MRP / Trib. Will Powell (GC Suns) Banned for 5 rounds for using a homophobic slur during their loss to Brisbane.

[dmac_55]

If all afl clubs were advised after the finlayson and Clarkson incidents, these are the boundaries and if you crossed it clearly then all for throwing the book.

Genuinely have no idea what the lines are tho now. These are the first instances I can recall of suspensions?

 

[Hollow Knight]

If all afl clubs were advised after the finlayson and Clarkson incidents, these are the boundaries and if you crossed it clearly then all for throwing the book.

Genuinely have no idea what the lines are tho now. These are the first instances I can recall of suspensions?

We’ve definitely had suspensions for on-field vilification before. Justin Sherman jumps to mind.

 

[Engimal v3]

What would happen if 2 players having a push n shove used a homophobic slur against each other?
You’re gay, no you’re gay, you’re gay, no you’re gay
Etc, etc
Would they both be suspended?
Would the suspension be based on the number of times each player repeated the slur?
What if they were both gay? Is it a slur then?

And then, what if the push and shove turned into a wrestle? And in the heat of the moment, their lips brush past one another's, and for a brief moment, both players felt the world stand still?

 

[mighty_lions]

Then it sounds like your issue is with insufficient penalties for physical assaults in the field. In which case, make a thread about that, because invoking it in here makes you just look like a disingenuous fool at best, and at worst, something much more nefarious.

You’ve practically made this thread unreadable.

20k fine vs 3 weeks vs 5 weeks enough said

 

[Underarm]

Then it sounds like your issue is with insufficient penalties for physical assaults in the field. In which case, make a thread about that, because invoking it in here makes you just look like a disingenuous fool at best, and at worst, something much more nefarious.

You’ve practically made this thread unreadable.

mighty_lions Didn't post anything in the thread about the Shultz incident, in fact his most recent post on this board was celebrating Charlie Cameron getting off.

 

[mighty_lions]

mighty_lions Didn't post anything in the thread about the Shultz incident, in fact his most recent post on this board was celebrating Charlie Cameron getting off.

not sure what your point is I also didn't post about the Clarkson incident or the finlayson incident, I don't spend my life on big footy my apologies

 

[Underarm]

not sure what your point is I also didn't post about the Clarkson incident or the finlayson incident, I don't spend my life on big footy my apologies

woke

This isn't you?

nothing wrong with not posting often. I think it says alot that 2 of the things that dragged you back into posting is to say the punishment for homophobia is too much.

 

[mighty_lions]

This isn't you?

nothing wrong with not posting often. I think it says alot that 2 of the things that dragged you back into posting is to say the punishment for homophobia is too much.

5 weeks way too much

 

[mighty_lions]

This isn't you?

nothing wrong with not posting often. I think it says alot that 2 of the things that dragged you back into posting is to say the punishment for homophobia is too much.

what happens to the next bloke give him 10?

 

[skipper kelly]

I don't spend my life on big footy my apologies

You should get your act together.

There is some stalking ****wits on this forum.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Only because he plays for GC. If it was a big Victorian club it would be swept under the rug

 

[MagpieJo]

Have to say some of the commentary in this thread is exactly why the ban is this long.
Disappointing the amount of homophobia here.

i havent seen any homophobia, just people rightly gobsmacked that a hurtful word gets a longer sentence than physical assault.

 

[Engimal v3]

what happens to the next bloke give him 10?

Yep

 

[Rustin Cohle]

i havent seen any homophobia, just people rightly gobsmacked that a hurtful word gets a longer sentence than physical assault.

 

[Underarm]

what happens to the next bloke give him 10?

Sure. If that's what it takes to get homophobes out of the game.

 

[1990crow]

i havent seen any homophobia, just people rightly gobsmacked that a hurtful word gets a longer sentence than physical assault.

You haven't seen it because you can't think straight like a decent person.

 

[adammania9]

i havent seen any homophobia, just people rightly gobsmacked that a hurtful word gets a longer sentence than physical assault.

Correct. People just love to throw around “homophobe”, “racist” etc as a trump card for any argument

Your post has already collected two dummy spits from people who can’t argue with you. Just throw out their little trump word and walk away beating their chest.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Correct. People just love to throw around “homophobe”, “racist” etc as a trump card for any argument

Your post has already collected two dummy spits from people who can’t argue with you. Just throw out their little trump word and walk away beating their chest.

Lol at you thinking it's some kind of win because reasonable people don't engage with stupid opinions.

The below post succinctly destroys all of the stupid arguments being used in this thread. But you can keep playing the victim all you want.

Just in case it needs to be pointed out, the following arguments are embarrassingly s**t and anyone who uses them should be profoundly ashamed.

1. “What happened to sticks and stones?” Nothing, other than it being anachronistic, unscientific, twee boomer nonsense from an entire generation who have unsafe levels of lead in their brain tissue.

2. “You get less suspension for hitting a bloke”. There is only two obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this… either you are secretly against punishing homophobia and are too gutless to expose your real reasons why, or you simply have an issue with a lack of action against physical violence. If it’s the latter, start a seperate thread about that. If it’s the former, get in the bin.

