Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[Andronicus]

Not disagreeing with your point. But I wonder if GWS players (or any AFL players for that matter), realise they’re being held to a standard expected in a corporate environment.

I think that’s where the disconnect lies. Maybe the players were properly educated on what is/isn’t appropriate at an off venue private function and it fell on deaf ears? Or maybe they’ve been completely blindsided.

The contracts and paychecks aren't enough for them to realise it's their job?

Footy players not understanding that it's a work function suggest they are dumber than anyone gives them credit for.

The fact that they think it's funny is a whole other issue. Dark humour is one thing, but at least there is some humour in it.

 

[P Money]

I can definitely understand the concept that it's a work function and standards of behaviour applying. I think the suggestion that it's a corporate environment is a bit simplistic though. I work in a corporate environment - if I got drunk and paraded around with my my shirt off I would certainly be severely reprimanded or potentially fired if enough people complained.

An AFL footy team end of year celebration is not your regular corporate function though, and the standards expected are not the same. I'm sure players are educated on what's accepted behaviour or particular limits that they shouldn't cross at their end of year party but let's not pretend its the same as what's expected at the standard office xmas party.

Having said that I am changing my tune, some very good points raised.

 

[P Money]

The contracts and paychecks aren't enough for them to realise it's their job?

Footy players not understanding that it's a work function suggest they are dumber than anyone gives them credit for.

The fact that they think it's funny is a whole other issue. Dark humour is one thing, but at least there is some humour in it.

Not sure how you can confidently assert that it wasn't funny given you haven't seen the skits. Who knows, could have been hilarious! (probably not)

 

[jmoo wan]

look, guys - you just cant get your dick out and wave it in front of people. I know it seems unfair and unreasonable, but that's the society we live in. No one wants to see your dick.

 

[dank420_]

I can definitely understand the concept that it's a work function and standards of behaviour applying. I think the suggestion that it's a corporate environment is a bit simplistic though. I work in a corporate environment - if I got drunk and paraded around with my my shirt off I would certainly be severely reprimanded or potentially fired if enough people complained.

An AFL footy team end of year celebration is not your regular corporate function though, and the standards expected are not the same. I'm sure players are educated on what's accepted behaviour or particular limits that they shouldn't cross at their end of year party but let's not pretend its the same as what's expected at the standard office xmas party.

Having said that I am changing my tune, some very good points raised.

This is how Ross Lyon happens.

 

[doug85]

The contracts and paychecks aren't enough for them to realise it's their job?

Footy players not understanding that it's a work function suggest they are dumber than anyone gives them credit for.

The fact that they think it's funny is a whole other issue. Dark humour is one thing, but at least there is some humour in it.

Some could be dumb, some could be naive. Look at their behaviour at this function!

I didn’t say anything about whether the skits were funny as it wasn’t relevant to my point.

But if were to traipse down this rabbit hole… a person can joke about a heinous topic, while still believing the related action is totally unacceptable. It’s a coping mechanism people use to deal with dark truths about our existence. People weaponise jokes by removing them from the context of comedic invention by twisting them into literal statements of fact.

However, there’s no acceptable context for rape/racist/etc humour when there’s a clear connection to your employment. The reputational risk is too great. It can cost sponsors, membership, brand equity. They probably had zero intention of harming anyone, but gave no thought to the broader context they work in.

 

[doug85]

look, guys - you just cant get your dick out and wave it in front of people. I know it seems unfair and unreasonable, but that's the society we live in. No one wants to see your dick.

Then make your DMs private!!!

 

[Lore]

They get told what they can and can't post on their social media, how to sign their name for official merch (not their bank sig) and how to sign it at a meet & greet (different again), what to do at a kids footy clinic, cultural safety & respect@work training, where and when to pee, what to drink, what to eat, tell us where you are at all times during the off-season so ASADA can make you pee in a cup at any time, how not to put mysterious powder up your nose, and so on.

We've also had the St Kilda thing many moons ago involving underaged schoolgirls and a dwarf on fire or whatever that was (before my time and I'd have thought it would have stayed in the past, but maybe clubs have forgotten).

And then you have the issue of the player leadership group apparently not seeing a problem with it. I can't imagine Jobe Watson thinking it was alright, or Brendon Goddard, or Zach Merrett? Or Pendlebury or any of the other half decent players of the last 15 years? Pretty sure even Sammy Draper knows better.

Like it's not just one young idiot getting drunk and doing something dumb in the bathrooms... it's apparently behaviour that has been condoned (perhaps even encouraged and participated in) from the top down.

