http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/aflw/western-bulldogs-captain-katie-brennan-out-of-aflw-grand-final-but-will-fight-case-in-court/news-story/fbf9e75f392f91e9f6594ba81f36d6c7
Good on the dogs, disgraceful that she got rubbed out for that.
It's was her second offense though so she has form on the issue.
They are complaining primarily because they claim a precedent from the mens comp shows discrimination, but that was under an obsolete tribunal system so I am not sure precedents apply.
They'll be even more upset today, Nankervis did the very same to Fisher. And someone did the same I think to Jones in the second quarter and it didn't even result in a free, I think it was Caddy or McIntosh!
If the AFL were smart, they'd get busy citing similar tackles from last nights match and remove the Bulldogs oxygen.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/aflw/western-bulldogs-captain-katie-brennan-out-of-aflw-grand-final-but-will-fight-case-in-court/news-story/fbf9e75f392f91e9f6594ba81f36d6c7
Good on the dogs, disgraceful that she got rubbed out for that.
The AFL really are clueless. I call it the Dunning-Kruger HQ down in Docklands.....
I think the penalty of missing the GF is too harsh for the offense, but Brennan has form.
What the AFL have done is probably the right thing, they have ruled on the event without regard to the fact that this is a GF.
But lets face it, they haven't been consistent with this in the past. if this was Franklin the week before the GF would they have banned him?
If they are consistent with this from now on then well and good, who the player is and what game is next week should make no difference. Hopefully then the umpiring will follow suit and well see free kicks based on events and not personalities! ;D
I think the penalty of missing the GF is too harsh for the offense, but Brennan has form.
What the AFL have done is probably the right thing, they have ruled on the event without regard to the fact that this is a GF.
But lets face it, they haven't been consistent with this in the past. if this was Franklin the week before the GF would they have banned him?
If they are consistent with this from now on then well and good, who the player is and what game is next week should make no difference. Hopefully then the umpiring will follow suit and well see free kicks based on events and not personalities! ;D
...or Cotchin last year...
Like LP said there were tackles last night that were similar and they were not even a free kick.
Life can be too weird.
We are having this debate earlier and I go to buy some lunch. In the queue are two 20 year old men and an older women talking about Brennan. I hear the woman say something like "She doesn't want to appeal, it's the club that is driving it!" I could help I had to ask, they were all members of her family out to grab some lunch!
Turns out Brennan didn't want to proceed down the legal pathway, she thinks she has little chance and has accepted she won't be playing!
Actually, listening to them it almost sounds like the HR lawyers are using her case because it has standing on some other issue, it's the lid on a can of AFL / AFLW worms!
She has given up playing in the GF but she wants the suspension overturned on the principle that she should be allowed to tackle like the men do.
Fair enough, then it is a separate issue.
If the AFL MRP cites a bunch of guys next week for the same type of tackle she'll have no standing, some of the men will be very nervous after last night.
From Science Daily 6 Sep 2017:
Scientists have known for more than a decade that female athletes sustain concussions at a higher rate than males when playing sports with similar rules, such as soccer, basketball and baseball/softball. Females also tend to report more symptoms -- and more severe ones -- and may also take longer to recover from brain injuries than their male counterparts.
There are many more peer reviewed articles exploring concussion in females but it is generally accepted that concussion rates are higher and the consequences are worse for women. That’s one of the reasons the AFL is tougher on rough play in the AFLW. They would be avoiding their duty of care if they applied more lenient penalties.
Peter Gordon has been extraordinarily strident in his claims of discrimination, and I suspect that he is the instigator of the complaint to HRC. Perhaps he would be better off getting up to speed on female concussions.
Unfortunately the "Movementeers" won't see it like that, they'll argue that women have power over their own bodies and therefore the right to put themselves in harms way as they see fit.
Then the "Movementeers" will go back to sipping lattes in Fitroy St, or studying for another degree with tax payer funds, until a girl gets a brain injury in AFLW at which time they'll role up and sue the AFL for failing it's duty of care.
All because it's such an injustice, it seems!
But isn't Brennan playing in an all female competition, and the rules are relative to every other female in the competition, but not strictly relevant to the AFL rules. That seems to be the point some are getting to;
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-v-aflw-the-battle-to-build-a-better-women-s-league-20180323-p4z5vh.html
So we want girls to play footy but not real footy?
So we want girls to play footy but not real footy?
Most aspects of culture and society exits in an evolving, dynamic context. What was acceptable in men's footy 50 years ago is not tolerated now. That doesn't mean today's male players are wusses.
The women should a play a game that treads a sensible line between being close to the men's game but tailored to them. We have enormous amounts of knowledge, information etc. regarding all aspects of people's health and well being - why not use it ?
