-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
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
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Western Bulldogs are arguing there has been a breach of federal sexual discrimination laws with Katie Brennan's appeal.
That’s a disgraceful route to pursue. It’s taking the piss.
I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example - but trying to turn this into case of real world law, rather than sport - is pretty ordinary.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
Ozza
That’s a disgraceful route to pursue. It’s taking the piss.
I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example - but trying to turn this into case of real world law, rather than sport - is pretty ordinary.
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.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
bornadog
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 totally agree BAD.
Basically....men get fined but because women don't earn enough to be fined, the ever so benevolent AFL suspended them instead.
That is clearly sexist.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
Ozza
That’s a disgraceful route to pursue. It’s taking the piss.
I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example - but trying to turn this into case of real world law, rather than sport - is pretty ordinary.
IF Katie does get off under that circumstance, then the pressure on her for the grand Final will be immense. I would not like to be in her boots come game time. (No scratch that, I would kill to be in her boots come game time) :-)
The truth will set you free,
but first it will piss you off. ... Gloria Steinem.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
bornadog
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.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
Ozza
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.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
Rocco Jones
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.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
Ozza
That’s a disgraceful route to pursue. It’s taking the piss.
I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example - but trying to turn this into case of real world law, rather than sport - is pretty ordinary.
If you have a look at the details I have posted on the previous page they are having a crack at every angle they can think of, not just discrimination.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
Axe Man
If you have a look at the details I have posted on the previous page they are having a crack at every angle they can think of, not just discrimination.
Yes. And as you quoted me on, I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example’.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
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
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
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)
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
hujsh
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)
Why not have a fine that factors in the lesser pay of AFLW players? Seems like AFLW players are paid about 35 times less. So a $150-200 fine would actually be more than equal!
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
N/A liked this post
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Originally Posted by
hujsh
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 woman's 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)
I guess the AFL have stuffed this up and there is a reprimand again and no penalty, because it doesn't exist.
For the future, they will have to have the same penalties as the men's game, ie a fine.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
Re: MRP Thread 2018
Panel now deliberating after an hour and half.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.