Also, who the f lets Lachie Whitfield

6

Lachie Whitfield

Age

30

Ht

185cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

13.4

5star

HB

9.3

5star

M

6.3

5star

T

2.7

4star

MG

411.8

5star

D

21.4

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

8.9

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.8

3star

MG

350.6

5star

D

17.6

5star

K

8.2

4star

HB

9.4

5star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

organise any official event

 

[Andronicus]

Not sure how you can confidently assert that it wasn't funny given you haven't seen the skits. Who knows, could have been hilarious! (probably not)

I guess I'm basing it on the assumption that if you are clever enough to make it funny, you are clever enough to know that you can't get naked at a work function.

 

[doug85]

They get told what they can and can't post on their social media, how to sign their name for official merch (not their bank sig) and how to sign it at a meet & greet (different again), what to do at a kids footy clinic, cultural safety & respect@work training, where and when to pee, what to drink, what to eat, tell us where you are at all times during the off-season so ASADA can make you pee in a cup at any time, how not to put mysterious powder up your nose, and so on.

We've also had the St Kilda thing many moons ago involving underaged schoolgirls and a dwarf on fire or whatever that was (before my time and I'd have thought it would have stayed in the past, but maybe clubs have forgotten).

And then you have the issue of the player leadership group apparently not seeing a problem with it. I can't imagine Jobe Watson thinking it was alright, or Brendon Goddard, or Zach Merrett? Or Pendlebury or any of the other half decent players of the last 15 years? Pretty sure even Sammy Draper knows better.

Like it's not just one young idiot getting drunk and doing something dumb in the bathrooms... it's apparently behaviour that has been condoned (perhaps even encouraged and participated in) from the top down.

Also, who the f lets Lachie Whitfield organise any official event

If they’re so controlled in every action they make, they’re probably not well versed in exercising judgement.

 

[Rick Ross]

"A person shall not, in or within view from a public place or a school, wilfully and obscenely expose his or her person."

NSW indecent exposure laws. Seems pretty black and white to me.

Was it in a “public place” - might be debatable…

 

[jmoo wan]

a private function in a public place is still a public place

 

[Rick Ross]

a private function in a public place is still a public place

Unless the private function is in a private place.

Haven’t heard of anyone public wandering in… was behind closed doors? Getting naked ain’t a crime between consenting idiots.

 

[Call Me Cake]

a private function in a public place is still a public place

No it isn't. Public means not on private land. In other words, areas in which are government owned and areas in which there is no expectation of privacy (aka, not public toilets for example).

 

[Rick Ross]

No it isn't. Public means not on private land. In other words, areas in which are government owned and areas in which there is no expectation of privacy (aka, not public toilets for example).

Ok, ok, so let’s zero on what’s important here - are people allowed to hang around public toilets with their pants down?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Ok, ok, so let’s zero on what’s important here - are people allowed to hang around public toilets with their pants down?

Asking for a friend.

What was brought up was "public indescency", which is what I was responding to and also making a point that it wasn't relevant here. To your point, no, seeing as that would be a public area (outside public toilets on government land shared by all) it would fall under that.

 

[Agronomus]

Ok, ok, so let’s zero on what’s important here - are people allowed to hang around public toilets with their pants down?

Asking for a friend.

Depends if they're good looking

On Lenovo YT-J706F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lore]

If they’re so controlled in every action they make, they’re probably not well versed in exercising judgement.

You wouldn't necessarily expect a whole lot of judgement from a recently recruited kid who barely has their head screwed on straight, but you would expect a level of leadership from those around them to teach them what appropriate decisions are and support them to make appropriate decisions, rather than having veterans set up, encourage, participate in or condone that stuff.

Control is probably a strong word anyway though. There's definitely control over things ASADA related, which is probably fair enough. That's obviously a few steps above league policy, tied to government funding of sports generally.

At league level there is standard training that everyone does, like respect@work, cultural safety, illicit drugs policy, working with children/young people etc. That stuff shouldn't vary greatly between clubs as its part of the same corporate reporting processes big businesses need to adhere to: https://www.afl.com.au/policies

The CBA has rules around how to sign stuff for different purposes, which I always just found amusing... and players don't always adhere to it (Annexure A):


High performance habits (eating, drinking, sleeping) is what the Jack Jones Academy stuff is about at Essendon (1st to 4th year players). I imagine other clubs do similar things, but afaik it's not mandated across the league. Like some clubs have a clubhouse with live-in nutritionists or a program with host families or older players taking in the draftees and showing them the ropes.

For some individuals their player managers also get involved with guiding financial decisions or controlling their bank accounts because they will gamble it all away if they don't, which is definitely a control thing but I don't think it's that widespread (i.e., a subset of those with gambling problems, which is a subset of those who gamble, which is a subset of the entire cohort in the first place).

