Jack Ginnivan - Redemption arc

[_Mike_]

There is a lack of empathy for sis as a captain

He's made his bed over the years and people have long memories, he hasnt been the most likeable bloke going around because of how he goes about his game.

 

[Rotayjay]

This reminds me a little of the Zidane incident at the 2006 World Cup final - lots of speculation about what was said, but do we actually know precisely what each person said?

 

[toomanysquibs]

Was it over when Mitchell was sooking and bending the truth in his presser about the aggressive older man and a young innocent Jack? Or was that still part of the game? Ken’s actions were classless, but Mitchell’s were worse and he had a whole 20-30 minutes to think about i

Oh Lord....

Ken was on the ground, right after the match, throwing around dog poop pantomime and insults at opposition players. Worse still he was walking to line up to honor a guy playing his 300th at the time.

Sam Mitchell was in a media room well away from the playing field, with no Port people in there, answering questions from people who weren't players.

It was literally his job to be talking at that point.

You've out some serious sauce on what he said.

But you're completely missing the point anyway, so it kind of doesn't matter even if your version was correct.

 

[nineteen eighty]

This reminds me a little of the Zidane incident at the 2006 World Cup final - lots of speculation about what was said, but do we actually know precisely what each person said?

Materazzi: "He offered me his jersey, I say, 'no, I prefer your sister'."

 

[toomanysquibs]

Would have been unreal if he did.

better still, nobody would likely have had a problem with it

 

[HeHateMe]

He's made his bed over the years and people have long memories, he hasnt been the most likeable bloke going around because of how he goes about his game.

Okay that makes sense, I obviously love him but he has had his fair share of incidents. Pretty much what I was alluding too regarding the personal biases.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

Was it over when Mitchell was sooking and bending the truth in his presser about the aggressive older man and a young innocent Jack? Or was that still part of the game? Ken’s actions were classless, but Mitchell’s were worse and he had a whole 20-30 minutes to think about it.

It's apparent that lots of people are commenting on Mitchell's press conference without having seen the whole thing. Or having only seen clips out of context that have been handpicked by tge media.

Sam came in, obviously disappointed that his team had just narrowly lost a final by under a goal.

You would be too in his position.

The first question, he was asked about the loss, and he expressed that disappointment.

Sam was then asked about the incident in this context.

Sam said: I can only speak on my club's behalf. And if I think about how my club, the Hawthorn Football Club, dealt with the post game: We had a very young player who had some very aggressive words said to him by a much older man who's been in the game for a long time.

And the captain of my club stood up for him.

Now I understand, just having been rushed by the AFL to be at this press conference on time, of this time of year are really, really difficult.

And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of.

Mitchell was then asked a follow-up on if he'll seek to speak to Ken about the incident.

Absolutely not.

The journalist then attempted to ask a third question on the topic and was shut down.

Here's the link where you can see for yourself:

Sam actually held back from commenting on the incident itself, except to point out the age difference between Hinkley and Ginnivan.

He rightly defended his captain's actions in standing up for a younger teammate, an act that showed leadership.

And it is clear that Mitchell's disappointment was at his team having just lost a close final, rather than "sooking" about the incident.

Frankly, Mitchell was justified in slamming Hinkley for his bizzare emotional outburst. But Mitchell was the bigger man.

He never made any comments about Ginnivan being blameless. Apparently you need to make stuff up to attack him over?

And how is it incorrect to point out that Jack, as 21, is a young adult; or that Hinkley at 57 is a far older man who has been in the game a long time.

It's objectively true.

If plainly stating the facts of the matter make Ken Hinkley sound like a cowardly arseh*le, then perhaps Ken should focus on not being a cowardly arseh*le.

Mitchell was right to defend his captain, and Sicily did the right thing in standing up for a younger teammate.

So what would you have him say differently? Not defend Sicily?

Frankly, the fact you had to build a strawman argument out of things Sam Mitchell objectively didn't say speaks volumes.

 

[Daka]

Ginnivan's greatest strength & attribute is conning the umpires & being a clown off-field.

What a player!

 

[z547043]

It's apparent that lots of people are commenting on Mitchell's press conference without having seen the whole thing. Or having only seen clips out of context that have been handpicked by tge media.

Sam came in, obviously disappointed that his team had just narrowly lost a final by under a goal.

You would be too in his position.

The first question, he was asked about the loss, and he expressed that disappointment.

Sam was then asked about the incident in this context.

