-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Sherman...trade bait anyone? It's that serious for mine. The West is all about cultural inclusivity.
Still, if he can take his medicine and learn from it, all fine and good. Maybe Jones, DJ and some of the others should sit down and talk to him, so he can walk in their shoes.
At least he put his hand up and took it like a man.
Andrew, the worst thing is it doesn't really sound like one moment does it.
I knew from the moment I saw his Chippendale style photos all over the net he was going to be a handful.
he better work damn hard and keep his nose clean.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ghost Dog
Sherman...trade bait anyone? It's that serious for mine. The West is all about cultural inclusivity.
No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ghost Dog
Andrew, the worst thing is it doesn't really sound like one moment does it.
I knew from the moment I saw his Chippendale style photos all over the net he was going to be a handful.
he better work damn hard and keep his nose clean.
According to who, Damo Barrett? The beacon of journalistic integrity that he is. Still the point remains - he made a mistake, and as you said, put his hand up and copped the penalty. If we wiped our slate of all our players involved in regrettable incidents, how many would be left?
-
Re: Sherman gets 4 weeks
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remember54
Ledge, I realize you didn't mention fat, freckles, I'm trying to say that racial abuse is different from just abuse. It's rude to call someone fat, it's rude to call them a Pommy B. However fat people, freckled people, pommy people haven't suffered systematic discrimination..built into laws of society like the examples I mentioned. I don't know if I can express myself any better than that so maybe we will just have to accept our differing points of view on this.
Does that mean we can racially vilify 10 year "black" people as they would not have seen any systematic discrimination?
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ghost Dog
Still, if he can take his medicine and learn from it, all fine and good. Maybe Jones, DJ and some of the others should sit down and talk to him, so he can walk in their shoes.
At least he put his hand up and took it like a man.
The press conference and him and the club offering the suspension would seem to indicate that he has acknowledged it was wrong. The "volunteer" work that he will do will allow him to walk in their shoes.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
The four weeks will pass quickly, the $5000 will be forgotten, but Sherman will be boooed and taunted for the rest of his career by the crowd. He has really screwed himself over.
On another note:
Do I think the four weeks are harsh? No! Look don't get me wrong, anything verbal bounces off me, I honestly couldn't give a toss about teases and people trying to get under my skin. But as I'm trying to teach my son at the minute: If you are wearing a uniform then you have lost certain rights as a individual and are representing something else. In this case Sherm was representing the Western Bulldogs Footbal Club. Somethings are bigger than the individual. Bad PR is bad business in any field.
Sorry to get off topic, but where the hell is all this pace that everyone is saying Sherman has????? Nearly every kick I see him have on the run is a last minute rush to get off as not to get tackled by someone who has just ran him down.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ghost Dog
Sherman...trade bait anyone? It's that serious for mine. The West is all about cultural inclusivity.
.
It's been dealt with to the satisfaction of the AFL, the Dogs and the Suns so there is no grounds for this action.
-
Re: Sherman gets 4 weeks
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkie
How do you know it was made toward and indigenous player?
I'm sure you know now that it was reported in the press, and Sherman himself said that 3 of his best mates at the club at DJ, Josh Hill and Liam Jones (I think!).
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HairyMidget
The four weeks will pass quickly, the $5000 will be forgotten, but Sherman will be boooed and taunted for the rest of his career by the crowd. He has really screwed himself over.
On another note:
Do I think the four weeks are harsh? No! Look don't get me wrong, anything verbal bounces off me, I honestly couldn't give a toss about teases and people trying to get under my skin. But as I'm trying to teach my son at the minute: If you are wearing a uniform then you have lost certain rights as a individual and are representing something else. In this case Sherm was representing the Western Bulldogs Footbal Club. Somethings are bigger than the individual. Bad PR is bad business in any field.
Sorry to get off topic, but where the hell is all this pace that everyone is saying Sherman has????? Nearly every kick I see him have on the run is a last minute rush to get off as not to get tackled by someone who has just ran him down.
Was Monkhurt booed for the rest of his career for a one-off incident? Spider Everitt?
For the next 4 weeks he will be able to hear the abuse and boos from spectators at the VFL
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ghost Dog
Sherman...trade bait anyone? It's that serious for mine. The West is all about cultural inclusivity.
