

5 minutes ago, doc roet said:

As a mid 70's y/o man I couldn't agree more.

We were told to toughen up, sticks and stones stuff.

Please don’t put me in your group of we. No, you were told.

Why not think for yourself and stop blaming the other for telling you.

There were plenty engaging in Civil rights, and being the revolution generation, learning and having space for the diversity of humankind, in the 70's.

The progressive are still attempting to move the world to be compassionate. Those who told you, media, parents, whoever it may have been, have the vested interest. Fear, other, or separation creates power over that, and leaves you doing their bidding, and therefore not walking your own path.

Recognising others and having space for them to omptimize their experience without hate or tolerance, but with care and sharing, is not detrimental to you and yours.

Maybe in the 70's but not in the 50's and 60's where I come from.

2 minutes ago, doc roet said:

Maybe in the 70's but not in the 50's and 60's where I come from.

Why not acknowledge that everybody in the generation 50's and 60's didn’t think the same or were the same as you. Big changes were happening back then. Though I am more a 70's adult. Middle classes had money to spare, and private transport became a common thing. Beatnix and music, freedom and expression. Did you not see or participate, in the movement that was happening?

What is your need to package everybody up and be as a we, group think it? Safety or that that I don’t understand doesn't exist. The group think works for those benefiting from the social constucts. Why have no compassion for the oppressed in this world?

1 hour ago, The heart beats true said:

Here’s a bit of context….

LGBTQIA+ youth are 3 times more likely to commit suicide. You can try and ‘throw’ that away all you want, but it’s not going anywhere. This stuff literally contributes to suicide, and creates significantly poorer mental health outcomes for LGBTQIA+ people.

The slur was aimed squarely at the idea that LGBTQIA+ people are less than. If that wasn’t the idea the very slur itself wouldn’t exist.

As a gay person I’ve never felt so uncomfortable on Demonland as I have the last few days. I had no idea so many privileged bigots exist here, and how emboldened they feel to expose everyone to their ignorance.

Enjoy your context, but don’t throw it away. Learn from it. Be better.

Sorry you feel that way. Lots of people vop abuse here for all sorts of reasons. I thought it a perfect opportunity to show some love and tolerance and lean on tbe AFL. Two weeks and a serious commitment to working with young gsy people having a hard time. Take on a role of further educating. Some say these guys have been educated, yes, but have you never said a word in anger you regretted.

Not sure gays are comitting suicide because of footballer comments. Suicide is a lot more complex than that.

Nobody is born homophobic.

It is a learned mindset from peoples environments. Culture, is literally what social environment you were raised in.

Language is the mechanism we use to convey concepts and ideas to each other and it decides what is acceptable or not, within a culture.

So when you are a child and you hear people using gay slurs and it becomes normalised, you learn to associate being gay with being bad and a lesser person (this is dehumanisation).

Children then don’t want to be associated with being gay, so will join in on using that language to demonstrate to their peers/family that they are not gay.

Sometimes, kids will be so scared to be seen as gay, that they will go on to be violent towards other kids on even the idea that they are gay.

If they don’t like another kid, they might call them a gay slur, because being gay is ‘bad’. The other kid doesn’t have to be gay.

Some of these kids turn into adults and they carry out violence/abuse/bullying/discrimination randomly, to people they perceive to be gay, that they see in the street.

Some of these kids will turn into adults that carry out murders on gay people.

Some of these kids will turn into adults that still using gay slurs or homophobic language and pass it on to the next generation.

The people that bare the full brunt of this are gay people. Whether it be social ostracism, family rejection, bullying, random abuse on the street, suicide, discrimination at work, vilification, murder, being genocided etc. etc. etc. etc.

You can be against this dynamic and speak out against it.

Or

You can deny it exists, undercut or downplay it, wilfully ignore that this is the reality, obfuscate the discussion or you just really like homophobia actually and want to join in on it because you are still terrified of being perceived as being gay.

All of this violence/abuse, begins with what some people say are ‘meaningless’ words.

Edited Saturday at 02:162 days by BoBo
Used bear instead of bare

I think the particular issue has been poorly handled in the traditional way for large organisations with mostly performative motivations for taking a stand on genuine issues.

It has been 20 years of 'meh' followed by roaring cannons.

Ah well, as much as the heavy-handed stuff is irritating, the fact that the general populace is pretty solidly aligned with the core goal will mean it'll settle after a while. In a way, we're dealing with the final sliver of numb-nuts who maybe need to have 'consequences' thrown at them.

I do worry, though, that there's a secondary politics within the game that just like with every other issue will shield certain clubs from being 'outed' because of their established connections and capacity to harass anyone who criticises.

You know, like with salary cap breaches, on-field thuggery, [recreational droogs], [performance droogs], draft tampering, fixturing, promotional opportunities, institutional-scale and personal racism, sexism, beating the [censored] out of people, etc etc etc etc

Collingwood definitely would know they are less likely to be pinged for similar behaviour than other clubs, ergo it is in their interest to have the rules be as punitive and reactive (and vague) as possible in all cricumstances.

TLDR;

The underlying goal of the penalty is valid and the issue will be largely historical within years, but the method of delivery is heavy-handed and symptomatic of a poorly functioning organisation. This is giving some people the opportunity to resent the principle and play into the 'Cult of d-head as victim.'

3 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

This is all on Rankine. He's either a bigot or as dumb as a brick, or both. Nothing to do with Collingwood.

Agree totally @Rab D Nesbitt the occasion got the better of Rankin he had no need to engage in that manor especially in a minor round game.

Remember though Collingwood control the game and the narratives around our game that's why things mysteriously vanished into mid air.

Cross them and you'll find out the hard way as a journalist.

Edited Saturday at 03:142 days by YesitwasaWin4theAges