AFL 2025

[am Bays]

The other question is, would Adelaide be going this hard* if it was say Murphy?

And would the Collingwood players still insisted it be reported after Quaynor allegedly “said dont worry about it”, if it was Murphy…

[wenchbarwer]

If it was Murphy, we'd have heard the result on Monday night

[Booney]

The other question is, would Adelaide be going this hard* if it was say Murphy?

And would the Collingwood players still insisted it be reported after Quaynor allegedly “said dont worry about it”, if it was Murphy…

What's that got to do with it?

[Dutchy]

Im expecting the announcement to come out about half an hour before tomorrow nights game

[am Bays]

The other question is, would Adelaide be going this hard* if it was say Murphy?

And would the Collingwood players still insisted it be reported after Quaynor allegedly “said dont worry about it”, if it was Murphy…

What's that got to do with it?

The inconsistencies in behaviours and reactions aren’t just limited to AFL House, mate.

[whufc]

Come on mate once the president of the AFLPA heard about it he was always going to advise his team mate to report it regardless of who the player was.

[MW]

The other question is, would Adelaide be going this hard* if it was say Murphy?

And would the Collingwood players still insisted it be reported after Quaynor allegedly “said dont worry about it”, if it was Murphy…

No
Yes

[am Bays]

Come on mate once the president of the AFLPA heard about it he was always going to advise his team mate to report it regardless of who the player was.

You’re not saying, oh never mind….

[mots02]

Lots of chat on the Rankine case… my only issue is how do the AFL justify increasing the penalty on this offence fir each time it happens… 3, then 4 and now 5.

But they don’t increase the penalty on other offences? Striking in round 1 is worth similar a similar penalty the next time it happens, if there’s 8 across the season, a 2 week sanction fir striking doesn’t suddenly become 10 weeks by the end of the year.

[MW]

Lots of chat on the Rankine case… my only issue is how do the AFL justify increasing the penalty on this offence fir each time it happens… 3, then 4 and now 5.

But they don’t increase the penalty on other offences? Striking in round 1 is worth similar a similar penalty the next time it happens, if there’s 8 across the season, a 2 week sanction fir striking doesn’t suddenly become 10 weeks by the end of the year.

I've never understood this.
A drink driver does not get a bigger penalty or fine for being the 250th drink driver for the year

[mots02]

Lots of chat on the Rankine case… my only issue is how do the AFL justify increasing the penalty on this offence fir each time it happens… 3, then 4 and now 5.

But they don’t increase the penalty on other offences? Striking in round 1 is worth similar a similar penalty the next time it happens, if there’s 8 across the season, a 2 week sanction fir striking doesn’t suddenly become 10 weeks by the end of the year.

I've never understood this.
A drink driver does not get a bigger penalty or fine for being the 250th drink driver for the year

Correct, they do get an increase if it’s their second or third offence…. But not if they’re the 3rd offender in the chain.

The argument is that the AFL are trying to make a strong deterrent, all they’ve done is create another set of variables in something that they adjudicate.

Good media debate though, so they’ll be happy - irrespective of how poor their decision making, equity, clarity and governance looks.

[dedja]

Lots of chat on the Rankine case… my only issue is how do the AFL justify increasing the penalty on this offence fir each time it happens… 3, then 4 and now 5.

But they don’t increase the penalty on other offences? Striking in round 1 is worth similar a similar penalty the next time it happens, if there’s 8 across the season, a 2 week sanction fir striking doesn’t suddenly become 10 weeks by the end of the year.

I've never understood this.
A drink driver does not get a bigger penalty or fine for being the 250th drink driver for the year

That’s why the AFL are in danger of legal action being taken against them. Imagine any other workplace where the employer makes up Policy & Procedures on the run like they do without a proper process to approve and then ensure that employees are aware of their obligations.

That is, if the AFL claim is that the alleged behaviour by players contravenes their workplace safety, code of conduct, bullying or harassment policies or similar.

[Jim05]

Lots of chat on the Rankine case… my only issue is how do the AFL justify increasing the penalty on this offence fir each time it happens… 3, then 4 and now 5.

But they don’t increase the penalty on other offences? Striking in round 1 is worth similar a similar penalty the next time it happens, if there’s 8 across the season, a 2 week sanction fir striking doesn’t suddenly become 10 weeks by the end of the year.

I've never understood this.
A drink driver does not get a bigger penalty or fine for being the 250th drink driver for the year

Because the AFL came out rightly or wrongly and said that if homophobic slurs continued they would keep increasing the penalty until it was stamped out. With 4 cases already this year they will most likely feel they have to keep increasing penalties or maybe they will just introduce a flat 10 game ban or something

[MW]

I understand the background on why they are doing it, but to punish an offender harder in any circumstances because of acts that other offenders have done is absurd.

[amber_fluid]

I understand the background on why they are doing it, but to punish an offender harder in any circumstances because of acts that other offenders have done is absurd.

It’s ridiculous
No one thinks of the penalty when committing a crime
Idiots!

It’s not a deterrent by increasing penalties exponentially

[MW]

By the AFL theory, the third person caught on the nose beers in any given year should get three strikes and suspended.

[am Bays]

The tribunal guidelines should be applied to this as it is a reportable (using abusive, obscene or offensive language to another player) - law 20 (reportable offences)

The conduct is careless, it's high (to the head - ears) and it's severe. Thats three weeks as per the original Finlayson case.

It would be intentional if he went straight out used offensive language without provocation.

[whufc]

The tribunal guidelines should be applied to this as it is a reportable (using abusive, obscene or offensive language to another player) - law 20 (reportable offences)

The conduct is careless, it's high (to the head - ears) and it's severe. Thats three weeks as per the original Finlayson case.

It would be intentional if he went straight out used offensive language without provocation.

Not sure you can really take provocation into the equation.......thats an even more slippery and grey than the original vilification.

Is a hard bump or tackle provocation???

Is you can't kick this one provocation vs win a hardball softy?? Is a rub on the head after a bloke costs his team a goal? You get my jist.

Ultimately footballers need to have better control and there is NO EXCUSE for racial or homophobic slurs.

Rankine could have used a trillion comebacks for the provocation instead he went down the two paths you simply cant go down.

[another grub]

Any verdict yet?

[Booney]

Any verdict yet?

Yes, 5 weeks.