Still, if he can take his medicine and learn from it, all fine and good. Maybe Jones, DJ and some of the others should sit down and talk to him, so he can walk in their shoes.
At least he put his hand up and took it like a man.
Andrew, the worst thing is it doesn't really sound like one moment does it.
I knew from the moment I saw his Chippendale style photos all over the net he was going to be a handful.
he better work damn hard and keep his nose clean.
No way. For one incident and his first offence?
The Western Bulldogs should be advocates for cultural inclusion, as we represent one of the the most diverse geographic areas in the country.
If we want to attract supporters from different backgrounds away from the round ball game, we needed to be very clear with our messaging surrounding Justin - and we have.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dry Rot
If it was all day and if they were aware (and it seems some knew by full-time) then they could have stopped it earlier, couldn't they?
You wanted our players to 'do something about it' while the match was still in progress? Are you serious?
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
You wanted our players to 'do something about it' while the match was still in progress? Are you serious?
If it was "going on all day" a quiet word at the end of a quarter isn't that hard, is it?
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dry Rot
If it was "going on all day" a quiet word at the end of a quarter isn't that hard, is it?
Who's to say that didn't happen? And you are assuming that the vilification was going on all day when it might have only happened twice.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
I think it's dangerous to listen to one journalist & ASSUME it was happening all day. We all know how journalists speculate and sometimes just outright make stuff up. They are not held accountable for what they say or print, even when it's rubbish.
Re. Sherman. I'm disappointed in what he did and for tarnishing our club. I think it has been dealt with and now we need to focus on beating Melbourne on Friday night.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
I've listened to Les Twentyman talk about this a couple of times and he provides some compelling examples.
Workplace laws have changed recently in Victoria because of workplace harrassment.
Sherman did the wrong thing and is being punished for it in a manner all parties have agreed to. I don't get the call for his sacking/trading - hopefully he learns and moves on from the incident.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Suz 32
I think it's dangerous to listen to one journalist & ASSUME it was happening all day. We all know how journalists speculate and sometimes just outright make stuff up. They are not held accountable for what they say or print, even when it's rubbish.
Re. Sherman. I'm disappointed in what he did and for tarnishing our club. I think it has been dealt with and now we need to focus on beating Melbourne on Friday night.
I agree. How would Barrett know? Unless he's being fed information by a player (which would be forbidden), or a runner, or was on the ground himself, he's making assumptions.
I would like to know if the leaders did say anything to Justin during the game, or if the age-old male reticence to criticise a mate, eg driving too fast or while drunk, occurred.
The photo of Gia speaking with Wilkinson at the end of the game indicates to me that he was trying to soothe him, and Sherman was apologising then as well. But of course it was too late then.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Wow the evidence Barrett and the Footy Classified show is damming isn't it. 2 shots of Sherman and Wilkinson in a contest and Gia walking to them after the siren. This is the evidence they have found to say that it happened continuously through out the entire game. :rolleyes:
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
G-Mo77
Wow the evidence Barrett and the Footy Classified show is damming isn't it. 2 shots of Sherman and Wilkinson in a contest and Gia walking to them after the siren. This is the evidence they have found to say that it happened continuously through out the entire game. :rolleyes:
Has the club or Sherman denied it?
It is damaging against our brand, if false information has been reported i think the club would jump on it.
-
Re: Sherman gets 4 weeks
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chops
You think so? He is a show pony on the field. Apart from the Freo game many of his goals are soft/goal square type. Not sure he works hard enough either. He provides us with run we've needed but we gave up a bit for him.
Off field he has been a disaster. Classic example of a footballer that should keep his mouth shut apart from saying the cliches.
I agree. Sherman is an ordinary Footballer and it provides the perfect opportunity for Grant's return. To think we opted for Sherman when Andrew Walker was a possibility beggars belief.
-
Re: Sherman gets 4 weeks
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nuggety Back Pocket
To think we opted for Sherman when Andrew Walker was a possibility beggars belief.
Not quite as easy as it sounds NBP. I think Carlton wanted more for Walker than what we gave for Sherman
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Personally I just like watching footy and all this extra stuff really does annoy at times. The media will crap on about this until the next incident. Can't wait until the Melbourne game is over so we can move on.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asylum Ward
Personally I just like watching footy and all this extra stuff really does annoy at times. The media will crap on about this until the next incident. Can't wait until the Melbourne game is over so we can move on.
