Brisbane Lions Female Team

[Leemas]

I don't think it appropriate for widely criticised 'newbies' to be telling long standing, well respected, solid contributors to this forum to be moving on.
Pull your head in.

Hahahahahahaha my sides. Holy lord you think that's gonna achieve anything?

 

[Fatcat08]

Ayyee, talk about taking a joke "too" literally.

Either lighten up or Take your dry sense of humor and move it elsewhere.

I'd suggest taking your warped sense of humour elsewhere, but I'd probably be "shouted down" for it.

 

[Crusha]

Ayyee, talk about taking a joke "too" literally.

Either lighten up or Take your dry sense of humor and move it elsewhere.

Hahahahahahaha my sides. Holy lord you think that's gonna achieve anything?

Both of these joined Sept 14.

Just coincidence .........???????????

 

[rusty08]

Aren't we a joyful bunch?
Didn't think much of the Polks jibe, not sure whether it deserved this much air time. Saw it for what it was. A tongue in cheek remark. Don't think any disrespect was meant.
Can we move on?

 

[M Malice]

Aren't we a joyful bunch?
Didn't think much of the Polks jibe, not sure whether it deserved this much air time. Saw it for what it was. A tongue in cheek remark. Don't think any disrespect was meant.
Can we move on?

yes, virtually anything should be open to humour, they are only words after all. i have posted this a couple of times in the short time (i don't think there's a limit on the number of times you can link the 1 item) i have been on BF but, i love the message.

 

[_Gin]

Sure jokes are jokes, but that doesn't mean people have to find them funny. I thought the joke was in poor taste myself, seemed more of a put down to both Polkinghorne and the idea of a female team than an attempt at humour.

I'm interested in seeing how this new league plays out. Whether women's sports succeeds on a commercial basis seems to rely on how they enter the existing market. Tennis and UFC seem to work because you have multiple events on the same day. Swapping out a match here or there on the card isn't a big deal at the beginning and you get exposure to build to a 50/50 split. I think this holds with the rugby 7s and golf as well.

Compare that to soccer, AFL, or american football. It's a serious time sink. I very rarely watch more than 1 game per week (even during finals), and it's only going to be from a conscious effort that I will watch more.

So there is no exposure unless you go looking for it, when a new women's league starts up.

The americans then have the lingerie league (or whatever it is called now) which I think does more harm than good. The idea being that you're only watching it to see girls run around in their knickers rather than an enjoyment of the game.

With any luck we can get more of the symbiotic relationship that american pro and college football have (acknowledging college football came first). They are very different games to watch, but both enjoyable in their own way.

 

[MacMum]

I think the only way to garner any interest in a female team is for them to play immediately before a main AFL match, like the reserves used to.

I hope it succeeds, but it will need to be marketed properly...

 

[dlanod]

Sure jokes are jokes, but that doesn't mean people have to find them funny. I thought the joke was in poor taste myself, seemed more of a put down to both Polkinghorne and the idea of a female team than an attempt at humour.

Agreed. No one's preventing him from posting it, but if you're going to post a joke that isn't funny and is in bad taste no one's going to prevent people calling you out on it. You can't complain about people pointing out the flaws in your post without acknowledging that they're just using the same privileges to post on the BF board as you are.

I'm interested in seeing how this new league plays out. Whether women's sports succeeds on a commercial basis seems to rely on how they enter the existing market. Tennis and UFC seem to work because you have multiple events on the same day. Swapping out a match here or there on the card isn't a big deal at the beginning and you get exposure to build to a 50/50 split. I think this holds with the rugby 7s and golf as well.

Compare that to soccer, AFL, or american football. It's a serious time sink. I very rarely watch more than 1 game per week (even during finals), and it's only going to be from a conscious effort that I will watch more.

So there is no exposure unless you go looking for it, when a new women's league starts up.

Tennis and UFC probably also leverage off the popularity of the combined events - the real tennis ratings come from the grand slams for both sexes, and UFC runs a combined card (AFAIK). Golf seems to do well as a tour but I don't know how the ratings or attendances go because it never pops up in Australia unless Webb or another Aussie does well.

The americans then have the lingerie league (or whatever it is called now) which I think does more harm than good. The idea being that you're only watching it to see girls run around in their knickers rather than an enjoyment of the game.

