|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Woods Of Ypres wrote: | I don't see the big deal here
Brayshaw wasn't even there |
It's not (only) about Brayshaw. It's about attitudes to violence that could easily kill someone.
And the Weagles media guys were certainly there. That's why we can all, including Brayshaw, view it on FB.
Last edited by K on Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:35 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | By whom? Opponents? If an opponent says that to Gaff, then Gaff is the intended target and the sledge hits the target. If teammates at training say that to Gaff, even if it's not the intention, the target that is hit is not Gaff but Brayshaw.
And Brayshaw already has to cope with (apart from his injuries) having a complete idiot for a father. |
I don’t understand your distinction. In both cases, the intent is to put Gaff off. They’re not laughing at Brayshaw, they’re winding Gaff up. Yes, his teammates are doing it in a more light-hearted way than an opponent would, but if we’re going to be morally outraged about the former, what’s the difference, really? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | ...
I don’t understand your distinction. In both cases, the intent is to put Gaff off; his teammates are doing it in a more light-hearted way, but if we’re going to be morally outraged about that, what’s the difference, really? |
The "light-hearted" teammate stuff ends up trivialising and normalising extreme violence. Clearly adversarial abuse from opponents does not. (Everything an opponent says sounds like condemnation. Everything teammates say sounds like condoning.) And the stuff his opponents say doesn't end up on the WEagles' social media. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
It’s not trivialising it how? By using it as sledging fodder in order to win a ball game? You think an opponent reminding Gaff of his punch is really achieving some higher moral aim?
I’m not saying that what Vardy said was okay. Obviously it’s in poor taste (though there is a place for tasteless humour, in the right context). I just don’t think it’s worth getting outraged over. I’m sure nobody at the Eagles thinks what Gaff did was a big joke; but sometimes people do use dark stuff as a form of transgressive or cathartic humour for any number of reasons. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Well, we haven't heard any opponent do that. I know of no suggestion any opponent has done that. All I can think of is opposition supporters booing.
You're defending something that clearly happened by philosophically comparing it with some hypothetical events that probably haven't happened. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
As I said, if it hasn’t, then on-field sledging is a dead art. This isn’t some wacky hypothetical; I think it’s extremely likely that it has happened, multiple times, in one form or other. But even if we’re to leave it as a hypothetical, I still maintain that nobody would be particularly outraged if it did happen, because anyone who knows anything about on-field psychological tactics would totally expect it. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
No, they just feel certain sledges are taboo. And it never was an "art". |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I’m always fascinated by how things suddenly become taboo – I guess because everyone spontaneously decides that it is. Tell me honestly, if the umpire mic had one time picked up Heath Shaw (or one of our other defenders at the time) yelling Brent Staker’s name at Barry Hall, your response would have been "oh, that’s really too much. He’s crossed a line there, trivialising assault like that". Or has the moralistic, hand-wringing media response to Gaff’s hit led you and others to treat it as something in a fundamentally different category? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
I couldn't believe it when a year or two ago Heater was furiously attacked by everyone for using the sledge "s****ic" (which is censored by Nick's BB -- even though sh** is not!).
And we know what happened when the Swans captain used "little girl" this year. (He was fined.)
Re. Gaff, I don't know if P4S was serious, but he suggested a life ban. If Gaff had received 22 weeks, maybe there wouldn't be what you call "hand-wringing". |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Gaff (Mix 94.5):
"It's disappointing.
"I didn't know about it until I got the call at 5.30 last night.
"I didn't hear it. It's disappointing, no doubt. It's poor taste. It's disrespectful to Andrew more than it is to me.
"I'll have a chat to, if we know who it is, at training today. We want to apologise as a club for that.
"It shouldn't have happened." |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | Re. Gaff, I don't know if P4S was serious, but he suggested a life ban. If Gaff had received 22 weeks, maybe there wouldn't be what you call "hand-wringing". |
On the contrary, the moralising began the moment he did it, and had little to do with the eventual suspension (which most people thought was appropriate). See the first few pages of this very thread – it’s common for posters to suggest 6, 7 or 8 weeks. That’s already a very long ban in AFL terms for an on-field act. Gaff isn’t the first player to recklessly cause an opponent injury, and he won’t be the last, but he sure gave football journalists and supporters an excellent opportunity to indulge their more hysterical impulses. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David, it was not "reckless". It was a thug act.
To be just "reckless" it'd have to be at least something in play, not "100m off the ball", as Lyon said (he was exaggerating, but it's true in spirit). |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
This act should not have been the subject of a tribunal suspension. In my opinion, it should have resulted in his deregistration as an AFL player and he should have been banished. It appeared to me to demonstrate that he was not a fit and proper person to play the sport. I do not really understand why it was not the subject of serious criminal charges. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|