Johnny Member wrote:Austinnn wrote:Johnny Member wrote:Let's be honest, the AFL isn't much more than the Wacky Races cartoon that used to be on TV whilst I had breakfast before primary school about 20 years ago.
Really? In what way? Do they get to drive cars in the AFL? Weird comparison.
Because the bad guys lose, the good guys get bizarre and very convenient acts of god helping them, and the winner is different each day as long as it's suits what the audience wants.
Effectively, it's a rigged comp weighted heavily in the favour of certain clubs. And it cannot be taken seriously as a sporting competition.
No offence Johnny, but I cannot take that comment seriously. Maybe I've got my head in the sand, maybe you are right. Are St Kilda the 'bad guys' or the 'good guys' and why? Can you define which clubs get favours and which don't? If you mean the clubs deep in Rugby Lge. territory, then surely you can see why they get a leg up from the AFL, and what the advantages of that for this sport long term are. Please detail the convenient acts of god!
I am assuming that you're not happy with the 'socialist' principles of zero private ownership and draft picks being awarded to the teams in order of need, i.e. the team that finishes last, which in theory evens up the comp. Is that right? It's an interesting idea that it's not a proper 'sporting competition'; it's certainly unconventional, but I don't think it produces different winners each day, you still get the teams that always seem to make it to the top half, and the teams that never get anywhere.
I can't work out if you are disenfranchised with the AFL in general, (are we to take it that your bond to the Saints is the only thread keeping your attention, or is it just lack of an alternative? Have you tried the suburban leagues?), or if you actually enjoy it, but see it as heavily orchestrated entertainment rather than pure sport. Seems weird to spend time on a forum dedicated to following a sport which you don't think that much of, maybe I misunderstood something.
Back to the issue at hand. There are clear guidelines set out by the AFL in regards to sexism, racism, alcohol and drug use, bad behaviour, betting, and so on. Anytime that something happens in the sport which involves those 'red flag' issues, the AFL are going to want to nip it in the bud as quickly as possible. It's not unreasonable to think that
either the AFL have informed the journalists connected with the sport that they expect support on those issues
or that over time, journos have a nose for what will make big news in regards to those guidelines. Either way, the news hounds are along for the ride. So to a certain extent JohnnyM is right, if it was Pierce's father being slagged off, perhaps it wouldn't have been such an issue. However it would still be considered, because of the personal, family nature of the remark. It depends on how the victim takes it.
Minson probably knew that Pierce was sensitive about family issues so thought he could get under his skin and gain an advantage. He did, he was pulled up on it. Just like the case with Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra in the Eng. Premier Lge. He played the game, knowing that Evra is sensitive about racial issues (being that he has complained in the past). He got caught, he got punished, and the season continued. I am a Liverpool fan and a Suarez fan, and I have a big problem with what he said, and have no problem with that punishment, I also don't think Suarez is racist; just opportunistic and naïve, same as I don't think Minson is an arsehole, just an arse. Players may or may not be bigoted evil cruel competitors, but even if they are not, as Johnny said most will use their knowledge of their opponent's weaknesses to beat them, mental or physical. It seems like we are deciding as a society what boundaries are acceptable in that context, whereas before less existed.
(although, if you go back far enough to the gentlemen in knickerbockers, you'd find a few instances of some players saying "I say old chap, that's not really on. I've a good mind to have you stripped of your membership for such indecent behaviour") If someone had a go at BJ about his bro in jail and he was a bit sensitive about it, does that give any of his opponents the licence to needle him about it? Is that really that sporting? In the past, we may have said "yes", but now the worm is turning.
Personnally, I think things from a players personal life should be off limits, it should be recognised that all players are humans and if you want to sledge someone about their family or any aspect of their personal life, then you should be prepared to accept that if the player doesn't like it, he can have cause to complain. I'm sure all players would rather their families were kept out of it, it might even be something that the AFLPA deal with. This is how sport evolves, and in fact how everything evolves, we create more rules. The alternative is to go back to the past and say what you like, racist or sexist or downright evil, doesn't matter. But once you bring boundaries into it, then it has to be clear what the boundaries are. And I think this latest episode is one step further in clarifying those boundaries.
It will die down and be forgotten, no one thinks any worse of Dermott Brereton or Nicky Winmar or Spider Everitt or Scott Chisolm or Fraser Gehrig or Luke McPharlin or any of the perps or victims over the years, Minson and Pierce will go on and play as they did and not die in infamy or shame.
The question at the heart of this issue is that do we as individuals accept the various changes to the way our society functions? On this particular issue I do accept it, on others I don't. If enough individuals don't accept this change, then they can unify and try to gain enough influence in society to change it again. If I was to base society on all the internet users that frequent this forum, including the ones that have not posted on this thread, I'd say that 80% don't mind either way, 15% are happy to see this restriction on personal sledging, 5% are against it. If you look at the comments in the newspapers, I'd imagine that would be a lot different, but then you have no idea how many people read about the issue and were ambivalent or satisfied enough not to bother writing in. It's usually only the ranty angry types that write those comments. Either way, it looks to me like this rule is probably here to stay. You can grumble about it more, but I don't think you'll get much support.