3. “How come people can still make fun of rangas?” This is a ridiculous false equivalency. How do I know? Because I am a ranga, but I also have a brain.

4. “I’m not mad about the suspension, I am just mad about a future hypothetical around a hypothetical finals series where they are hypothetically inconsistent with this rule.” See question 2. The fact you have to concoct a hypothetical scenario to find a way to criticise this decision means you are secretly opposed to punishing homophobia for a different reason you aren’t brave or stupid enough to admit, or you need to cool your jets until something resembling the hypothetical happens for real. I mean, every rule can be applied inconsistently, so do we just not bother at all?

5. “Blah blah woke…. Blah virtue signalling…. blah blah why is everyone such an offended snowflake.” Ah yes, the bleating and accusations of being a snowflake and being told to harden up by a bunch of weirdos who thought the world was ending when a brand of cheese changed its name. Log out of Facebook, turn off Sky News, and touch some ******* grass.

 

[Mr Gor]

The next person that utters a homophobic slur should cop 7 weeks.

The person after that, 10.

Thereafter, any bigoted scum that still choose to allow the voldemort word to escape their lips should have their tongue cut out in the centre square for all to see.

Reckless and intimidating behaviour has no place in our beloved game

 

[PerthBoy86]

I'm not condoning homophobia but seems pretty excessive...

AFL in 2035: 3 weeks for microaggressions, failing to use appropriate pronouns

 

[rolling01]

Unless the player he said it to is gay i don't see how it can be offensive.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Unless the player he said it to is gay i don't see how it can be offensive.

Use your ****ing brain please.

The entire point of using a slur like that is because you view a particular group of people as inferior and the victim as inferior by association.

Imagine a situation where a player called a white guy the n-word on field. The white guy likely wouldn't be offended but you can be sure black people would be, as the implication is that the white guy is a lesser person by using the word to describe him.

This is why arguments about the severity of the punishment compared to physical actions on field are failing to see the bigger picture. This is less about the individual victim on field and more about the entire group of marginalised people the player is implying are inferior by using the homophobic term.

Now another hypothetical scenario. If I work for a large company and refer to a straight male colleague using a homophobic slur in a company wide Zoom meeting, would the company be right to take action against me even if the other person wasn't offended?

Of course they would, as not taking action essentially condones the idea that being gay makes a person worthy of ridicule. Not taking action sends a terrible message and the reputation of the company would be significantly impacted as a result.

The AFL is no different as an organisation with a reputation to uphold. The ban is entirely appropriate and if anything, he's lucky not to face worse action.

 

[mighty_lions]

Use your ******* brain please.

The entire point of using a slur like that is because you view a particular group of people as inferior and the victim as inferior by association.

Imagine a situation where a player called a white guy the n-word on field. The white guy likely wouldn't be offended but you can be sure black people would be, as the implication is that the white guy is a lesser person by using the word to describe him.

This is why arguments about the severity of the punishment compared to physical actions on field are failing to see the bigger picture. This is less about the individual victim on field and more about the entire group of marginalised people the player is implying are inferior by using the homophobic term.

Now another hypothetical scenario. If I work for a large company and refer to a straight male colleague using a homophobic slur in a company wide Zoom meeting, would the company be right to take action against me even if the other person wasn't offended?

Of course they would, as not taking action essentially condones the idea that being gay makes a person worthy of ridicule. Not taking action sends a terrible message and the reputation of the company would be significantly impacted as a result.

The AFL is no different as an organisation with a reputation to uphold. The ban is entirely appropriate and if anything, he's lucky not to face worse action.

the analogy/arguement of another workplace is so flawed, Jonathan brown use to tell opponents if they stand in the hole 1 more time he would kill them, would that be acceptable at any workplace, any of the sledging would that be acceptable? whacking people in the guts? acceptable?

obviously there should be a penalty, 5 weeks? nah I don't agree

 

[rolling01]

Use your ******* brain please.

The entire point of using a slur like that is because you view a particular group of people as inferior and the victim as inferior by association.

Imagine a situation where a player called a white guy the n-word on field. The white guy likely wouldn't be offended but you can be sure black people would be, as the implication is that the white guy is a lesser person by using the word to describe him.

This is why arguments about the severity of the punishment compared to physical actions on field are failing to see the bigger picture. This is less about the individual victim on field and more about the entire group of marginalised people the player is implying are inferior by using the homophobic term.

Now another hypothetical scenario. If I work for a large company and refer to a straight male colleague using a homophobic slur in a company wide Zoom meeting, would the company be right to take action against me even if the other person wasn't offended?

Of course they would, as not taking action essentially condones the idea that being gay makes a person worthy of ridicule. Not taking action sends a terrible message and the reputation of the company would be significantly impacted as a result.

The AFL is no different as an organisation with a reputation to uphold. The ban is entirely appropriate and if anything, he's lucky not to face worse action.

Oh please. Take a Bex or call Dr.Phil.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Oh please. Take a Bex or call Dr.Phil.

Nice reply. You’re a very intelligent person who is clearly capable of forming an argument to support your position.

A good reminder of why engaging with people who have stupid opinions is worthless. If they were capable of understanding they wouldn’t hold such stupid positions in the first place.