News Clarko in strife again

[Chief]

AFL Statement

The AFL this week made inquiries into an incident involving North Melbourne Senior Coach Alastair Clarkson during Saturday afternoon’s match in Hobart.

The AFL was made aware of the alleged comments by a match day official post-game who heard the comments, with the AFLIU following up the report.

Clarkson has admitted to loudly swearing and using inappropriate language while standing near the umpires and officials’ bench in response to an umpiring decision during the third quarter.

After talking to match officials, the AFL was not able to be comfortably satisfied that Clarkson’s swearing was directed towards a specific person or persons and in particular an AFL match official or officials and as such no finding of a breach of AFL Rules has been made.

 

[1990crow]

Should had been a long time ago just continuous terrible behaviour with a very long list any other workplace wouldn’t have tolerated 1 or two incident instead of the several he has over the years

Seems like a pretty average human being.

 

[SuperMal]

Players swear all the time as well. We often see them mouthing it, and sometimes hear it through microphones. Do we ping every single player doing this?

You know... for the sake of the kids ?

If this was one of the Scott brothers would anyone give a shit?

That's way too logical, normal and human for half of this crowd.

 

[Chadwiko]

Dismissed? Is it not heading to the Federal Court?

Not definitely, no.

That's the 'next escalation avenue' IF the accusing parties want to pursue it further. It doesn't automatically happen.

And as a reminder, not one but two separate independent reports found that the accusations had "no basis whatsoever";

 

[HBFlanker]

Dismissed? Is it not heading to the Federal Court?

Unlikely to get there with the lack of substantiated evidence provided.

The reports circulated outline this.

Its essentially over.

 

[Sentinel]

Not definitely, no.

That's the 'next escalation avenue' IF the accusing parties want to pursue it further. It doesn't automatically happen.

And as a reminder, not one but two separate independent reports found that the accusations had "no basis whatsoever";

View attachment 2004756

Fair enough, I had misread earlier then that the Federal Court was definitely going to happen. Still seems a little early to call it 'dismissed' at this stage, despite the reports you mention, but can see that's a possible outcome.

 

[cactuscall]

People swear in the office all the time, what uppity workplaces are some of you employed in?!

My boss got off the phone the other day and said "what a f'ing idiot. dead set f'ing moron" and no one batted an eye. Seriously, tough grass if this one upsets you

Was this within the sanctity of the workplace office or were there media, cameras, microphones and members of the public around at the time?

There is a difference. Clarkson is a public figure with eyelids glued to him. Your boss is a nobody with not an eyelid batting.

 

[Engimal v3]

Just retire the flog and fold North. A blight on the comp in every sense of the word from Sonja and Clarko down.

Good grief, put it in your diary!

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Yep, a free kick. Or a 50m penalty.

Do they get multiple weeks of suspensions?

Unless there is evidence it was directed at someone, I cant imagine the AFL going after Clarko because he may well just refuse. And then that could end up in court as well.

I dont imagine he would be too happy with anyone at the moment, and would be willing to fight.

They would if they were already subject to a suspended 2 match ban for prior offences yeah?

 

[cactuscall]

They would if they were already subject to a suspended 2 match ban for prior offences yeah?

 

[Madas]

That's because GIFs don't have sound.

View attachment 2004549

 

[HairyO]

They would if they were already subject to a suspended 2 match ban for prior offences yeah?

Just because you have a suspended sentence doesnt mean the AFL can give him the 2 weeks off for anything they want. He would need to break an actual rule.

They have just leaked a report which found the last 20 months of turmoil to have had nothing behind it. I cant imagine they then want to pile on him over nothing.

 

[TheKanga]

Just retire the flog and fold North. A blight on the comp in every sense of the word from Sonja and Clarko down.

Yes let's fold a 120+ year old club rich In history because Clarko said campaigner.

Let's just fold Carlton instead as Carlton supporters exceeding have some of the worst takes on BF.

 

[Strange Cat]

Seems like a pretty average human being.

You could almost excuse this incident with a please explain/warning but I think with his long list of past behavioural incidents it’s a concerning trend that he still doesn’t get it.

