Tribunal / suspensions 2024

[Grantysghost]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

It is far worse. I think the intent of the word is what makes the difference. You can use the Clarko word in a contex where it ain't homophobic. It is a way the word is used in everyday language where the abolute inent is not to demean someone because they are gay. There is no grey area in the Finlayson word. It is used to demean and has historical signficance to the community in being used to demean, humilate and shame someone for who they are.

But the inconsistency is absolutely wild. Especially when you consider the same thing happened in the AFLW last season for zero penalty.

The F word can be used in non homophobic ways especially the abbreviated form.

People who ride Harley's for eg.

[jeemak]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

It is far worse. I think the intent of the word is what makes the difference. You can use the Clarko word in a contex where it ain't homophobic. It is a way the word is used in everyday language where the abolute inent is not to demean someone because they are gay. There is no grey area in the Finlayson word. It is used to demean and has historical signficance to the community in being used to demean, humilate and shame someone for who they are.

But the inconsistency is absolutely wild. Especially when you consider the same thing happened in the AFLW last season for zero penalty.

I fear we're bordering on The Footy Show/ SEN levels of ask the white/ straight guy what's offensive and why here, so I won't say anything more on how much more offensive I think one is versus the other. At the end of the day, my opinion doesn't count.

It's nice the AFEL has taken care of the confusion, anyway!

[Grantysghost]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

NSFW

[angelopetraglia]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

Robbo with some context that the rational behind the difference in penalty is due to whether the people on the receiving end of it were offended. Saints were not offended. Bombers were.

https://x.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1777981704767938827

[Testekill]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

The F word can be used in non homophobic ways especially the abbreviated form.

People who ride Harley's for eg.

Okay but that episode of South Park is just Matt and Trey getting on their soapbox and saying that the meaning of words change so they should be allowed to say it if it's not directed at a gay person.

[angelopetraglia]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

Eddie McGuire with a similar view of the rational to Robbo. Bombers were offended. Bomber players were "very upset" https://x.com/FootyonNine/status/1777983825529757844

p.s. Finlayson has had rocks thrown at his house. Crazy.

[azabob]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

Paul Marsh has come out swinging.

'Consistently inconsistent': AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh slams Jeremy Finalyson punishment, asks league for 'urgent review' of framework

https://amp.nine.com.au/article/a72677a2-02d9-4156-bc2b-76ec626a928b

[Grantysghost]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

Okay but that episode of South Park is just Matt and Trey getting on their soapbox and saying that the meaning of words change so they should be allowed to say it if it's not directed at a gay person.

There's a bit of that. Maybe some reclamation nods as well.

That word certainly has multiple meanings. The slur is American. In the UK it's some sort of food. Has been cigarettes, bundle of wood, shrewish woman etc...

Pretty poor form by the shoosher.

[hujsh]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

I can see how people would be offended by CS as a homophobic slur in the same way I can see women being offended by the BIG C. They're used as derogatory terms born from outdated stereotypes by some and felt that way by others. Honestly, I've used both over time and respectively haven't thought about the act and who does it, or that part of the female anatomy (I blame Hollywood and I'm trying to be better).

To me those are pretty different. Maybe it'll change in time but I've personally never heard the former being anything but a derogatory in the same vein as POS.

If significant sections of the gay community do find it offensive and have a history of it being used against them then so be it, they'd know better than I do.

That said I feel like I'm normally on the more accepting side of these sorts of changes, or at least have some knowledge of it. So that I didn't know people now consider that a slur suggests to me that most people in this country would not think of it as a slur. I doubt very much the AFL will lead the way on this front. If anything the AFL, like any corporation, just wants to reflect the most broadly acceptable image of itself to the rest of society. Like a mirror of what they think we want to see. With Clarkson they probably read the room well enough to know it would be seen as someone losing their temper in defense of their player and using 'bad language'. The latter would be someone straight up saying a slur with no real defensible context.

But in the case of Clarkson, should his punishment be so much less than Finlayson's because the bulk of Australia hasn't caught up with how offensive it can be to sections of the community? Who decides how severe penalties should be and what formula is used to determine that severity?

