34 minutes ago, Hopeful Demon said:

With all due respect, the fact that it was in the 'heat of the moment' doesn't make the whole thing less reprehensible.

You’re right. Being said in the heat of the moment doesn’t make it less reprehensible, and even if it did, he didn’t say it in the heat of the moment anyways. He said it on more than one occasion to the same player and he said it earlier in the season.

58 minutes ago, Red But Mostly Blue said:

haha if it gives you any comfort at all... I used 'lawyerly' as I don't hold a practising certificate. So, legal qualifications only, although I do work with legislation.

JK. We have some lawyers in the DA and they’re awesome people. One’s a Demonlander who I adore and who is an amazing artist and who drew a sketch of Melky for me. Lawyer of the Year, for mine.

6 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Well, this is timely. Former West Coast player Mitch Brown has openly identified as bisexual.

https://thedailyaus.com.au/sport/first-openly-bisexual-afl-player-26-08-2025

Good on mitch for speaking out. A shame he cut his career short because he didn't feel comfortable in the football club environment & had to put up with teamates comments on gay people

15 hours ago, picket fence said:

I was a massive Sledger in my football and cricket days, and copped plenty back! I've been called everything and nothing was of limits. I was called a 'White Honky" by a big West Indian quick who played Test cricket, which I laughed of! Still think its pretty funny. In our Woke getting woker society, I can see the thought police right around the corner!

I can't resist making a comment any longer. PF, you don't understand. You could "laugh off" being called a "white honky" precisely because that particular comment reflects that you are not part of a minority group. If, however, as well as being a white honky you were also, say, part of a religious minority or identified as gay, and you "copped plenty" about that, you might feel quite different.

Before you say, "No I wouldn't", just check whether you've ever been part of a minority group before. if you haven't, then think a little further about how people in minorities might feel.

8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I can't resist making a comment any longer. PF, you don't understand. You could "laugh off" being called a "white honky" precisely because that particular comment reflects that you are not part of a minority group. If, however, as well as being a white honky you were also, say, part of a religious minority or identified as gay, and you "copped plenty" about that, you might feel quite different.

Before you say, "No I wouldn't", just check whether you've ever been part of a minority group before. if you haven't, then think a little further about how people in minorities might feel.

Hnmm interesting,um I am my own self quite different and idiosyncratic, I think that puts me into a minority group of 1. Whilst Im at it have you noticed that a lot of minority groups seem to have more clout and are louder than majority groups, why is that!?

On 27/08/2025 at 14:01, Ethan Tremblay said:

I honestly don’t know what people’s obsession is with concerning themselves with who an individual (legally) sleeps with.

i very much get the sentiment, I do not care who a player sleeps with, I only care if the play good football.

but we do not want to enter into don't ask don't tell territory either

if a player wants to come out, but feels he can't that is a problem

If a player wants to invite his boyfriend to the Brownlow, but feels he can't that's a problem

if a player wants to marry his boyfriend, but feels he can't, that's a problem

8 hours ago, red and blue forever said:

i very much get the sentiment, I do not care who a player sleeps with, I only care if the play good football.

but we do not want to enter into don't ask don't tell territory either

if a player wants to come out, but feels he can't that is a problem

If a player wants to invite his boyfriend to the Brownlow, but feels he can't that's a problem

if a player wants to marry his boyfriend, but feels he can't, that's a problem

It sounds like Brown said his sexual orientation and teammates attitudes shortened his career. Just imagine a player(s) could have been so much better but instead their career just petered out. Same as any other "what might have been" somewhere along the way any team - even our team - may have missed out on a flag or two.

I’ll never understand why these sort of issues (Rankine) need to be dealt with in the public domain. If people are concerned with harm minimisation, then homophobic/other legally protected group slurs should absolutely be handled behind closed doors.

Who benefits from broadcasting the narrow views of one individual in an organisation of largely tolerant and respectful blokes?

