Come on Pykie, are you sure it's a man's game?

[DD#23]

Trans and gender diverse people are born into a special kind of hell.
Congratulations on adding another tiny layer of shit they have to deal with you ignorant dick.

satirically its from the very back of the bottom drawer, but he's mocking social justice warriors not trans people.

 

[DroppingTheBall]

AFL is a man's game. WAFL is a woman's game.

I think you may have left your fly open in making that comment,

It's the one game, two leagues.

 

[Samcro24]

I think you may have left your fly open in making that comment,

It's the one game, two leagues.

A mens and a womens. Until Erin Phillips runs our with Rory Sloane, the moral outrage over Pyke's comments is ridiculous.

 

[Doc_]

Big fan of Pykie, but a bit disappointed by his comment on jumper punching that "it's a man's game". As reported in today's Ragvertiser.

Bec Goddard might be a bit disappointed that he said so too. What would Don's attitude be to jumper punching of our AFLW players by the opposition? Does he really think that a certain amount of it should be allowed? And the justification being that it's a man's game?

I'm pretty sure, and certainly hope, that he doesn't think that there should be different codes of behaviour based on sex.

Frankly, I hope he was misreported. If anyone can shed light on that aspect, I would appreciate it.

What do you hope to achieve with this PC BS?

 

[radiojake]

I think you may have left your fly open in making that comment,

It's the one game, two leagues.

Australian Football is the game

AFL is a men's league
AFLW is women's league

 

[DroppingTheBall]

What do you hope to achieve with this PC BS?

Well for a start, gotcha!

For seconds, are you suggesting that the AFC does not want to be PC? I suggest that they do want to be PC. Especially in not distinguishing between the man's version of this game and the woman's version.

I reckon the AFLW Crows became champions by being tough, hard, courageous, aggressive and highly physical, along with all the other things it takes to win at aussie rules. I really don't think they want to be defined as participants in 'a man's game' for playing that way.

 

[DroppingTheBall]

It's not a misquote but you might want to hear exactly what Pyke said in his presser

Thanks for the link to the presser.

Having seen it now, and having opened this thread after reading the Ragvertiser's report, I still think it was a regrettable brain fade, if nothing more.

What it hints at, pretty clearly, is that the definition of a 'man's game' is how much physicality there is in it. I reject that view outright.

 

[StonesThrow]

Welcome to tha foocha.

Where we stare at our phones all day and get offended by EVERYTHING.

I think you'll find more 'people get so offended' comments than people who actually get offended.

 

[hippyhippy]

Thanks for the link to the presser.

Having seen it now, and having opened this thread after reading the Ragvertiser's report, I still think it was a regrettable brain fade, if nothing more.

What it hints at, pretty clearly, is that the definition of a 'man's game' is how much physicality there is in it. I reject that view outright.

so you opened this thread without even seeing the actual interview firsthand? ....

 

[radiojake]

so you opened this thread without even seeing the actual interview firsthand? ....

Rucci wins

 

[matty p]

He was quite obviously drawing a parallel between the AFL being a "man's game" (eg. adults) vs a "boy's game" (eg. kids). Likewise if he was referring to the AFLW he would've said it's a "women's game", not a "girl's game". Yes, they're technically leagues, not games, but that's getting into semantics when there's clearly no connection between his comments and any lack of respect for the AFLW in anything he said.

 

[radiojake]

He was quite obviously drawing a parallel between the AFL being a "man's game" (eg. adults) vs a "boy's game" (eg. kids).

it's funny though I've seen some punches thrown in boy's games -

 

[Godallblighty]

So are you worried about punching or the fact Pyke called it a mans game. You know he coaches the men's team, in the men's league, where all his players are men, right?

Punching. Like the one Vince got on the weekend. I'm not against players being rough and physical. You punch the ball and collect someone on the way, that's part of football. But punching someone when it's not part of the contest for the ball just seems to me to be completely outside the parameters of the game. And yes, I am a bit critical when someone defends that as being part of 'a man's game'. I think you're being a bit cute by suggesting that Pyke said that to simply identify the gender of the competitors.

oh please, nobody is defending Barry Hall on Brent Staker-like punches.
footy is a rough and violent game, end of story. Humans are born to compete, that's why we're the dominant species on this planet.

Right. So, that's why we have rules against tripping, head high tackles, chicken wings, kicking in danger etc? These don't honour our glorious rise to the top of the evolutionary ladder in the same way that a good punch to the guts does?

A mens and a womens. Until Erin Phillips runs our with Rory Sloane, the moral outrage over Pyke's comments is ridiculous.

Don't beat it up. It's not outrage, moral or otherwise. It's just an observation and a suggestion that it reflects a view that is a bit outdated.

 

[DroppingTheBall]

The lack of discipline in a punchup is suggestive of immaturity, hence 'boy's game.

