Why are we not talking about this?

[sr36]

It is how it is generally defined at law. In fact, the AFL uses a slightly more objective definition of vilification than that contained in anti-discrimination legislation by using "behaviour which may reasonably considered to incite" as opposed to "behaviour that incites".

I like the AFL’s inclusion, despite the added greyness.

Legal definitions are all that matters in terms of court cases. But outside of the law, they carry no more weight than other definitions.

I think that only weighting the meaning constructed and inferred by the receiver and ignoring the meaning constructed and implied by the giver of a message is conflict enlarging and what I think is currently being pushed. It's standard conflict resolution practice to get both parties to consider the other party's constructed meaning and perspective. Or to put it into a Collingwood perspective, why would HL have any interest in meeting and coming to some form of resolution of his anger with Collingwood, when his offended interpretation of events is all that matters?

The playfulness of postmodern thinking isn't really a concern when abuse is being hurled at the footy. It shouldn't really be considered too much in governing the relations between people.

The hanging of shit is a fantastic pastime, but usually between people who know each other, in situations where boundaries are known and acknowledged.

Abusing a stranger who is working in front of a crowd of people, some of whom are hostile, is a different situation entirely. It should be stamped out, and the motivations of the verbal abuser really doesn't matter at all.

It's not just the playfulness of post-modern thinking - that thinking has shifted social principles.

Yes it is a very different context - friends versus strangers, so it was a crap example- I'd lost sight of the situation being discussed, as it had shifted to broader statements.

I originally weighed in due to a comment about the traditional booing of the umpires before the match - which to me is pure pantomime, where the umpires are playing a known role in the pantomime of the AFL, and I don't think it should be classified as abuse and mixed up with the extremely serious stuff mentioned in that article. But yes, I'll have to accept the majority and whichever way it goes - as that's where social standards should come from - not from the interpretation of one individual, who may or may not be offended.

 

[sideswipe]

Legal definitions are all that matters in terms of court cases. But outside of the law, they carry no more weight than other definitions.

 

[sr36]

We're talking about social behaviour including language that cause offence. How can legal definitions take primacy in social communication when most of us don't know those definitions and use a heap of terms with their alternate accepted published in dictionaries meanings. They only take primacy when things are tested in law. The law uses a heap of definitions that are agreed to in terms of the law and legal circles. They're not agreed to outside of those circles.

 

[sideswipe]

We're talking about social behaviour including language that cause offence. How can legal definitions take primacy in social communication when most of us don't know those definitions and use a heap of terms with their alternate accepted published in dictionaries meanings. They only take primacy when things are tested in law.

Take it easy - I was just posting mock outrage that anyone could consider anything other than legal definitions.

 

[sr36]

Take it easy - I was just posting mock outrage that anyone could consider anything other than legal definitions.

WHoops. Sorry. I misinterpreted you. But it doesn't really matter what you intended. I was offended ...

Couldn't resist being a smart arse.

 

[sideswipe]

WHoops. Sorry. I misinterpreted you. But it doesn't really matter what you intended. I was offended ...

Couldn't resist being a smart arse.

It's OK, my default position is Intend to Offend.

 

[JB1975]

I like the AFL’s inclusion, despite the added greyness.

Legal definitions are all that matters in terms of court cases. But outside of the law, they carry no more weight than other definitions.

I think that only weighting the meaning constructed and inferred by the receiver and ignoring the meaning constructed and implied by the giver of a message is conflict enlarging and what I think is currently being pushed. It's standard conflict resolution practice to get both parties to consider the other party's constructed meaning and perspective. Or to put it into a Collingwood perspective, why would HL have any interest in meeting and coming to some form of resolution of his anger with Collingwood, when his offended interpretation of events is all that matters?



It's not just the playfulness of post-modern thinking - that thinking has shifted social principles.

Yes it is a very different context - friends versus strangers, so it was a crap example- I'd lost sight of the situation being discussed, as it had shifted to broader statements.

