nutbean

I think many have jumped to a conclusion based on Martin and the club apologising for what he had done. Read the below and you don't think much of the comment here is warranted based on the below ? A club spokesman said that Martin's behaviour was clearly unacceptable, that he had apologised to the woman in question as well as to the managers and owners of the restaurant. "He had been drinking and was clearly disruptive to other diners and a female patron," the spokesman confirmed. "He has subsequently called her and apologised and that apology has been accepted. His behaviour was not good enough." Martin said in a statement released by the club late on Monday afternoon: "Regrettably, I was intoxicated and that, in itself, is completely unacceptable. "I do, however, take responsibility for my behaviour and I am deeply embarrassed. "If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened, then that is totally inappropriate."

Just as an aside - I went to the ACDC concert on Sunday ( ugh...meh..) and when Angus got hot and sweaty he actually looked identical to your picture. He hasn't aged well. (but he can play guitar)

I absolutely and unequivocally agree with your opening statement. I don't like the idea of pecking orders as it is such a subjective argument as to issue is most important. Needless to say violence in society in general is an issue that needs to be addressed. Violence of any sort is connected by the simple fact of it being violence however I do believe that there are some stand alone underlying attitudes, causes and actions in regards to violence against women that require it to be examined in it's own right ( to repeat though - that does not mean that violence is general does not need urgent attention).

I agree with sentiment but unfortunately acknowledge the reality. I do agree with the focus of the PUBLIC message should strongly be "if you attack you will be dealt with". Privately I tell my daughters how to stay safe from what is an unfortunate reality. I suppose the other issue is - do we really need to tell men not to attack women ? or more precisely - do you think that a message to a guy who attacks women would make any difference. So it's a case of message of how rational, normal woman can stay safe as opposed to a message to deranged individuals who think it is acceptable to attack women. Stuie - I agree with everything you have said. Whilst there are many issues in this debate anything that deflects from THE issue or lessens its centrality- being a (drunk) bloke threatening a woman ( with violence) is wrong in my mind. I just have to acknowledge that we live in sad times that we find it necessary to consider changing our "normal" behaviors because of the "Abnormal ( read abhorrent)" behaviors of others.

Whilst I understand in law there is a difference between a threat and actually carrying through with the threat, the problem for me with this is you are only dealing with the outcome. I think we should not lose grasp of the fact that a woman had Martin standing over her and aggressively asserting that he was going to kill her. That's where you need to "stop the clock". Let's not look at what Martin subsequently did or didn't do. You need to put yourself in her shoes at that moment. I have no idea as to her state of mind at the time but it could have ranged from "pffft - this bloke is all hot air" to " he is out of control - I am going to get a chopstick through the eye". Again, a personal experience - I was bailed up by two very intoxicated bikies ( this is not attempting to disparage bikies - it is disparaging two drunken idiots) when I was 17 and was terrified. To this day I still have nightmares about it and will irrationally walk across the opposite side of the road when I see bikies. My point is to cause long term damage to a person, it doesn't necessarily need to include an actual physical assault.

This may be controversial but for everything you have outlined above, I always rated Dunstall above Lockett. Dunstall was the most selfless full forward I have watched. Not only did he kick goals but he also brought others into the game and Hawthorn didn't solely rely on him as their only avenue to goal. I always felt that if you held Lockett you held StKilda. I would rather Jesse kick 60 and Weideman kick 50 and Gartlett and Petracca kick 40 ( I would actually prefer Jesse kick 100 and Weideman kick 50 and Gartlett and Petracca kick 40 but I am greedy)

We have got to stop recruiting duds....