 

[raskolnikov]

The gloating from North supporters that Clarko chose them instead of us seems to have abated over the last little while.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Just because you have a suspended sentence doesnt mean the AFL can give him the 2 weeks off for anything they want. He would need to break an actual rule.

They have just leaked a report which found the last 20 months of turmoil to have had nothing behind it. I cant imagine they then want to pile on him over nothing.

it is an actual rule. Rule 2.3(a). Conduct unbecoming.

The way the suspended sentence was specifically designed was to suspend the penalty on the proviso that he doesn't engage in ANY further incidences of conduct unbecoming up until the end of 2025.

The league found Clarkson, 55, guilty of breaching AFL rule 2.3(a), which is conduct unbecoming, and his wholly suspended two-match sanction would be triggered if he breaches that rule again between now and the end of the 2025 season.

Now you can quibble on whether this meets the standards of conduct unbecoming, and I'm sure you will, but the fact of the matter is that if the AFL deem this to be conduct unbecoming, which is clearly a general and catch-all category (and they are the sole arbiters of such a determination), then they have no choice in the matter other than to level the original penalty, whether or not they deem any further penalty is warranted.

 

[Beerfish]

Such unfortunate timing for North being caught up in one of the biggest media witch-hunts in the history of world sport.

 

[perplexed]

With the bye this week, I thought we would struggle to stay in the news. But here we are, dominating the MSD, now this. Not sure why we need the other 17 teams, North are the only one anyone cares about.

 

[SSSSSS]

Might be a blessing in disguise for North. Get old crazy Clarko a two week holiday up in the sunshine up north and pass the reigns temporarily to a young hungry coach with some modern ideas.

They might even win a game.

 

[Chadwiko]

Just retire the flog and fold North. A blight on the comp in every sense of the word from Sonja and Clarko down.

 

[Poopybum22]

Holy ****.

A coach swore. Disgusting. Sack him.

 

[HairyO]

it is an actual rule. Rule 2.3(a). Conduct unbecoming.

The way the suspended sentence was specifically designed was to suspend the penalty on the proviso that he doesn't engage in ANY further incidences of conduct unbecoming up until the end of 2025.



Now you can quibble on whether this meets the standards of conduct unbecoming, and I'm sure you will, but the fact of the matter is that if the AFL deem this to be conduct unbecoming, which is clearly a general and catch-all category (and they are the sole arbiters of such a determination), then they have no choice in the matter other than to level the original penalty, whether or not they deem any further penalty is warranted.

The AFL have a bunch of catch-all rules which allow them to do anything they want. But the rules only exist as long as they arent taken to court. Because there are all sorts of restraint of trade laws which trump the AFL's rules.

They know this, the AFLPA know this, the AFLCA know this, and all the media know this.

Its a fine line they have to tread.

As I said, if they can show he abused someone then he is likely gone. But if he was ranting and swearing, then I cant see how they give him a long suspension. Because they would have to show how similar penalties have been given to others who swear.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Coach from the box, not the bench

Was my first thought too.. If you want to carry on like a petulant child, do it from inside the box.

Not buying for one second the North Melbourne supporter defence "but it wasn't aimed at anyone"... Free kick paid, Clarko responds by saying fruiting campaigner... But nah, wasn't directed at the umpire

PERHAPS that might carry some weight, if the alleged perpetrator didn't have a wrap sheet as long as Peter Wright's arm...

 

[Carn The Berries]

I challenge all of the outraged North fans today to go into their workplace this morning and bellow F'ing C either at a colleague or even "into the ether" and report back to us on what happened

Or better yet, try it with a cop the next time you get pulled over and given a speeding fine. It's just a little bit of swearing isn't it?

 

[HBFlanker]

Its 100% true.

 

[HBFlanker]

Or better yet, try it with a cop the next time you get pulled over and given a speeding fine. It's just a little bit of swearing isn't it?

So swearing at a sports game is the same as swearing at a cop?? Thats a significantly long bow you are drawing there.

I fear for the day you head down to a local suburban football game.