I originally weighed in due to a comment about the traditional booing of the umpires before the match - which to me is pure pantomime, where the umpires are playing a known role in the pantomime of the AFL, and I don't think it should be classified as abuse and mixed up with the extremely serious stuff mentioned in that article. But yes, I'll have to accept the majority and whichever way it goes - as that's where social standards should come from - not from the interpretation of one individual, who may or may not be offended.

I'm not against drawing distinctions. I don't really understand the booing of umpires before the game, but it is more theatrical and less offensive than most of what goes on during a game.

I think we can also distinguish between contexts. As counterintuitive as it might seem, half the MCG roaring its disapproval at a decision is probably less threatening than the isolated abuse an ump might hear at the local footy, for a number of reasons.

We don't need to be absolutist in our thinking, but we do need to re-think what is acceptable.

 

[sr36]

I'm not against drawing distinctions. I don't really understand the booing of umpires before the game, but it is more theatrical and less offensive than most of what goes on during a game.

I think we can also distinguish between contexts. As counterintuitive as it might seem, half the MCG roaring its disapproval at a decision is probably less threatening than the isolated abuse an ump might hear at the local footy, for a number of reasons.

We don't need to be absolutist in our thinking, but we do need to re-think what is acceptable.

Agree with all of that- I'm just suggesting that consideration of intention should play a significant part in the re-thinking. It's a bit like the tribunal verdicts which have become so much about outcome rather than intention.

 

[Jasper84]

I originally weighed in due to a comment about the traditional booing of the umpires before the match - which to me is pure pantomime, where the umpires are playing a known role in the pantomime of the AFL, and I don't think it should be classified as abuse and mixed up with the extremely serious stuff mentioned in that article. But yes, I'll have to accept the majority and whichever way it goes - as that's where social standards should come from - not from the interpretation of one individual, who may or may not be offended.

Isn't this the issue though? We are begging for people to become umpires, but then putting a rider on it that they also have to play the villains in a pantomime. Unfortunately whatever is considered acceptable in the AFL (ie booing) trickles down to grass roots, where it becomes a group of people targeting one umpire. People become umpires to officiate a legitimate sport not WWE. How are we ever going to get new umpires to sign on if we continue to accept that their abuse is just part of the role?

 

[sr36]

Isn't this the issue though? We are begging for people to become umpires, but then putting a rider on it that they also have to play the villains in a pantomime. Unfortunately whatever is considered acceptable in the AFL (ie booing) trickles down to grass roots, where it becomes a group of people targeting one umpire. People become umpires to officiate a legitimate sport not WWE. How are we ever going to get new umpires to sign on if we continue to accept that their abuse is just part of the role?

You could be right. We'd need to hear from umpires and those who have left the job.

That article about the report into female umpires highlighted workplace sexual harassment and some outrageous intimidation from fans as major issues for umpire retention.

Is the previously accepted stuff (which I consider harmless when it isn't intimidatory - probably mistakenly) an issue that is driving many out of the job - I don't know.

I get the impression that the AFL pre-empted reports and investigations with their recent rule change and I suspect that any crackdown of the standard previously accepted "banter" and terms like "scumpire" is also pre-emptive - but that's me being pre-emptive too.

 

[Jasper84]

You could be right. We'd need to hear from umpires and those who have left the job.

That article about the report into female umpires highlighted workplace sexual harassment and some outrageous intimidation from fans as major issues for umpire retention.

Is the previously accepted stuff (which I consider harmless when it isn't intimidatory - probably mistakenly) an issue that is driving many out of the job - I don't know.

I get the impression that the AFL pre-empted reports and investigations with their recent rule change and I suspect that any crackdown of the standard previously accepted "banter" and terms like "scumpire" is also pre-emptive - but that's me being pre-emptive too.

I think the more pertinent question isn't whether it is driving people out of the job. It's whether it is deterring people from joining in the first place.