Titus O'reilly has his say... Some fun defences of Dustin Martin Over the last few days we’ve heard some fun and creative defences of Dustin Martin threatening to kill a woman. Let’s look at these as like the incident, they’re hilarious! “He’s unlucky, we wouldn’t even know about this if he wasn’t a footballer.’ Quite possibly true, although you could argue if he wasn’t a footballer and his work found out about this incident he’d be sacked. I should mention that’s not me arguing that, I’ve spoken to employment lawyers and a head of HR for a major corporate and they all said that was the case. He could also have been referred to police and been charged. But it’s a fair point that if Dustin wasn’t a well known footballer this could have slipped away like so many violent episodes that go unreported. That really is just pointing out how prevalent and underreported violence against women is, it’s not a defence. Really, all you’re pointing out is how spectacularly stupid he is. “He wasn’t actually going to kill her.” Considering he can’t remember what happened due to his consumption of alcohol not even he knows what he could have done so this is a pretty big assumption and therefore a poor defence. “The guy was smashed and can’t even remember it happening” Is that a defence all of a sudden? If it is then everyone would just say that, whether it was true or not. If you are the type that drinks to the point you can’t remember anything and you threaten to kill people, you’re not arguing a defence, you’re arguing you’re a threat to society. “We’ve all made mistakes. Don’t get on your high horse.” We sure have all made mistakes. I bet very few of us have threatened a stranger in a restaurant with a chopstick, while telling them you’ll kill them and hitting the wall behind them though. That’s not a ‘mistake’ it’s assault. “She works for Channel Seven and wanted a story.” Yeah, this woman went out that night just trying to bump into a crazed, alcohol-fuelled footballer and get them to threaten to kill her. Women are so manipulative and they play such a long game! She then appeared on TV not showing her face and not revealing her name. What a publicity seeking trouble maker! Let’s side with the person threatening to kill people though. “People are overreacting.” Yeah, that’s what people have been doing about violence against women for so long, overreacting. I long for the day were our problem is overreacting to this scourge. We are so far from overreacting to violence against women you’d need NASA’s New Horizons probe to get there from where we are. Even 12 months suspended is therefore not enough for me. You threaten to kill someone you’re out of the game, this isn’t some borderline case. “Hodge only got two weeks, other players got this and that.” Personally, I think you’re on really shaky ground if the AFL’s appallingly bad record on punishments are the centre plank of your defence. What you’re actually pointing out is the whole problem. Footballers have never had the incentive to truly change their behaviour because deep down they know it’s not career ending. The sad thing is they’re right. Watch how quickly that all stops when one of them actually gets the punishment they would get in the real world. “The public humiliation is punishment enough.” It’s really not. In fact, the public condemnation has been weaker than American coffee. Brendon Gale said he was a ‘goose’ and Richmond football manager Dan Richardson described the incident as “a bit of a hiccup”. In fact, Dusty has received a fair bit of support from people, despite the fact hethreatened to kill someone. In conclusion, I’m resigned to Martin receiving some weak punishment like twelve weeks suspended (I’d loved to be proved wrong). But Richmond and the AFL, let’s all remember the next time you ape support for ending violence against women that when actually tested to underpin those words with action you didn’t.

To me there is a lot of arguing around three separate issues that are inextricably linked 1/ violence in general 2/ violence against women in particular 3/ How to get a safe outcome from a potentially dangerous situation - i.e. how do you deal with a drunk person ? So I will treat them separately - I deplore violence and I deplore violence against women in particular. Whilst I am generalising and it may not be so in the Dustin Martin case but I have seen attitudes by men towards women that are not replicated towards other men. And lastly what is the safest method of dealing with these situations ? Call management ? Call the police ? Try and defuse yourself ? There is no one simple answer and with no insight to the situation with Dustin we will never know.

Actually I would counter that the issue here is a drunken,violent and aggressive footballer AND the gender of the person who complained. Whilst I hope the attitude is well in the minority I will also not dismiss that there are males who will behave in a certain way towards women whilst not behaving the same way towards men. Whilst violence against anyone should be condemned this attitude needs to be recognised and eradicated.

Ever been castrated and thrown to the pigs ? (fyi - I have been and it was unpleasant...)

I agree with your sentiment that his behavior is reprehensible and he needs to be dealt with by both Richmond and the AFL. I am not sure how "castrating and throwing him to the pigs" makes you any better than him though.

I was wondering what that was...I thought it was a Tony Mokbel hand me down.

What angers me is the selective nature of what the AFL decides to go hard on.

We get so caught up in the emotion of just winning games that we don't stop enough to realise that coaches, players and administrators are just ordinary people like you and me. Dean Bailey always came across as a genuinely good man and always conducted himself with quiet dignity. When we talk about life situations and insidious diseases like cancer, whether someone was a good coach or not pales into insignificance. Everyone who speaks about Dean Bailey does so with warmth and affection and to his family and friends I am positive he is sadly missed.

I think Jackson should not be on the banner as it fits with his persona. He rarely makes statements or appears in the press - when he does he has good stuff to say ( and says it in a few well chosen words) and then he fades into the background again. There is something quietly reassuring about him. (as opposed to his predecessor)

I like the idea of Big Max being on the extreme right hand side of the banner and you can use his beard as the scroll bar.

Agreed but he isn't the first key forward coming into the comp with high expectations and won't be the last. When we are successful debut seasons from the likes of Brayshaw, Hogan, Petracca etc should be the icing on the cake - not the reason we are going to have a good or bad year.

Come on OD - beat the drum ! (note that I did say Triple J not Triple M)

This is absolutely it - You look at the Hawks last year - they wanted big seasons from Roughhead, Mitchell, Lewis, Rioli. Our expectation rose and fell on the back of a 20 year old forward who was in his first year of football.

What is this SEN you talk of ? Bolted on Triple J listener.

I for one am only working off Weideman's footage I have seen when comparing him to Boyd but I would suggest that Weideman covered more distance in his clips than Boyd has in his career to date. IMO - To date, Boyd has been a lazy footballer - Weideman moves around the forward line which I like.

Absolutely torn down the middle on him. I do hope he succeeds because you love his vision and what he does with the ball when he is "on". The problem for me is not that he is not on from one week to the next but he has a fairly sizable gap between his best and worst within a single game. That's why he is impossible to rate. He has the odd "A+" moments in a game where he shows how exquisitely skilled he is followed by moments of "F" jogging half arsed to a contest or simply not imposing himself.

I agree with all that - but it is even simpler as many have suggested that we got one player at pick X wrong because we could have had player Y two picks later.

Put Jensen Button behind the wheel of a Lada in a formula one race and he will still finish last.