Sam said: I can only speak on my club's behalf. And if I think about how my club, the Hawthorn Football Club, dealt with the post game: We had a very young player who had some very aggressive words said to him by a much older man who's been in the game for a long time.

And the captain of my club stood up for him.

Now I understand, just having been rushed by the AFL to be at this press conference on time, of this time of year are really, really difficult.

And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of.

Mitchell was then asked a follow-up on if he'll seek to speak to Ken about the incident.

Absolutely not.

The journalist then attempted to ask a third question on the topic and was shut down.

Here's the link where you can see for yourself:

Sam actually held back from commenting on the incident itself, except to point out the age difference between Hinkley and Ginnivan.

He rightly defended his captain's actions in standing up for a younger teammate, an act that showed leadership.

And it is clear that Mitchell's disappointment was at his team having just lost a close final, rather than "sooking" about the incident.

Frankly, Mitchell was justified in slamming Hinkley for his bizzare emotional outburst. But Mitchell was the bigger man.

He never made any comments about Ginnivan being blameless. Apparently you need to make stuff up to attack him over?

And how is it incorrect to point out that Jack, as 21, is a young adult; or that Hinkley at 57 is a far older man who has been in the game a long time.

It's objectively true.

If plainly stating the facts of the matter make Ken Hinkley sound like a cowardly arseh*le, then perhaps Ken should focus on not being a cowardly arseh*le.

Mitchell was right to defend his captain, and Sicily did the right thing in standing up for a younger teammate.

So what would you have him say differently? Not defend Sicily?

Frankly, the fact you had to build a strawman argument out of things Sam Mitchell objectively didn't say speaks volumes.

I watched the PC in it’s entirety. Playing Ginnivan as a victim against a much older man is ridiculous. Labelling what occurred on the field as aggressive is ludicrous. Maybe you have commentated on the PC, without seeing what happened on the field…

By all means support your captain, club and players, but spinning words and rubbish like that to generate the notion that your club is the victim here, is 100% sooking. So we will have to agree to disagree

But also enjoy how under your narrative only Mitchell, Sicily get the defence of being emotional after the game, but the cowardly a-hole as you put it does not get the same luxury. It’s pretty much exactly why most of the footballing public have an issue with you and other Hawk Supporters, Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell for clear double standards.

 

[z547043]

Oh Lord....

Ken was on the ground, right after the match, throwing around dog poop pantomime and insults at opposition players. Worse still he was walking to line up to honor a guy playing his 300th at the time.

Sam Mitchell was in a media room well away from the playing field, with no Port people in there, answering questions from people who weren't players.

It was literally his job to be talking at that point.

You've out some serious sauce on what he said.

But you're completely missing the point anyway, so it kind of doesn't matter even if your version was correct.

Is this the Jordan Lewis spin where he disrespected the 300 game guard of honour because of something said 1-2 minutes before?

Honestly, if I’ve added some sauce, it’s because there was already plenty of mayo embellished by the three amigos in comms and in the PC.

 

[z547043]

The whole thing is a big juvenile nothing burger. I like drama like this generally but everybody involved in this one should be embarrassed.
Starts with Ginni setting himself up to get smashed by the karma bus.

Then Kenny channelling an 11 year old boy and taunting an opponent after the game. The fact that a Ginnivan social media post could have him so riled up tells you the man is a bit of a clown.

Then Mitchell completely embarrasses himself with his over the top "I've taken great offence" response.
The "A much older man had some very harsh words" line was just weird. As if " you're not flying anywhere Jack" constitutes "harsh words". As if Jack Ginnivan is some kind of innocent young little petal who needs special protection.
Then it was Sicily's carrying on like a pork chop behaviour more than anything that ruined Bruests moment.

Finally, As if Sam Mitchell, Sicily, Ginnivan and Hawthorn in general have a right to sook it up about being sledged! Glass jawed hypocrites.

Great summation. Pretty spot on, just need to add Hodge and Lewis in the last sentence and you’ve nailed the majority of the footballing public’s take sans Hok Ball fans.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

I watched the PC in it’s entirety. Playing Ginnivan as a victim against a much older man is ridiculous.

Again, Sam Mitchell didn't use the word "victim", or for that matter "innocent".

You're once again putting words into Sam's mouth that he didn't actually say, and then attacking him for things he didn't say.

Again, here's Sam's actual quote:

"We had a very young player who had some very aggressive words said to him by a much older man who's been in the game for a long time."

Accurate, fact-based description of the incident.