Deal with offenders swiftly and harshly without broadcasting to the world which particular group their slur was aimed at. Serves absolutely no purpose doing this except for amplifying the message.

And don’t get me started on the media sensationalising players experiencing mental health difficulties. The way the media has reported on Clarry these last few years has been disgraceful.

1 hour ago, Smokey said:

I’ll never understand why these sort of issues (Rankine) need to be dealt with in the public domain. If people are concerned with harm minimisation, then homophobic/other legally protected group slurs should absolutely be handled behind closed doors.

Who benefits from broadcasting the narrow views of one individual in an organisation of largely tolerant and respectful blokes?

Deal with offenders swiftly and harshly without broadcasting to the world which particular group their slur was aimed at. Serves absolutely no purpose doing this except for amplifying the message.

And don’t get me started on the media sensationalising players experiencing mental health difficulties. The way the media has reported on Clarry these last few years has been disgraceful.

I respect what you're saying, but I can't see how offenders could be dealt with without some form of public explanation. How would it work with the Rankine case? Would the AFL be suspending him for four matches without explaining why? Apart from anything else, it would make it "easier" for the AFL system to be inconsistent in its treatment of offenders. I could see a favoured player or a player from a favoured club getting a fine while a player from a less respected club might get a three-week penalty for the same offence.

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I respect what you're saying, but I can't see how offenders could be dealt with without some form of public explanation. How would it work with the Rankine case? Would the AFL be suspending him for four matches without explaining why? Apart from anything else, it would make it "easier" for the AFL system to be inconsistent in its treatment of offenders. I could see a favoured player or a player from a favoured club getting a fine while a player from a less respected club might get a three-week penalty for the same offence.

Automatic 6-week sanction for "hate speech"

32 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I respect what you're saying, but I can't see how offenders could be dealt with without some form of public explanation. How would it work with the Rankine case? Would the AFL be suspending him for four matches without explaining why? Apart from anything else, it would make it "easier" for the AFL system to be inconsistent in its treatment of offenders. I could see a favoured player or a player from a favoured club getting a fine while a player from a less respected club might get a three-week penalty for the same offence.

Wouldn't worry the AFL. They do is all the time quite brazenly.

3 hours ago, Smokey said:

I’ll never understand why these sort of issues (Rankine) need to be dealt with in the public domain. If people are concerned with harm minimisation, then homophobic/other legally protected group slurs should absolutely be handled behind closed doors.

Who benefits from broadcasting the narrow views of one individual in an organisation of largely tolerant and respectful blokes?

Deal with offenders swiftly and harshly without broadcasting to the world which particular group their slur was aimed at. Serves absolutely no purpose doing this except for amplifying the message.

And don’t get me started on the media sensationalising players experiencing mental health difficulties. The way the media has reported on Clarry these last few years has been disgraceful.

Ironically, Collingwood blew this way out of proportion by dobbing in Rankine. If Quaynor gets targeted by the crowd, that’s on them.

Have they even rung up the Crows first to mediate before taking the issue directly to the media/AFL?

Again, heat of the moment, I highly doubt he was saying “fagoat” with homophobia in mind.

I agree with Stephen Rowe. Collingwood deliberately tried to rile him up, got offended by words when they pushed Rankine to the brink and then ran home crying. To have Maynard of all people to front up to the media the following week to whinge about harmless words is just laughable.

Maynard, as in the violent scrub had the audacity to support the Rankine suspension.… 🤡🤦‍♂️

Edited Friday at 00:535 days by VNightCityLegend

1 hour ago, VNightCityLegend said:

I highly doubt he was saying “fagoat” with homophobia in mind.

What else would he have in mind? A bundle of sticks perhaps?

5 hours ago, VNightCityLegend said:

I highly doubt he was saying “fagoat” with homophobia in mind.

To whinge about harmless words is just laughable.

These two statements work very well together.