 

[Lore]

In this case it's probably the Respect & Responsibility Policy that the AFL is enforcing;

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2019/12/04/0c9d67b8-55fc-43f9-bfd4-1b48afd92a88/AFL-Respect-and-Responsibility-Policy.pdf

 

[Lore]

No it isn't. Public means not on private land. In other words, areas in which are government owned and areas in which there is no expectation of privacy (aka, not public toilets for example).

Public in this case also means 'in view of the public'. But we're not talking about a police investigation anyway, so far as we know the AFL has been working through their own policies with regard to the incident/s.

 

[ant555]

They needed a no dickhead rule

 

[Lore]

They needed a no dickhead rule

Even just one bloke that wasn't a dickhead who could tell the others to stop being dickheads probably would have sufficed in this situation tbh

 

[Call Me Cake]

Public in this case also means 'in view of the public'.

This is referring to instances where a land owner would be on a lot and naked, or in a home naked with no blinds visible to passersby, even though he/she would technically be on private land. Again, I was referring to the reference to public indescency above and stipulating what public is.

 

[Lore]

This is referring to instances where a land owner would be on a lot and naked, or in a home naked with no blinds visible to passersby, even though he/she would technically be on private land. Again, I was referring to the reference to public indescency above and stipulating what public is.

The police aren't involved, so it's actually currently irrelevant (regardless of whether you choose to delete that part of my post from your quote or not).

But to answer your point very directly:

Indecent exposure | Wilful and Obscene Exposure | Cityscapelawyers

Cityscapelawyers provides legal assistance for individuals facing charges related to indecent exposure. Our experienced attorneys can help defend your rights and achieve the best possible outcome in your case. Contact us today for a consultation.

cityscapelawyers.com.au

What is obscene or indecent exposure?​

This offence is governed by section 5 of the Summary Offences Act 1998. It provides that a person is prohibited from wilfully and obscenely exposing themselves in or within view from a public place or school.

Obscene exposure is defined as something that offends community standards of public decency. The Supreme Court case, R v Eyles [1977] NSWSC 452, clarified that ‘obscene’ exposure is where a person’s genitals are on display. It does not matter whether anyone actually saw genitalia exposed. It matters more that a person could have been seen.

Note that you do not have to be in a public place or a school to be charged with this offence. It is enough that you are within view of a public place or a school.

Section 3 of the Act defines a public place as any ‘place’ or ‘a part of a premises’ that is open to the public. So even a change room or public toilet is captured in this definition.

Exposure must be wilful; and not accidental, or through negligence, or through the act of another person.

Indecent exposure | Wilful and Obscene Exposure | Cityscapelawyers

Cityscapelawyers provides legal assistance for individuals facing charges related to indecent exposure. Our experienced attorneys can help defend your rights and achieve the best possible outcome in your case. Contact us today for a consultation.

cityscapelawyers.com.au

 

[Call Me Cake]

The police aren't involved, so it's actually currently irrelevant (regardless of whether you choose to delete that part of my post from your quote or not).

But to answer your point very directly:

Indecent exposure | Wilful and Obscene Exposure | Cityscapelawyers

Cityscapelawyers provides legal assistance for individuals facing charges related to indecent exposure. Our experienced attorneys can help defend your rights and achieve the best possible outcome in your case. Contact us today for a consultation.

cityscapelawyers.com.au

What is obscene or indecent exposure?​

This offence is governed by section 5 of the Summary Offences Act 1998. It provides that a person is prohibited from wilfully and obscenely exposing themselves in or within view from a public place or school.

Obscene exposure is defined as something that offends community standards of public decency. The Supreme Court case, R v Eyles [1977] NSWSC 452, clarified that ‘obscene’ exposure is where a person’s genitals are on display. It does not matter whether anyone actually saw genitalia exposed. It matters more that a person could have been seen.

Note that you do not have to be in a public place or a school to be charged with this offence. It is enough that you are within view of a public place or a school.

Section 3 of the Act defines a public place as any ‘place’ or ‘a part of a premises’ that is open to the public. So even a change room or public toilet is captured in this definition.

Exposure must be wilful; and not accidental, or through negligence, or through the act of another person.

Indecent exposure | Wilful and Obscene Exposure | Cityscapelawyers

Cityscapelawyers provides legal assistance for individuals facing charges related to indecent exposure. Our experienced attorneys can help defend your rights and achieve the best possible outcome in your case. Contact us today for a consultation.

cityscapelawyers.com.au

I never deleted anything, and as I said, my post was in response to what was public and private and why the "public indescency" in this case had nothing to do with what was public.

Also, this function was a privately held event on private land with an established guestlist, not open to the public. This is important to stipulate as it is to protect people who are naked while on someone's private property away from view of the public.