Beyond the obvious there's also some pretty fundamental flaws in the running of that league - unpaid athletes, no medical coverage, run as an autocracy by the "owner" of the league, mandatory looks requirements, dismissal of anyone who questions any of the above.

With any luck we can get more of the symbiotic relationship that american pro and college football have (acknowledging college football came first). They are very different games to watch, but both enjoyable in their own way.

NCAA women's competitions are one of the few very highly watched and attended women's competitions. My guess as to why is probably a combination of existing organizational links to draw on, history, and "free" (unpaid athletes) product for the copious number of US sports channels.

 

[Viceregal]

An interesting run of posts on this thread along the lines of jokes / throwaway lines....

We started with ...

Karnezis can come back as captain!
Seriously though, it's a great step forward and I apologise to all females for any offence caused by the Karnezis comparison.

followed by ...

Polec for VC!

Both of these posts received 2 and 1 like respectively from posters not known for their bad taste or 'neanderthal' tendencies (Milux , Sherrinator and Crusha )

Polkinghorne will be stoked knowing that he can get another opportunity at AFL level.

Now admittedly this joke has already been done twice before in the thread making it late and or redundant but in content/tenor/tone/attitude quite in line if not identical with the first two quoted posts.

Implying that a man has features enough to represent a woman and play in a woman's league is pretty crass.

Your posting is pretty terrible and this is just another good example of it.

inb4 "it was just a joke"

It seems strange that you would call HowYouDoin out on his post and not philcara16 or Sherrinator out on there ones ... did you perceive an inherent difference in the posts themselves or just in your perception of the quality of the poster?

I'd suggest taking your warped sense of humour elsewhere, but I'd probably be "shouted down" for it.

Sure jokes are jokes, but that doesn't mean people have to find them funny. I thought the joke was in poor taste myself, seemed more of a put down to both Polkinghorne and the idea of a female team than an attempt at humour. ...

Both following along on the current thread stream but again using your own subjective appraisal as to the quality of the humour as an objective judgement on the motive ... unless you really believe that the three posters in question were all primarily motivated by their desire to put down women's football and a desire to put down polks/karni/polec and only secondarily chose to disguise their angst as 'humour' so as to get away with it rather than attempting to make a humourous one liner which backfired for you who took it the wrong way/not the way they intended it/in a consequence unintended by the posters. You didn't like the jokes, which is fine - but why assume the worst motivation rather than the best?

Agreed. No one's preventing him from posting it, but if you're going to post a joke that isn't funny and is in bad taste no one's going to prevent people calling you out on it. You can't complain about people pointing out the flaws in your post without acknowledging that they're just using the same privileges to post on the BF board as you are..

Personally I didn't mind any of the jokes made and we are all guilty of posting after the wave has passed in a thread before now ... but when I see the same joke made three times and only one poster called out on it (despite the fact that the said poster's posts I tend to find annoying myself on a subjective level) it feels like we are playing the man and not the ball and, despite being a football forum, that is not cricket.

 

[James North]

It's always amusing when...?

 

[Milux]

I wonder how many 'Men' would step into the octogon with holly holms or rousey herself. Me wouldnt. Just saying.

 

[Fatcat08]

An interesting run of posts on this thread along the lines of jokes / throwaway lines....

We started with ...


followed by ...


Both of these posts received 2 and 1 like respectively from posters not known for their bad taste or 'neanderthal' tendencies (Milux , Sherrinator and Crusha )



Now admittedly this joke has already been done twice before in the thread making it late and or redundant but in content/tenor/tone/attitude quite in line if not identical with the first two quoted posts.



It seems strange that you would call HowYouDoin out on his post and not philcara16 or Sherrinator out on there ones ... did you perceive an inherent difference in the posts themselves or just in your perception of the quality of the poster?





Both following along on the current thread stream but again using your own subjective appraisal as to the quality of the humour as an objective judgement on the motive ... unless you really believe that the three posters in question were all primarily motivated by their desire to put down women's football and a desire to put down polks/karni/polec and only secondarily chose to disguise their angst as 'humour' so as to get away with it rather than attempting to make a humourous one liner which backfired for you who took it the wrong way/not the way they intended it/in a consequence unintended by the posters. You didn't like the jokes, which is fine - but why assume the worst motivation rather than the best?