It will be interesting to see what happens AW.
After the Aker fiasco last year we came out firing and smacked Freo. The club was under siege after that ridiculous Sam Newman / Akermanis setup on the footy show.. Aker is a narcissistic ballbag and i can see how his rantings and ravings totally galvanized the group.
This week seems different . From what i've read the playing group feel deeply ashamed by what has happened. Will they go into their shells? Will they come out firing? Again the club
is being heavily criticised but this time the criticism is warranted.
..an interesting study in player psychology this week .
Also, I wonder if Bob will dare tackle the issue in the Age this week? It will be a tough article
for him to write, a lot of conflicting loyalties / emotions.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dry Rot
If so, other Dogs players must have been aware of it, and possibly the coaching staff.
Why didn't the onfield leadership group (and coaching staff If they were aware of it) stop it?
Not the best day for our club, nor the best day for Hill, DJ, Stack or Jones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dry Rot
If it was all day and If they were aware (and it seems some knew by full-time) then they could have stopped it earlier, couldn't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dry Rot
If it was "going on all day" a quiet word at the end of a quarter isn't that hard, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
Who's to say that didn't happen? And you are assuming that the vilification was going on all day when it might have only happened twice.
Hm, a few comprehension problems here and in some other people's posts about my "assuming" that the racial sledging occurred all match.
If clearly signifies that it might have happened or might not, and of speculation and doubt not certainty.
I don't know what actually happened on Saturday nor does anyone else here. It might have been a one-off, happened a few times or happened all game.
There was an allegation it happened all game, and so I commented IF this was true. I didn't assume it was true.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Who knows how often it happened but players certainly knew it happened.
Certain players would tell someone to stop being an asshole but others probably most would just sit back and not say anything.
Our club seems to have a lot of the sit back type.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Topdog
Who knows how often it happened but players certainly knew it happened.
Certain players would tell someone to stop being an asshole but others probably most would just sit back and not say anything.
Our club seems to have a lot of the sit back type.
If so, then in a sense Sherman isn't the only guilty one.
If the bolded bit in your post is true, what the hell was our so-called Leadership Group doing?
On a positive note, I watched the press conference. Sherman looked terrible but gee Garlick was terrific.
Haven't heard speak before - very impressive.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Well Gia apparently went up to the player as soon as the siren sounded so they knew something happened. If it happened once than the Leadership Group doesn't need to do anything.
If more than once yes they should do something.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Topdog
Who knows how often it happened but players certainly knew it happened.
Certain players would tell someone to stop being an asshole but others probably most would just sit back and not say anything.
Our club seems to have a lot of the sit back type.
I don't believe this is true. With the leadership programme in place, issues are dealt with more promptly than they would have in the past.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Glove38
Has the club or Sherman denied it?
It is damaging against our brand, if false information has been reported i think the club would jump on it.
The media would love the club to be embroiled in a "he said it twice", "no he didn't, it was 6 times" argument, which would inevitably draw in the Suns. The clubs have wisely said that no more will be said about it. Sherman will be forbidden to ever discuss the matter, while he's at the club anyway. People can waste their time speculating or just accept and move on.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dry Rot
If so, then in a sense Sherman isn't the only guilty one.
If the bolded bit in your post is true, what the hell was our so-called Leadership Group doing?
On a positive note, I watched the press conference. Sherman looked terrible but gee Garlick was terrific.
Haven't heard speak before - very impressive.
Agreed ... It's my first interaction with him as CEO ... I too was impressed.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Shit, too many posts to "Multi-Quote" so I'm just gonna stop right here…
Quote:
Originally Posted by
azabob
How do you know it was the first gamer?
RE the donation can he claim it at tax time?
Reported by many in the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ledge
In my day it was just trying to put a player off his game, he would do the same back and you just got on with it, and you both knew it was just trying to psyche each other out and meant nothing.
Afterwards you all had a beer and didnt even remember what was said or you both laughed about it.
Okay things have changed and you can all have a go at me but whatever happened to a bit of gobbing off, I copped it and mainly looked forward to it, whether my race, parents etc.
I heard some real funny ones and you knew they werent personal.