Help Wanted:
Thankless low paying job where people openly show their hatred towards you before you even start working.

 

[Gone Critical]

Abuse and sexually related abuse to women in all areas of our society is a problem and lots of work needs to be done in changing behaviours. Some of the examples from the Uni of Sydney report are deplorable and unfortunately probably no surprise. This isnt an AFL issue it's societal. My guess is we are improving slowly.

At the same time I find the discussion in the thread and the way the AFL and media have handled the issue largely unhelpful. Why have reports done into these areas and not release them. Surely they understand leaks will occur and the media will jump on the salacious bits and that then becomes the story. Then this thread throws up all the "backs to the corner" posting that renders any meaningful discussion impossible. We are then unable to get any real feel for the scope of the problem and the AFL is left with a big proportion of the population certain there is a major issue with abuse specific to female umpires. This is undoubtedly true to some degree but its impossible from what we know to understand the scale of the problem. This reporting alone may be a major deterrent to women going into umpiring

What I have been able to understand is there seem to be 2 recent reports from the AFL around the umpire issue.

1 Damien Anderson, a community umpire development officer (who has since quit), authored a report into why umpires are leaving. 2021

2. Dr Victoria Rawlings from University of Sydney , did a research project sponsored by the AFL, into the experiences of female umpires in the AFL.

Snippets only of the reports have got out leaving a huge space for the media to extrapolate.

Main information from Andersons report seems to be

2020 represented the worst year for non returning umpires and for uptake of new umpires in 6 years. Covid was the major factor at play here. Since covid umpire numbers have dropped 8%. A the same time, particularly with the expansion of AFLW participation demands for umpires have increased. Girls and women umpiresare underrepresented and also have a much higher rate of non retention in the game. Many umpires are doing multiple games with the risk of burnout. Girls and women even in the AFLW space are not increasing particiaption in umpiring at the same rate as playing

The major reasons for leaving were
1. Work and study 18%
2. Health, injury,age 14%
3. inadequate pay/support 13%
4. lack of enjoyement 10%

Abuse came in at no 6 with 6%

Rawlings project seems more concerned with reporting experiences of the respondents. It makes for sad reading with too many of the usual culprit of lewd remarks, inappropiate touching, pics etc. embarrassing for the male population. What it doesnt give us is any scale to the problem or how the AFL stacks up to the rest of society groups e.g Australian cricket captains, workplaces, schools, pubs, gyms etc.

The abuse the women received is disgusting, the AFL handling of the issue is hamfisted as expected, the media pile on to sensationalise and prevent meaningful discussion is predictable and the lack of any nuance in opinions here and elsewhere is as expected.

Now I am getting off my high horse.

We do need to promote umpiring and getting women into it in greater numbers and with encouragement and respect has to be a priority

 

[Gone Critical]

The actual booing as a method for expressing displeasure with an umpires decision I dont see as a great problem. Its the verbal that usually crosses the line. I am not a yeller at umpires at the game but in the moment can feel the heat of "we are being robbed" etc when the game is on the line. After I see the replay I usually realise the umps were much more right than me regarding any decisions I saw as contentious. Sure they make some mistakes but that is dwarfed by what we in the stands get wrong

I have always had a view that those who complain most about umps and are the yellers at the game almost universally have little real understanding of the rules or their subjectivity renders their ability to have a balanced view as hopeless. So they end up abusing umpires as scumps or maggots, complaining that their team was robbed on a weakly basis and make all those around them at the footy wish they would go away. Its an emotional game and we all go a little crazy at times but if someone is ranting against the umps on a weekly basis they are the problem. Ranting against Carlton wherever possible however is to be applauded

 

[Anzacday]

little real understanding of the rules

Spot on.
The rules changing over time doesn’t help - prior opportunity a perfect example.

their subjectivity renders their ability to have a balanced view as hopeless.

Has always been the case for some.
Personally I’ve grown out of it.