At 21, Ginnivan is rightly considered a very young player. He is a young adult in a societal context, a young player in an AFL context, and very young relative to the age of Ken Hinkley.

However you want to slice it, that part is factual and accurate.

And at 57, Ken Hinkley is objectively a much older man than 21-year-old Jack.

Again, factual and accurate.

And it's objectively true that Ken Hinkley has been in the game a long time. I mean FFS, Jack wasn't even born when Ken used to play for Fitzroy back in the '80s.

So again,objectively factual and accurate.

As a society, we expect people who are nearly 60 to act in a more mature fashion than 21 year olds.

The fact that Ken clearly didn't, and stating the objective facts of the matter makes Ken look bad is on Ken.

Labelling what occurred on the field as aggressive is ludicrous.

Again, the quote was "had some very aggressive words said to him".

What, do you think Ken's comments were gracious? Sportsmanlike?

Do you think they were the words of an emotionally mature individual? A respected and respectful leader?

No, Ken was clapping back aggressively to pre-match banter.

But he did it after the match, with his players physically standing behind him, because he's a coward.

But also enjoy how under your narrative only Mitchell, Sicily get the defence of being emotional after the game, but the cowardly a-hole as you put it does not get the same luxury. It’s pretty much exactly why most of the footballing public have an issue with you and other Hawk Supporters, Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell for clear double standards.

Sicily was being a leader who stood up for his young teammate.

Mitchell's point was, despite feeling just as emotional, Sicily showed leadership in the circumstances.

Here's where Sam explicitly states it: "And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of."

Because unlike Ken (who only responds to pre-match banter after the final siren once the match is over an he thinks it can't be used against him), James is a real leader who stands up for his teammates.

 

[LB#16]

Always liked Jack. Even when he was at the Pies. Wanted the Hawks to draft him.

He's a really nice guy off the field. Showman on the field. I don't think he's all that bothered.

AFL community bemoans the death of personality in footy and at the same decries when any player shows an inkling of it.

Jack is good for footy.

Also big LOL at the media frenzy Jack caused going to the pub for a parma and pot. Nowhere near the amount of coverage compared to Stengle who had a bit too much fun at Sleepy Hollow with a wholesome hospital stay.

Everyone from his hometown would scoff so hard at this, they'd choke on their own breath.

 

[Toump Ass]

"We had a very young player who had some very aggressive words said to him by a much older man who's been in the game for a long time."

Accurate, fact-based description of the incident.

What a load of crap. There was nothing "aggressive" about what Kenny said.

This is conjecture at best, lies at worst.

I don't think you know what accuracy and fact are, so please stop using those words.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

Then Mitchell completely embarrasses himself with his over the top "I've taken great offence" response.

He never said "I've taken great offence" and never made any claims about Jack being innocent.

I've directly quoted Sam's level-headed and factually accurate comments above.

It was a one-line statement about what happened in the context of his main point: That James Sicily had shown leadership in the situation.

The fact that people need to constantly make things up that Sam objectively didn't say to attack him speaks volumes.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Again, Sam Mitchell didn't use the word "victim", or for that matter "innocent".

You're once again putting words into Sam's mouth that he didn't actually say, and then attacking him for things he didn't say.

Again, here's Sam's actual quote:

"We had a very young player who had some very aggressive words said to him by a much older man who's been in the game for a long time."

Accurate, fact-based description of the incident.

At 21, Ginnivan is rightly considered a very young player. He is a young adult in a societal context, a young player in an AFL context, and very young relative to the age of Ken Hinkley.

However you want to slice it, that part is factual and accurate.

And at 57, Ken Hinkley is objectively a much older man than 21-year-old Jack.

Again, factual and accurate.

And it's objectively true that Ken Hinkley has been in the game a long time. I mean FFS, Jack wasn't even born when Ken used to play for Fitzroy back in the '80s.

So again,objectively factual and accurate.

As a society, we expect people who are nearly 60 to act in a more mature fashion than 21 year olds.

The fact that Ken clearly didn't, and stating the objective facts of the matter makes Ken look bad is on Ken.


Again, the quote was "had some very aggressive words said to him".

What, do you think Ken's comments were gracious? Sportsmanlike?

Do you think they were the words of an emotionally mature individual? A respected and respectful leader?

No, Ken was clapping back aggressively to pre-match banter.

But he did it after the match, with his players physically standing behind him, because he's a coward.


Sicily was being a leader who stood up for his young teammate.

Mitchell's point was, despite feeling just as emotional, Sicily showed leadership in the circumstances.

Here's where Sam explicitly states it: "And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of."