Gay slurs are homophobic, unless the person doesn’t have homophobia in mind, when they use homophobic slurs, but also, gay slurs are also harmless words, so it follows, that homophobia is harmless.

Cognitive dissonance is hellava thing.

4 hours ago, Demonstone said:

What else would he have in mind? A bundle of sticks perhaps?

To be fair, when I get speeding fines, I’ve never had speeding in mind, so did I ever REALLY speed?

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I respect what you're saying, but I can't see how offenders could be dealt with without some form of public explanation. How would it work with the Rankine case? Would the AFL be suspending him for four matches without explaining why? Apart from anything else, it would make it "easier" for the AFL system to be inconsistent in its treatment of offenders. I could see a favoured player or a player from a favoured club getting a fine while a player from a less respected club might get a three-week penalty for the same offence.

This to me is quite easy. As a psychologist working in smaller communities there is often a cross over of folk we work with, it’s part of it. If it comes up during therapy and we are aware of a dual relationships or likelihood of it, we address it, and often/always terminate the professional relationship of the person who has ‘come second’ - without disclosing specifically why beyond a dual relationship and certainly whom (due to confidentiality) to this individual / this of course can be confusing to the individual.

This is one way of managing, the scenario, rather than publicly shaming the player who is in a workplace.

Based on repeated evidence, I do strongly agree with the sentiment around integrity/favourtism however.

But we do forget that this isnt just football, it is the entertainment industry.

Edited Friday at 06:435 days by Engorged Onion

How hard is it not to open your mouth on field and be a [censored]? Reading some of these comments, apparently it's hard not to sit behind a keyboard and be one too.

7 hours ago, VNightCityLegend said:

Again, heat of the moment, I highly doubt he was saying “fagoat” with homophobia in mind.

Oh please. He clearly knew what that word meant. You really are running out of excuses for him.

And as for it being a 'harmless' word, have you even considered how members of the LGBTIQ+ community would have felt hearing that? You must live in a simple world if it's 'harmless' just because it didn't offend you.

Edited Friday at 08:115 days by Hopeful Demon

6 hours ago, Smokey said:

I’ll never understand why these sort of issues (Rankine) need to be dealt with in the public domain. If people are concerned with harm minimisation, then homophobic/other legally protected group slurs should absolutely be handled behind closed doors.

Who benefits from broadcasting the narrow views of one individual in an organisation of largely tolerant and respectful blokes?

Deal with offenders swiftly and harshly without broadcasting to the world which particular group their slur was aimed at. Serves absolutely no purpose doing this except for amplifying the message.

And don’t get me started on the media sensationalising players experiencing mental health difficulties. The way the media has reported on Clarry these last few years has been disgraceful.

If slurs are handled behind closed doors, then, the public aren't educated, particular the groups that continue to offend, and we lose the ability to grow as a community.

Rankine creates a growth possibility and becomes a positive for us as a society.

The LGBTQIA+ lobby is something some groups find unpleasant. Hidden behind "I don’t care who you sleep with" is the uncomfortablness of the agenda of equality. Many in the privileged majority want them to be quiet. Having a voice is what they find a problem. "Your" civil rights fight has nothing to do with me, it makes me uncomfortable, and I don’t want to know. The same groups indicate, what about me, as they point out "men" should be able to slur each other as the radar knows who is or isn’t taking offence, given they are an intuitive lot (sarcasm). Barely able to feel the moment, nether alone the era. Are those men tolerant and respectful? Hypermasculinity does not leave much room for dissenters, as group think, ostracisation and objectification rule. But, lets not talk about it, nor rock the boat, as that serves the privileged through maintaining the staus quo.

Dealing with issues behind closed doors is serving those who are uncomfortable with oppressed groups getting public attention.

Lets hope bigotry leaves us and we address each other with greater respect and without prejudice. Till then, lets not be too sympathetic to people with views that are coloured with fear and hate.

Edited Friday at 09:125 days by Kev