Dogs citing and show vision of Jack Redden's tackle on Josh Kelly last year, classified same as Brennan incident, drew a fine
see here: https://t.co/VlIQErKB48
Result was $1000 fine
Printable View
Dogs citing and show vision of Jack Redden's tackle on Josh Kelly last year, classified same as Brennan incident, drew a fine
see here: https://t.co/VlIQErKB48
Result was $1000 fine
I think it is the correct path. The consequences of having STUPID laws where the men get a fine, but the women miss a GF from two reprimands is just ludicrous. . How would you like if that happened to one of our mens players. Clear discrimination.
Imagine the outrage if it was Dusty last year.
I don’t disagree that the rules should change in future - but everyone knew the rules for this season.
I’m uncomfortable with football clubs turning proceedings into a real court room - when everyone knew the rules coming in.
For mine - we completely botched the first hearing, where we could have defended the tackle itself - and now because we botched it so badly, Peter and his mates are looking to strongarm the league.
Strong arm the league using their blatant sexism? I get your angle, I hate using the court room in footy, however this is different to pushing the boundary to get away with what you can. The AFL is being unethical/sexist. They deserve what they get. You'd have to be the rightest of alt right to not see this as sexist.
I think I have been very clear that I think the rules should be changed in future.
But I also think that degrees of the ‘sexist’ angle is extreme. It’s not like for like Rocco. The circumstances of the two competitions are vastly different. They aren’t two competitions running side by side with the same rules, same amount of rounds, same pay, same amount of players on the field etc etc.
Dogs' arguments can roughly be summarised as such:
1. Incident graded incorrectly compared with similar incidents in men's comp last year
2. Two match ban is disproportionate
3. The inconsistency between the men's and women's players is sex discrimination
So devil's advocate: The AFL get rid of suspensions like this they don't have any real deterrent in place for persistent rough conduct. Are they condoning rougher behaviour in the womans game at that point? Or alternatively what rule changes are made so that there is an equivalent deterrent/punishment to what the men's game has?
It's easy to say it's sexist or discriminatory and that may be correct but I've not seen many suggestions on how to fix it aside from letting Katie off (which just so happens to suit our desires as Bulldog supporters funnily enough)
Panel now deliberating after an hour and half.