Because unlike Ken (who only responds to pre-match banter after the final siren once the match is over an he thinks it can't be used against him), James is a real leader who stands up for his teammates.

For a "a media-driven storm in a teacup that will soon be forgotten" you certainly appear wound up.

 

[RCAB]

It's apparent that lots of people are commenting on Mitchell's press conference without having seen the whole thing. Or having only seen clips out of context that have been handpicked by tge media.

Sam came in, obviously disappointed that his team had just narrowly lost a final by under a goal.

You would be too in his position.

The first question, he was asked about the loss, and he expressed that disappointment.

Sam was then asked about the incident in this context.

Sam said: I can only speak on my club's behalf. And if I think about how my club, the Hawthorn Football Club, dealt with the post game: We had a very young player who had some very aggressive words said to him by a much older man who's been in the game for a long time.

And the captain of my club stood up for him.

Now I understand, just having been rushed by the AFL to be at this press conference on time, of this time of year are really, really difficult.

And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of.

Mitchell was then asked a follow-up on if he'll seek to speak to Ken about the incident.

Absolutely not.

The journalist then attempted to ask a third question on the topic and was shut down.

Here's the link where you can see for yourself:

Sam actually held back from commenting on the incident itself, except to point out the age difference between Hinkley and Ginnivan.

He rightly defended his captain's actions in standing up for a younger teammate, an act that showed leadership.

And it is clear that Mitchell's disappointment was at his team having just lost a close final, rather than "sooking" about the incident.

Frankly, Mitchell was justified in slamming Hinkley for his bizzare emotional outburst. But Mitchell was the bigger man.

He never made any comments about Ginnivan being blameless. Apparently you need to make stuff up to attack him over?

And how is it incorrect to point out that Jack, as 21, is a young adult; or that Hinkley at 57 is a far older man who has been in the game a long time.

It's objectively true.

If plainly stating the facts of the matter make Ken Hinkley sound like a cowardly arseh*le, then perhaps Ken should focus on not being a cowardly arseh*le.

Mitchell was right to defend his captain, and Sicily did the right thing in standing up for a younger teammate.

So what would you have him say differently? Not defend Sicily?

Frankly, the fact you had to build a strawman argument out of things Sam Mitchell objectively didn't say speaks volumes.

Well said.

 

[DopeMaster]

Honestly, a bit of a media-driven storm in a teacup that will soon be forgotten.

But let's tease this out a bit.

The initial social post by Ginni was an immature comment by a 21-year-old.

I'm sure most people reading this have made immature comments when they were that age. I know I have. Social media hadn't been invented yet when I was 21, but if it had been around when I was that age I'm sure I would have posted some dumb comments on social media.

More importantly, the comments were made ahead of the match.

It's not uncommon for athletes, in many sports, to talk smack about their opponents before a match, or a contest, or a fight.

That's the spirit in which Ginni's comments were made.

Ken could have responded through the media. Or at a press conference. Or he could have replied to the post on social media. Or made his comments in a pre-match interview. Or told one of his players to tell Ginni he's not flying anywhere during the match itself.

Ken Hinkley chose not to.

As we now know, it's not because he had nothing to say. It's not because he was the bigger man.

No, Ken Hinkley chose to stay silent because he's a coward.

He was under pressure because Port had choked the previous week. His job was on the line. And he knew victory wasn't certain.

And with good reason. Had Sic struck that final shot for goal a few millimetres differently, Port would have lost.

Having just seen his team to a close, hard-fought finals win against a tough opponent, Ken could have been the bigger man.

He saw how devastated the Hawks were with the result. Having been silent all week, he could have been the bigger man and let the scoreboard do the talking.

But Ken Hinkley is a coward.

He only felt confident to begin his pre-match smack talking after the final siren had sounded.

He waited until the players were gathering to chair off a legend of the game, Luke Breust, in his 300th game.

Breust is known as one of the best small forwards of the modern era, and has been an integral part of multiple premiership-winning sides.

A far better footballer than Hinkley was, either in the final years of Fitzroy, or as a part of the early '90s Geelong squad that's remembered for losing grand finals to West Coast and Carlton.

It's a record of choking that Hinkley has proudly continued as Port Adelaide's coach.

It was with his players standings behind him, with the win firmly secured, that Ken chose to be a bad winner, and make his belated response to the pre-match smack talk.

With a level of emotional maturity the football world has come to expect, it was then that Ken Hinkley, nearly 60-years-old, decided to taunt a young 21-year-old.