 

[DroppingTheBall]

so you opened this thread without even seeing the actual interview firsthand? ....

So you wrote this comment without even reading the OP (which provides the answer)? [emoji5]

 

[DD#23]

Right. So, that's why we have rules against tripping, head high tackles, chicken wings, kicking in danger etc? These don't honour our glorious rise to the top of the evolutionary ladder in the same way that a good punch to the guts does?

you've had to try very hard here.

I'm not against gut punches carrying suspensions, I've said that many times in the past and that the AFL's standard practice of handing out $1000 fines has only encouraged it. Point is, players are only human, they're competitive, and to compete in the footy environment you have to be aggressive. Punches are going to be thrown occasionally, there's nothing you can do to prevent it. A little jab in the ribs is not a dog act.

 

[Godallblighty]

you've had to try very hard here.

I'm not against gut punches carrying suspensions, I've said that many times in the past and that the AFL's standard practice of handing out $1000 fines has only encouraged it. Point is, players are only human, they're competitive, and to compete in the footy environment you have to be aggressive. Punches are going to be thrown occasionally, there's nothing you can do to prevent it. A little jab in the ribs is not a dog act.

I wasn't trying very hard at all.
So, obviously, we agree to a certain extent. Maybe even completely. What is your definition of 'a little jab'? When does it become a punch big enough to warrant suspension?

 

[DD#23]

I wasn't trying very hard at all.
So, obviously, we agree to a certain extent. Maybe even completely. What is your definition of 'a little jab'? When does it become a punch big enough to warrant suspension?

well that depends, has to fall in line with all the other suspension rulings. In theory I could live with any punch off the ball copping a suspension, but that feels too harsh considering penalties for other things.

a jab is a jab, so there's no wind up, not a lot of force involved. Imagine you've got a player to your left, if you throw your left fist out to give them a whack in the guts or the ribs, big deal - you throw a bit of hook with the right and you've gone too far. Nothing to the head should be allowed of course.

 

[Godallblighty]

well that depends, has to fall in line with all the other suspension rulings. In theory I could live with any punch off the ball copping a suspension, but that feels too harsh considering penalties for other things.

a jab is a jab, so there's no wind up, not a lot of force involved. Imagine you've got a player to your left, if you throw your left fist out to give them a whack in the guts or the ribs, big deal - you throw a bit of hook with the right and you've gone too far. Nothing to the head should be allowed of course.

Sure, anything to the head should be high contact as a minimum. If you're talking about players jockeying for position before a contest where they're flinging arms and whatnot about...no, I don't think that's a punch either. Sneaky gut punches with a handful of jumper are, although I acknowledge that sometimes they don't land with much force. A free kick is ample response to those.

 

[DD#23]

Sure, anything to the head should be high contact as a minimum. If you're talking about players jockeying for position before a contest where they're flinging arms and whatnot about...no, I don't think that's a punch either. Sneaky gut punches with a handful of jumper are, although I acknowledge that sometimes they don't land with much force. A free kick is ample response to those.

nah, I'm trying to suggest something a little more severe than that, just stopping short before the big hip-driven swing of the arm.

 

[rocket18]

Come on Pykie, more like **** off Pykie.

Is this the who is going to be our next rookie coach thread?

 

[jenny61_99]

I agree, but Pyke makes an important point that you can't prevent heads of steam being built up on a footy field, its a crucial part of competing in any contact sport.

its not like people go around potting 10 blokes a game.

You can, and WILL, stop it happening once players start losing games for it. There's really no excuse.

 

[DD#23]

You can, and WILL, stop it happening once players start losing games for it. There's really no excuse.

you can't tell players to keep their hands to themselves at all times and in the same breath tell them to stick tackles that hurt. I've explained my position in other posts.

here's a reference for Pyke's position on the subject:

 

[jenny61_99]

you can't tell players to keep their hands to themselves at all times and in the same breath tell them to stick tackles that hurt. I've explained my position in other posts.

here's a reference for Pyke's position on the subject:

There's tackling and there's tackling. If your aim is to hurt the player, you are doing it wrong. If your aim is to stop the player getting the ball out, then you are doing it right. There are now rules against sling tackles where a player's head is slammed first into the ground - and a damned good thing too. This macho BS is just that. You CAN play the game fairly and without thuggery. Off the ball contact of ANY sort is not on.

 

[DD#23]

There's tackling and there's tackling. If your aim is to hurt the player, you are doing it wrong. If your aim is to stop the player getting the ball out, then you are doing it right. There are now rules against sling tackles where a player's head is slammed first into the ground - and a damned good thing too. This macho BS is just that. You CAN play the game fairly and without thuggery. Off the ball contact of ANY sort is not on.

you're right about sling tackles, they are seriously dangerous - way off on everything else.

if you think tackling to make sure the guy is worried about the next one isn't part of the game you're living in fantasy land, and that's not macho BS, its part of the thrill of playing this great game.