Personally I didn't mind any of the jokes made and we are all guilty of posting after the wave has passed in a thread before now ... but when I see the same joke made three times and only one poster called out on it (despite the fact that the said poster's posts I tend to find annoying myself on a subjective level) it feels like we are playing the man and not the ball and, despite being a football forum, that is not cricket.

I was actually responding to his second post so thanks for taking people out of context and putting me in my place. Muchly appreciated!

 

[rusty08]

An interesting run of posts on this thread along the lines of jokes / throwaway lines....

We started with ...


followed by ...


Both of these posts received 2 and 1 like respectively from posters not known for their bad taste or 'neanderthal' tendencies (Milux , Sherrinator and Crusha )



Now admittedly this joke has already been done twice before in the thread making it late and or redundant but in content/tenor/tone/attitude quite in line if not identical with the first two quoted posts.



It seems strange that you would call HowYouDoin out on his post and not philcara16 or Sherrinator out on there ones ... did you perceive an inherent difference in the posts themselves or just in your perception of the quality of the poster?





Both following along on the current thread stream but again using your own subjective appraisal as to the quality of the humour as an objective judgement on the motive ... unless you really believe that the three posters in question were all primarily motivated by their desire to put down women's football and a desire to put down polks/karni/polec and only secondarily chose to disguise their angst as 'humour' so as to get away with it rather than attempting to make a humourous one liner which backfired for you who took it the wrong way/not the way they intended it/in a consequence unintended by the posters. You didn't like the jokes, which is fine - but why assume the worst motivation rather than the best?



Personally I didn't mind any of the jokes made and we are all guilty of posting after the wave has passed in a thread before now ... but when I see the same joke made three times and only one poster called out on it (despite the fact that the said poster's posts I tend to find annoying myself on a subjective level) it feels like we are playing the man and not the ball and, despite being a football forum, that is not cricket.

Great post

 

[winged1]

As someone who's played both, the concepts are actually surprisingly similar at a basic level.

So is basketball at a conceptual level, but both are totally different at a skill level and when you are teaching kids they need to have a solid skill foundation before you can even get into concepts (like dont kick across the goals in defence).

 

[Morgs_]

An interesting run of posts on this thread along the lines of jokes / throwaway lines....

We started with ...


followed by ...


Both of these posts received 2 and 1 like respectively from posters not known for their bad taste or 'neanderthal' tendencies (Milux , Sherrinator and Crusha )



Now admittedly this joke has already been done twice before in the thread making it late and or redundant but in content/tenor/tone/attitude quite in line if not identical with the first two quoted posts.



It seems strange that you would call HowYouDoin out on his post and not philcara16 or Sherrinator out on there ones ... did you perceive an inherent difference in the posts themselves or just in your perception of the quality of the poster?





Both following along on the current thread stream but again using your own subjective appraisal as to the quality of the humour as an objective judgement on the motive ... unless you really believe that the three posters in question were all primarily motivated by their desire to put down women's football and a desire to put down polks/karni/polec and only secondarily chose to disguise their angst as 'humour' so as to get away with it rather than attempting to make a humourous one liner which backfired for you who took it the wrong way/not the way they intended it/in a consequence unintended by the posters. You didn't like the jokes, which is fine - but why assume the worst motivation rather than the best?



Personally I didn't mind any of the jokes made and we are all guilty of posting after the wave has passed in a thread before now ... but when I see the same joke made three times and only one poster called out on it (despite the fact that the said poster's posts I tend to find annoying myself on a subjective level) it feels like we are playing the man and not the ball and, despite being a football forum, that is not cricket.

Or perhaps I didn't read their poor attempts at humour? Thank you for letting me know though.

 

[Full Wingspan]

I completely understand that there are limits to certain forms of humour and there is a noticeable difference to being plain nasty and smart and witty in most cases.

But at other times, people need to acknowledge that we as people inherently have differences and in this specific example I am absolutely asserting that women are overwhelmingly not as good footballers as men. We are statisically, bigger and stronger - useful traits necessary in playing the game.

I don't think my comments fall within the 'nasty' category for most ladies, and if they did, I apologise that I caused offence. All I consider myself guilty of is perhaps trivialising the potential AFL women's league, however that would be a pretty long-winded conclusion IMO.