What he came up with wasn't witty, or clever, or funny. Just mean-spirited. "You're not flying anywhere!"

You expect that level of maturity from a 21-year-old. But it's worth repeating. Ken Hinkley is nearly 60.

If that's the level of leadership Kenneth shows, then frankly Port supporters have been completely right in questioning his ongoing role.

Not having made enough of a fool of himself already, he repeated his comments, safe in the knowledge that several Port playeds were standing behind him if anything happened. Because he's a coward.

It was at this point James Sicily, a man who is far more of a leader than Hinkley will ever be, confronted the pathetic old man. Sicily was basically obligated to stand up for his team member, and did so.

Sicily's reaction was particularly justified in light of the utter disrespect the former Fitzroy player was showing to a legend of the game in Luke Breust.

In his press conference, Sam Mitchell mostly refrained from commenting about Hinkley's pathetic display directly, except to the say — rightly — that he was proud in the leadership Sicily showed in the situation.

Hawthorn legends including Dermott Brereton Jason Dunstall, Luke Hodge, and Jordan Lewis, who witnessed the incident, were rightly scathing of Ken Hinkley and his frankly bizzare, eccentric, and cowardly antics.

Again, these experts were all far more successful as players than Hinkley was.

Clearly, the onus is now on Ken to ensure that Port win the premiership this year.

He needs to focus less on the future plane flights of a 21-year-old, and more on his own future travel itinerary.

Because another finals choke for Port, in light of this embarrassing display, will further prove why Hinkley is just not suited for continuing to coach Port Adelaide.

Nah Hinkley throwing some banter back was fine, as was Ginnivan giving it. The captain and coach from the Hawks embarrassed themselves thereafter.

 

[z547043]

Again, Sam Mitchell didn't use the word "victim", or for that matter "innocent".

You're once again putting words into Sam's mouth that he didn't actually say, and then attacking him for things he didn't say.

Again, here's Sam's actual quote:

"We had a very young player who had some very aggressive words said to him by a much older man who's been in the game for a long time."

Accurate, fact-based description of the incident.

At 21, Ginnivan is rightly considered a very young player. He is a young adult in a societal context, a young player in an AFL context, and very young relative to the age of Ken Hinkley.

However you want to slice it, that part is factual and accurate.

And at 57, Ken Hinkley is objectively a much older man than 21-year-old Jack.

Again, factual and accurate.

And it's objectively true that Ken Hinkley has been in the game a long time. I mean FFS, Jack wasn't even born when Ken used to play for Fitzroy back in the '80s.

So again,objectively factual and accurate.

As a society, we expect people who are nearly 60 to act in a more mature fashion than 21 year olds.

The fact that Ken clearly didn't, and stating the objective facts of the matter makes Ken look bad is on Ken.


Again, the quote was "had some very aggressive words said to him".

What, do you think Ken's comments were gracious? Sportsmanlike?

Do you think they were the words of an emotionally mature individual? A respected and respectful leader?

No, Ken was clapping back aggressively to pre-match banter.

But he did it after the match, with his players physically standing behind him, because he's a coward.


Sicily was being a leader who stood up for his young teammate.

Mitchell's point was, despite feeling just as emotional, Sicily showed leadership in the circumstances.

Here's where Sam explicitly states it: "And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of."

Because unlike Ken (who only responds to pre-match banter after the final siren once the match is over an he thinks it can't be used against him), James is a real leader who stands up for his teammates.

Should work in Hawthorn PR department.

You are doing everything you are labelling me of.

It wasn’t aggressive from Ken.

The age thing has zero to do with it.

Words have clear inferences and his choice of words was to exaggerate what Ken did and minimise what Jack did pre-game.

Mitchell had the chance before the game too, when asked about Jack’s comments on social media. (Again comments that had a clear inference that beating Port at AO was a given and going to be like taking out the bins as Jack looked ahead to tackling Sydney)

Mitchell instead of saying that Jack was just being cheeky and that he was ready for a game along with Hawthorn against a tough opponent, etc., he instead answered with a minute diatribe about how this is how young kids talk nowadays and didn’t address the point at hand which was Jack is disrespecting the opposition.

Sorry, I’ll edit this -

Everyone else sees this, except for some supporters of one team.

I mean Ken is coward, Sicily is a true leader, Mitchell, Hodge, Lewis all greats of the game.