I do have one question if its racially driven why arent the people feeling villified proud of their heritage?
As Nicky Winmar did by lifting his top, yes im black or aboriginal and i am proud of it.
We should all be proud of our race, I was born in the UK and growing up here, still cop the pommy "B" 40 years later, I take it as a plus not a minus.
I think the unwritten rule was dont get personal, eg if you knew something had happened to the family and focussed on that it was a no no, if he did that yep give him a good going over.
The world has changed since my day and I suppose rules are rules and all players are schooled on not doing it, Sherman did it so he is guilty but I think a few of us are going over the top with being remembered for it and its a blight on the club, i am backing its gone and forgotten in 4 weeks.
I certainly have nothing against Sherman just dissappointed its one of our players and he should have known better.
This is the wrong attitude. I'm not a PC type of person, in fact in many cases I'm anything but, but I've seen enough hurt caused by people who “didn't really mean anything by it” to believe that for a minute.
I've been the subject of racism myself, whilst overseas. I once had fruit pelted at me for being American (I'm not, but they thought I was). It's not a nice feeling. It's worse than “sticks and stones”, racism slowly but surely cements a person's status in society as a second-class citizen based solely on the colour of their skin, this leads to viewing these people as less human than ourselves, and this has helped cause more wars than I care to list exhaustively, but for a start: World War 1, World War 2, the first Gulf War…
Ask a Jew if he thinks racism is simply calling somebody names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
Not sure about this. A program of mediation and education would be followed - but termination for a first offence is pretty unlikely...
In my company, you'd be watched whilst you pack up your desk. We don't tolerate it. Nobody should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sockeye Salmon
I can't accept that calling someone names is worse than elbowing someone in the head
It's far worse. You're attacking an entire race of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dancin' Douggy
Sockeye. I completely and utterly disagree with you.
That old chestnut, (and I'll quote it in full in case anyone doesn't know it)
"sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"
Is a colossal load of bull$@#t.
Names hurt, they hurt alot, workplace bullying and cyber bullying has caused suicides. Fact.
Racism is about the vilest face of human behaviour and needs to be stamped out completely.
I hope justin Sherman is ashamed and sorry and 4 weeks is OK with me.
Complete agree. Also think 4 weeks is fine.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Not to derail a very serious thread but what do I tell my kids if sticks and stones etc is bullshit?
Should they run and cry to teacher or me every time someone teases them?
Also at my work if you racially abused someone you would be given the chance to discuss and atone for your actions not frog marched out the door.
Which approach is more enlightened I will leave up to the individual to decide.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Maddog37
Not to derail a very serious thread but what do I tell my kids if sticks and stones etc is bullshit?
Should they run and cry to teacher or me every time someone teases them?
Also at my work if you racially abused someone you would be given the chance to discuss and atone for your actions not frog marched out the door.
Which approach is more enlightened I will leave up to the individual to decide.
Have the chance to discuss and atone, sure, but if they don't really get it, then march them out the door. Why? Because many people don't want to work with racists. That's how serious I see it.
Just because he came out in the media and read an apology scripted by the PR team doesn't mean he's changed his views. Hopefully he has.
It's a massive issue in our country as a whole at the moment, and this incident, and this subsequent discussion here on WOOF, only highlights the general problem across the nation: We don't all understand how serious an issue it is. Many people feel as if it's the “politically correct, leftie, latté-drinking elite” ramming something down our throats, rather than looking at it as common-sense, decent people and realise we're hurting other people, just like us.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sockeye Salmon
I can't accept that calling someone names is worse than elbowing someone in the head
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BornAScragger
It's far worse. You're attacking an entire race of people.
Multi offenders or on going torment would surely have psychological effects. But a one off racial sledge Vs a Concussion? Dunno about that one. If what you guys are reffering to is the Campbell Brown hit on Ward, put it in perspective. What sherman did was worse than say Browns elbow on Ward and the sentance shows. But as a one off racial sledge how would it compare to say Tony Locketts elbow all those years ago that earnt him 12wks (I think?). One could argue that facial reconstruction and a year out of the game is less desirable than what happened to the GC first gamer. However I don't believe I have any right to say how it feels for someone to be racialy taunted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BornAScragger
In my company, you'd be watched whilst you pack up your desk. We don't tolerate it. Nobody should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Maddog37
Also at my work if you racially abused someone you would be given the chance to discuss and atone for your actions not frog marched out the door.