To me one week would have sufficed, knowing the differences between the two. I look at it like this, what Finlayson said was probably twice as bad as what Clarkson said. So that goes from a fine to a week. The AFEL could have stated from that point on a zero tolerance policy and a prescribed two week suspension and an escalation from there for no remorse or repetition of the slur.

Now the AFEL has nowhere to go, and we're in a situation where homophobic slurs that might be directed at people who aren't even homosexuals can attract more time on the sidelines than carelessly (but really intentionally) concussing someone.

It's something they should have had figured out after the Clarkson incident and gotten onto the front foot with (in terms of detailed penalties), but of course everyone at AFL house was circle jerking themselves (inclusively no doubt) over how amazing Gather Round was going to be after the huge success of Round Zero.

I think 3 weeks is probably the correct number if the AFL wants to actually stop this from being a repeated action. I could care less what they did with Clarkson, this was a better opportunity to make an example of someone with an easy to sell narrative. The suspensions for in-game stuff is more complicated and messed up. Players can control what they say easier and it's much easier to police.

[hujsh]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

I fear we're bordering on The Footy Show/ SEN levels of ask the white/ straight guy what's offensive and why here, so I won't say anything more on how much more offensive I think one is versus the other. At the end of the day, my opinion doesn't count.

It's nice the AFEL has taken care of the confusion, anyway!

Well I'm glad you asked!

[hujsh]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

Okay but that episode of South Park is just Matt and Trey getting on their soapbox and saying that the meaning of words change so they should be allowed to say it if it's not directed at a gay person.

Not the best aged episode they ever did. Better than the trans/dolphin one though

[jeemak]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

To me those are pretty different. Maybe it'll change in time but I've personally never heard the former being anything but a derogatory in the same vein as POS.

If significant sections of the gay community do find it offensive and have a history of it being used against them then so be it, they'd know better than I do.

That said I feel like I'm normally on the more accepting side of these sorts of changes, or at least have some knowledge of it. So that I didn't know people now consider that a slur suggests to me that most people in this country would not think of it as a slur. I doubt very much the AFL will lead the way on this front. If anything the AFL, like any corporation, just wants to reflect the most broadly acceptable image of itself to the rest of society. Like a mirror of what they think we want to see. With Clarkson they probably read the room well enough to know it would be seen as someone losing their temper in defense of their player and using 'bad language'. The latter would be someone straight up saying a slur with no real defensible context.


I think 3 weeks is probably the correct number if the AFL wants to actually stop this from being a repeated action. I could care less what they did with Clarkson, this was a better opportunity to make an example of someone with an easy to sell narrative. The suspensions for in-game stuff is more complicated and messed up. Players can control what they say easier and it's much easier to police.

So it's the children who are wrong?

I'm glad you're OK with ill-considered and reactive penalties that make examples of people being thought up on the fly. Long may it continue until someone's in contention for the Brownlow and guilty of such an act......and subsequently let off with a fine because they only called their opponent a butt****er.*



*I'm aware that's pretty old school, but you never know.

[hujsh]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

So it's the children who are wrong?

Is it even something the children are saying? I don't think I'm completely out of touch with this stuff. I know all about the pedophiles on Kick. I'm not on Twitter or TikTok though which I think is where a lot of this stuff gets agonized over before it filters down.

I'm glad you're OK with ill-considered and reactive penalties that make examples of people being thought up on the fly. L

TBH I have to admit it's probably preferable to leaving makey-uppey in the hands of the AFL but in this particular circumstance I think they got it right.

[jeemak]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

Is it even something the children are saying? I don't think I'm completely out of touch with this stuff. I know all about the pedophiles on Kick. I'm not on Twitter or TikTok though which I think is where a lot of this stuff gets agonized over before it filters down.

I might just be showing my age here, referencing a Simpson's episode from thirty years ago.

[hujsh]

Re: Tribunal / suspensions 2024

I might just be showing my age here, referencing a Simpson's episode from thirty years ago.

Oh okay, I thought you were using the reference to make the point I'm way out of touch. I missed the tone despite the emoji (I'm emoji blind)