I’ll give you some advice mate. Every AFL club has had and will have their fair share of flogs, cowards and ordinary human beings grace their guernsey. And more often than not they are just ordinary people, gifted at football with character flaws like most of us. Being able to look at their actions objectively does not make you any less of a supporter. Somehow thinking because they wear your team’s colours, they are always on the side of righteousness is plonk thinking.

 

[SSSSSS]

Everyone from his hometown would scoff so hard at this, they'd choke on their own breath.

I'm surprised. Everyone I've spoken to that has met Jack in person (Hawthorn, Collingwood and neutrals) seem to speak highly of him.

 

[toomanysquibs]

Should work in Hawthorn PR department.

You are doing everything you are labelling me of.

It wasn’t aggressive from Ken.

The age thing has zero to do with it.

Words have clear inferences and his choice of words was to exaggerate what Ken did and minimise what Jack did pre-game.

Mitchell had the chance before the game too, when asked about Jack’s comments on social media. (Again comments that had a clear inference that beating Port at AO was a given and going to be like taking out the bins as Jack looked ahead to tackling Sydney)

Mitchell instead of saying that Jack was just being cheeky and that he was ready for a game along with Hawthorn against a tough opponent, etc., he instead answered with a minute diatribe about how this is how young kids talk nowadays and didn’t address the point at hand which was Jack is disrespecting the opposition.

Everyone else sees this, except for one set of supporters.

One coach on field post match, gobbing ofd to the losing team, looking like a fat campaigner.

The other at a presser, answering questions with no Port peeps in the room.

Spot the difference?

 

[Scritchyscroony]

He never said "I've taken great offence" and never made any claims about Jack being innocent.

I've directly quoted Sam's level-headed and factually accurate comments above.

It was a one-line statement about what happened in the context of his main point: That James Sicily had shown leadership in the situation.

The fact that people need to constantly make things up that Sam objectively didn't say to attack him speaks volumes.

The quotation marks are to denote that "I've taken offense" is implied by his response....
I Thought it was pretty clear I wasn't suggesting that he said that directly but instead I was saying that it was the "thinking" behind his response.
I hope that helps your comprehension.

 

[z547043]

One coach on field post match, gobbing ofd to the losing team, looking like a fat campaigner.

The other at a presser, answering questions with no Port peeps in the room.

Spot the difference?

Agreed. Ken’s action were classless. Some want to give him the benefit of the doubt of being emotional. I accept this, but tend not to agree with this a valid defence here. I think as a coach you should act better and be held to higher standards. Especially in the heat of battle. It was classless and wrong.

Some want to go further and label his actions as embarrassing, aggressive and say it diminished from a 300 veteran game’s chair off. Most of these people have something in common in regard to their club affiliation. It did none of those things and the persons responsible for this narrative, I am criticising.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

I Thought it was pretty clear I wasn't suggesting that he said that directly but instead I was saying that it was the "thinking" behind his response.

So we've now gone from attacking Sam Mitchell for things he never said to attacking him for what opposition supporters think he might have been thinking.

How utterly absurd!

Look, clearly Sam's intent was to talk about the main thing that he spoke about, which was to praise the leader's James Sicily showed.

In making this point, he gave a non-core once-sentence description of the incident in question.

Most of it was objectively true (a 21-year-old is relatively very young compared to 57-year-old), along with a subjective analysis of the nature of what was said to Ginnivan ("very aggressive").

That's it.

There was no lengthy diatribe where Sam Mitchell claimed Ginnivan was an innocent victim or any such nonsense, as opposition supporters have falsely claimed.

In fact, you can leave that sentence out of what Sam Mitchell said, and (other than needing to clarify who he meant by him) the core message remains unchanged:

I can only speak on my club's behalf. And if I think about how my club, the Hawthorn Football Club, dealt with the post game: ... The captain of my club stood up for [a teammate].

Now I understand, just having been rushed by the AFL to be at this press conference on time, of this time of year are really, really difficult.

And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of.

So clearly, what we have here is just opposition supporters parroting a media narrative, getting angry over things Sam objectively never said, or claiming to have the clairvoyant skills to have uncovered a thought they disagree with.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

To his credit Ken immediately admitted wrong doing, and apologised .

I love that Jack seems unworried, decent young bloke, gives as good as he gets.

I hope he keeps smiling, he can be a bit irritating but there isn't a jot of malice in it.

Ken should get Jack 2 tickets so he can keep his promise to see the Swans, be a classy way to say sorry and I bet Jack would be a big enough bloke to take it the right way.

Maybe Ken can get Jack a PlayStation and they can all smile at a press conference and it will all be square.