binman

So what if he did? Leaving aside any discussion about why a 21 year old kid might have felt compelled to go along with that nick name (you, know like aa culture of systemic racism) let's say he made those responses. So what? It might be relevant in the inevitable civil compensation case thread. but this thread is about an external review, commissioned by the club, that found the CFC guilty of systemic racism. It's remit did not include investigating Lumumba's complaints. So didn't specifically address them, beyond recommending an investigation take place.

Yeah. Poor Eddie. The true victim here.

Now that's a burn. A mel burn. Drop the mic mel.

My thoughts exactly NC. Was just about to post almost exactly the same comments. As I posted earlier in this thread it is remarkable that for a bloke who's life work has all been about communication he is so poor at it. Is this a more recent phenomenon (ie the ladt 10 years or so) or has it always been tbe case? As you say tbe smart play was to fall on his sword when the report was leaked. Perhaps a smaryrte move still would have been to release it himself and step down. Either way he controls the narrative, leaves on his terms and his 'brand' doesn't take such a god awful shellacking.

Just one at a time.

All good points, as we're lg's in the previous post. As you ssy a young fella looking to fit in is likely to do all manner of things that he later regrets (i know that is true of me) including accepting offensive epithets. It is also worth noting that he has said his sense of who he is and his identity grew later (iirc he was adopted into a white family) A strong culture and leadership knocks tha nick name on the head the very first time it used. And makes it clear it is not to be used. All the while supporting the young man. He started his career this century, not 1980.

Agree. I actually think maxy playing in defence as an intercept mark/spoil was a positive tactical move by Goody last season. Footy is more than ever about territory. The tigers template of moving the ball forward at all costs and gaining meters (one we have largely adopted) has won three of the last four flags. If you count the doggies, who employed much the same philosophy to win the 2016 flag, that is four of the last 5 flags with a similar template. Sure some teams employ a chip and hold model (eg Cats, Eagles), and all teams do so more than they did even two years ago, but once a team has elected to go forward territory is king. And more often than not that involves a long kick to a crowded forward line where the key forward does his best to bring it ground and give a small a chance at crumbing. Hence ground ball get being now being a key stat. And this predictability of entry is perfect for max who can stand in the hole and take a pack mark from the high ball in. Lever can still play the intercept role but with those packs he is more to jump and spoil then take a contested mark. Which is a better option than a forward marking it, but not nearly as good an option as Maxy marking as the ball is on the ground from a spoil. Everything old is new again and the way max drops back reminds me of the way Teasdale used to play.

The boat is the MFC. The people pulling it is us.

The idea that you could solve an issue as entrenched, as so obviously systemic, as racism at the pies (or anywhere for that matter) by sacking an individual is ludicrous. Indeed it is this very approach that has allows systemic racism to be maintained. And of course it is why two respected academics (that the club contracted to provide advice) have not suggested sacking an individual will solve the issue. And why there recommendations focus on addressing the systemic issues. I assume you have not read the report. And with all due respect I am at a loss as to how you can reach a different conclusion than the report's authors.

I read those comments, and without a word of a lie, my first thought was to wonder if Eddie has some cognitive issues. Widely interpreted? I did not see one response suggesting he meant they were proud of past incidents of racism and the hurt that had caused. And more the point, who on earth would think they, or he, would be proud of being racist? That is an absurd thought. I assumed he meant a proud day because the report was being made public and they were going to act. Isn't that how most interpreted his comments? He had a full day to reflect on it and that's his considered response? I read he blamed the stress of the report being leaked for 'misspeaking'. And when he made his Kong Kong joke he blamed the cumulative stress of the racism row. Red flags if you ask me. At the very least signs of someone who is struggles to perform his role under pressure.

Agree. Sort of. I'd just can the rule and if an umpire thinks a player has impacted the game by inadvertently or deliberately preventing the ball being moved on a free is paid. That's to say simply pay the free they have always been able to pay. Classic example of introducing an unnecessary rule that just creates confusion.

C'mon DS there seems little doubt racism is hard wired into the Collingwood football club. Rhe whole culture is embedded with it. I suspect you ate old enough to have attended games at Vic Park. Sure racist vitriol happened at all grounds but it was at a whole other level at Vic Park. That only happens when it is supported by culture and the leadership. It was only a few months ago the horrendous treatment of Robbie muir was being discussed. Bad everywhere but of course another level at Collingwood. Did they apologise? Of course not. This is the club thst has a a president who serves for more than two decades who is an out and out racist. Mcallister I'm talking about. He of the they're ok as long as they act like whites infamy. He only remains in power because of the support he receives from the board, powerful supporters and the general fan. Then not long after they install another president for another couple of decades. Not as overtly racist. But has done little to change the culture and famously, only a few days after tearfully addressing a pies fan's racism, makes a 'joke' about goodes promoting king Kong. And then comes out with yesterday's rubbish. It is ridiculous to suggest it is an individual issue. Again McGuire only stays in power with the support or the board and movers and shakers. If all of that doesn't point to it being a systematic issue I don't know does. So it comes as zero surprise that a review by two respected academics found the racism at the club to be systematic and endemic.