 

[M Malice]

I completely understand that there are limits to certain forms of humour and there is a noticeable difference to being plain nasty and smart and witty in most cases.

But at other times, people need to acknowledge that we as people inherently have differences and in this specific example I am absolutely asserting that women are overwhelmingly not as good footballers as men. We are statisically, bigger and stronger - useful traits necessary in playing the game.

I don't think my comments fall within the 'nasty' category for most ladies, and if they did, I apologise that I caused offence. All I consider myself guilty of is perhaps trivialising the potential AFL women's league, however that would be a pretty long-winded conclusion IMO.

yes, what is humourous to 1 person might be in bad taste to another. discussion and comment on humour/appropriateness of a joke is fine, put forward your opinion and no need to be offended or take it personal if their is a respectful disagreement.

 

[rusty08]

yes, what is humourous to 1 person might be in bad taste to another. discussion and comment on humour/appropriateness of a joke is fine, put forward your opinion and no need to be offended or take it personal if their is a respectful disagreement.

If only life were so simple

 

[_Gin]

An interesting run of posts on this thread along the lines of jokes / throwaway lines....
Both following along on the current thread stream but again using your own subjective appraisal as to the quality of the humour as an objective judgement on the motive ... unless you really believe that the three posters in question were all primarily motivated by their desire to put down women's football and a desire to put down polks/karni/polec and only secondarily chose to disguise their angst as 'humour' so as to get away with it rather than attempting to make a humourous one liner which backfired for you who took it the wrong way/not the way they intended it/in a consequence unintended by the posters. You didn't like the jokes, which is fine - but why assume the worst motivation rather than the best?

I was more making the point that people don't have to find a joke funny just because it was made. I'm not telling anyone that jokes can't be made just adding my voice to a side of a discussion about whether a joke was funny or not.

My personal opinion of the joke is my own. The humor derives between comparing male professional athletes that have 'failed' and saying because they're inferior that they are on the same level as women or by implying that women will have all the failing attributes of players people don't like (mental softness). It's either a dig at one, the other or both.

It's always amusing when...?

If there is another source of the humour then I'll put my hands up and say I'm a hypocrite.

But at other times, people need to acknowledge that we as people inherently have differences and in this specific example I am absolutely asserting that women are overwhelmingly not as good footballers as men. We are statisically, bigger and stronger - useful traits necessary in playing the game.

That's nice Phil, however none of the footballers mentioned (Karnezis, Polec and Polkinghorne) failed because they weren't big or strong enough. They are all players who have been identified or attacked in some way as being mentally soft.

The physical differences between men and women may have some relevance if we were talking about them playing in the same league, but we're not.

 

[dlanod]

An interesting run of posts on this thread along the lines of jokes / throwaway lines....

Something to bear in mind is that probably half or more of the posts came from the Media Alert thread and the other half were in this thread, so trying to determine a consistent line through the early pages is going to be misleading.

 

[_Gin]

NCAA women's competitions are one of the few very highly watched and attended women's competitions. My guess as to why is probably a combination of existing organizational links to draw on, history, and "free" (unpaid athletes) product for the copious number of US sports channels.

Cool I wasn't aware of that. Hopefully there are some lessons that can be learned there. America is big enough and diverse enough that there is a market for everything.

 

[_Gin]

I think the only way to garner any interest in a female team is for them to play immediately before a main AFL match, like the reserves used to.

I hope it succeeds, but it will need to be marketed properly...

It's a long slog though to sit through 2 full games. It's probably a good strategy in the short term, but it might be limiting long term.

 

[Crusha]

I wonder how many 'Men' would step into the octogon with holly holms or rousey herself. Me wouldnt. Just saying.

Dustin Martin .... (and his Chopsticks ?????)

 

[Milux]

Dustin Martin .... (and his Chopsticks ?????)

Id still put money on rousey.

 

[Viceregal]

Something to bear in mind is that probably half or more of the posts came from the Media Alert thread and the other half were in this thread, so trying to determine a consistent line through the early pages is going to be misleading.

Ah ok - so quite possibly people *hadn't* seen all three jokes ... Viceregal batting a thousand atm *sigh*