Which approach is more enlightened I will leave up to the individual to decide.
Same at my work. obviously severity come into the equasion but a lot of big companies have rehab type programs and counselling in place, inc formal warnings and such.
I still think Sherman got off light though.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Think it's a bit over the top if you ask me. I mean you could turn most things into racial depending how you take it and considering nobody knows exactly what was said we shouldn't judge straight away. I have gone through alot of racist comments and what have you in my years be it on the soccer pitch or school but I know it makes me stronger and I never looked at it as a bad thing. Maybe because I have a different view on racism seeing I've been on the back end before and I didn't let it effect me so others will have a different view. Just think some people need to relax about this And some players need to harden up. In saying that I don't appreciate sherman representing our club in that way and he cops 4 weeks bad luck I Spose I'm sure he will learn.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DragzLS1
Think it's a bit over the top if you ask me. I mean you could turn most things into racial depending how you take it and considering nobody knows exactly what was said we shouldn't judge straight away. I have gone through alot of racist comments and what have you in my years be it on the soccer pitch or school but I know it makes me stronger and I never looked at it as a bad thing. Maybe because I have a different view on racism seeing I've been on the back end before and I didn't let it effect me so others will have a different view. Just think some people need to relax about this And some players need to harden up. In saying that I don't appreciate sherman representing our club in that way and he cops 4 weeks bad luck I Spose I'm sure he will learn.
^^^^^ My thoughts too.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
I agree 100% that there is no place for it, but I also believe society has gone over the top with the issue.
It worries me if something derogatory is said like you white so and so, it doesn't appear to be as big an issue as if the same expression is used with regard to a different colour. I have to beat around the bush instead of using pain English, which would be politicly incorrect.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
For those saying we don't know what was said..Sherman himself said in his statement it was 'offensive, degrading and extremely hurtful. '
I'm not sure what people might think the different 'grades' of racial abuse might be, but quite evidently Sherman acknowledges it was not of some 'trivial', 'minor' nature, whatever that might look like I have no idea.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remember54
For those saying we don't know what was said..Sherman himself said in his statement it was 'offensive, degrading and extremely hurtful. '
I'm not sure what people might think the different 'grades' of racial abuse might be, but quite evidently Sherman acknowledges it was not of some 'trivial', 'minor' nature, whatever that might look like I have no idea.
Do you really think Sherman had any input into that speech? He has shown several times he's not the brightest, and leaving him to his own words is a recipe for disaster.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greystache
Do you really think Sherman had any input into that speech? He has shown several times he's not the brightest, and leaving him to his own words is a recipe for disaster.
Agree. There is no chance he had anything to do with writing that up, in fact it has probably been saved on the shared drive at HQ as "racial slur apology template updated 26.06.2011.doc"
All you can hope is that Sherman has taken the wake up call this incident has dished out well and will develop into a better sportsman, turning out some solid performances for the Club. He certainly will need to become a very good player if his goal celebrations remain so over the top while the majority of the crowd will be booing him and throwing all sorts of barbs his way.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remember54
For those saying we don't know what was said..Sherman himself said in his statement it was 'offensive, degrading and extremely hurtful. '
I'm not sure what people might think the different 'grades' of racial abuse might be, but quite evidently Sherman acknowledges it was not of some 'trivial', 'minor' nature, whatever that might look like I have no idea.
In my opinion 4 weeks is an adequate penalty. It was a weak act by Sherman. I also think Malthouse should have been suspended for calling a player a rapist...whether you like that player or not... it smacks of double standards by the AFL.. That comment is also 'offensive, degrading and extremely hurtful'.
-
Re: Sherman banned for vilification
I am saddened by what has happened.....chiefly because I like to think that we are a club of Chris Grant types. I know that's not possible, but I just like to think we are all responsible for how others might feel before we open our mouths.
What should have been a glorious day of celebration for a young man and his family and friends has turned into a nightmare. What right does Sherman have for so trashing a young man's day of hopes and dreams? His mother's hopes and dreams? His father's? Forever now, his first game of AFL football will be tainted by what was said to him.
It's rubbish and it's truly disappointing.