Not bad. Or just split a kayo sub 2 or 3 ways with mates

I was referring to the AFL pro vision which gives video of very involvement (kick, handball, once percenter, tackle, free for, free against, score, score involvement, mark) of every player in every game. Love it Agree the stats are pretty average. I assume the pro vision is the software that generates the stats. The thing i like about the replays on AFL.com via AFL live is that they slice it up into quarters and have no extraneous [censored]. So you can watch what you want without searching on the kayo replay which is one long file. kayo is good option for replays where you want to watch the pre game stuff, quarter time break stuff and post game interviews and analysis etc. Also the AFL replays are not available until 24 hours after the game whereas kayo are available immediately (or even whilst the game is on)

Yep, i reckon we ought be careful about casting too many aspersions. We will have our history i'm sure.

Great. I've got kayo already. So now I lose tge benefit of the afl app.what does tbst mean for the replay library and afl pro (which is what I mainly use afl live for)? I have to pay for live pass to use?

Wish this game was at Punt road. I watched us play part of a casey v tiger's match prior to a dees game a few years back, but have never watched a full game or sat in the stand.

same spot as dl4e?

Which is why I said at the risk of generalising Subjective? Yes - which is why i prefaced my comment with 'i think' Stereotyping? Maybe. Is a positive stereotype (assuming you think compromise and preparedness to share power are postive) better than a negative one?

Their CEO (i don't even know who it is) and board must be in the firing line atm. I mean they commissioned the report. It's hard not to think this was strategic in terms of responding to Lumumba's accusations and getting ahead of potential compensation claims. Their own report is then incredibly scathing and includes the finding that club’s racism resulted in 'profound and enduring harm' to many individuals, families, & communities. Which aint going to help them in any compensation case. They sit on the report. For two months. In all likelihood it is leaked because of this decision. So they lose complete control of the narrative. They then green light Eddie to freestyle and respond at length to the leaked report, and try to spin it as a proud day for the club. I mean what were they thinking agreeing to let Eddie front the media (i understand his power - but that is part of the problem). And once they green light Eddie to be the club's spokesperson surely to goodness the CEO is also at that presser. Or even better they release a carefully worded written response and schedule a presser for say Friday to create some space and control. What a complete shambles from a governance perspective.

A shocking rule. As you say it is totally random in its application. Not just because different umpires interpret it differently, but sometimes it paid when the player with the ball happens to turn one way or when a player tricks his opponent. And like all really bad rules (in sport and life) the penalty almost always outweighs the potential impact of the actual infraction.

1. That doesn't shock me. There is however a school of thought that in business there is significant pressure on women who are ambitious and seek leadership positions to play the 'man's game' and adopt the behaviors that go with that game 2. True. I wasn't suggesting men have a mortgage on wanting to hold onto power. At the risk of generalizing, I do think though that at women are better at comprise and sharing power and not as interested in influence or status for its own sake

He's a funny bugger: https://www.titusoreily.com/afl/eddie-mcguire-no-need-to-thank-me-for-ending-racism-globally

This may well be true hem. And some suggest that it is one reason why women make better leaders. However i think the real issue is that it is an undeniable fact that in almost every western, democratic society (and others too no doubt) that men are the ones who have the power, influence and status. And it is equally true that most men are in no hurry to cede their power, influence and status.

I can't see this ever changing - unless they implement some sort of radical netball style zones with only designated players allowed in the 50 metre arcs. Which I sincerely hope never happens because that idea contradicts the foundation of Australian rules football - the philosophy that it is a 360 degree game and unlike all other football codes (with the possible exception of Gaelic football) players can go wherever they want on the field. I also don't mind contested, crowded footy but understand the desire for more one on one contests and with it more scoring. My issue is that this desire (harking back to a perceived golden era in footy in the 1980s before footy became uber professional - a time we are not going back to by the by) has driven almost all of the rule changes in the last decade. Which is all well and good - except for the fact that, perhaps with a handful of exceptions, the changes have been spectacularly unsuccessful in terms of increasing scores or one on ones. And almost all the rule changes - and almost as significantly, changes to how some rules are interpreted - have had unintended consequences that more often than not have made the game less attractive and more messy (third man in says hi) I'm not against rule changes per se, but I'm definitely in the camp of minimizing rule changes and letting the game find its level and sort itself out. The way footy evolves is one of things i most like about it. I'm no expert on soccer or gridiron but my feeling is that AFL football evolves more fluidly. I'm sure those other codes are constantly evolving but AFL seems never to stand still tactically. Perhaps it is function of the sport having been fully professional for only 30 odd years (as opposed to 50 plus for gridiron and soccer) and maybe the size of the ground, the aforementioned 360 degree nature of the game and the number of participants are all factors but footy seems to be in a constant state of evolution. I have heard coaches say footy evolves tactically within seasons, let alone year to year. Look at last year. After 5 rounds people were going crazy about the chip and mark, go slow tactic teams were employing and the resulting low scores. The sky was falling. Footy was dead. But by the end of the season coaches took a more aggressive tack, the ball was moving faster, there was much more switching, more run and carry, scores went up and the issue was forgotten. And that quicker ball movement meant that across the board there were more one on ones inside 50 as teams could not flood back as effectively. That tactical shift happened without any intervention by the AFL in terms of rule changes. Freo was the perfect example of this shift - unfortunately for us, as they decided to be more aggressive with their switching and ball movement when they played us. And we were hopeless and shutting their movement down.