So we want girls to play footy but not real footy?
Exactly!
Sexual dimorphism is a thing with
Homo sapiens and AFLW must be tailored to suit female characteristics; the smaller ball is one measure and minimising head injuries is another.
Exactly!
Sexual dimorphism is a thing with Homo sapiens and AFLW must be tailored to suit female characteristics; the smaller ball is one measure and minimising head injuries is another.
The AFL are minimising head injuries in the mens game too.
The AFL are simply scaling everything from the mens game to the shorter season of the womens game.
Normally its 3 strikes over a 22 game season.
Its 2 for the women over a 7 game season.
That magpie chick who kicking one of the hosking girls in the vagina got 2 (3?) weeks, in the mens game it would've been 4 or 5.
Its unfortunate for Katie, but its got nothing to do with what sex she is.
The AFL are minimising head injuries in the mens game too.
The AFL are simply scaling everything from the mens game to the shorter season of the womens game.
Normally its 3 strikes over a 22 game season.
Its 2 for the women over a 7 game season.
That magpie chick who kicking one of the hosking girls in the vagina got 2 (3?) weeks, in the mens game it would've been 4 or 5.
Its unfortunate for Katie, but its got nothing to do with what sex she is.
So the smaller footy used in AFLW is because the game is shorter and not because women have smaller hands? ;D
The whole point of the appeal against the penalty is that it is more severe than would be applied to a male AFL player. In other words, AFLW tribunal penalties are intended to reduce incidents that could result in concussions suffered by AFLW players because women are more susceptible to concussion and will suffer from the consequences.
So the smaller footy used in AFLW is because the game is shorter and not because women have smaller hands? ;D
Actually, I heard it was put into use to increase the kicking distances.
Actually, I heard it was put into use to increase the kicking distances.
Physics would seem to argue against that LP.
I’m sure that there was a discussion back at the start of the season about the optimum size of the footy for AFLW.
Women’s basketball uses a smaller ball to facilitate better ball handling and I would be very surprised if AFLW is any different. But what’s logic got to do with it? :)
Physics would seem to argue against that LP.
It's not a simple ballistic solution.
AFL Size 5 = 72cm x 54cm.
AFLW Size 4.5 = 71cm x 52cm.
Junior Male / New AFLW Size 4 = 70cm x 52cm.
The 54 / 52cm circumference reduction only makes a diameter change of 5mm, unless you had the two balls side by side you would barely notice it.
The size difference is trivial, the main effect is caused by reduced footy weight which increases the attainable velocity from the girls less powerful kick.
So the smaller footy used in AFLW is because the game is shorter and not because women have smaller hands? ;D
The whole point of the appeal against the penalty is that it is more severe than would be applied to a male AFL player. In other words, AFLW tribunal penalties are intended to reduce incidents that could result in concussions suffered by AFLW players because women are more susceptible to concussion and will suffer from the consequences.
If you ask the girls, they prefer the normal footballs too.
Katie Brennan was not suspended for her tackle. The severity of the tackle was not graded differently to the mens.
She got a reprimand for the tackle.
She had a previous reprimand.
In the girls game, 2 reprimands = suspension.
In the mens, 3 reprimands = suspension.
Forget about the force, the concussion etc. Its about the reprimands being 'sexist' as they only get 2 compared to 3. I argue thats for the shorter season length.
Forget about the force, the concussion etc. Its about the reprimands being 'sexist' as they only get 2 compared to 3. I argue thats for the shorter season length.
I'd agree with that hypothesis, but if it's true.............
Logically because of the shorter season you have to accept a suspension in the women's season is a harsher penalty than the men's.
What we are really arguing is the penalties as a percentage of the season, it reasonable logic, but I'm not sure you can scale penalties because of the effects of the offence. A sling tackle can do the same amount of damage in the short season as the long!
The lawyers are walking a razor's edge, because this result can go either way. The girls could find themselves getting the same penalties as the men and that would mean they be wiped out for a season for a high bump!
This process from Brennan's legal team could really bite the rest of the AFLW competition on the arse, it's a bit selfish!
I'd agree with that hypothesis, but if it's true.............
Logically because of the shorter season you have to accept a suspension in the women's season is a harsher penalty than the men's.
What we are really arguing is the penalties as a percentage of the season, it reasonable logic, but I'm not sure you can scale penalties because of the effects of the offence. A sling tackle can do the same amount of damage in the short season as the long!
The lawyers are walking a razor's edge, because this result can go either way. The girls could find themselves getting the same penalties as the men and that would mean they be wiped out for a season for a high bump!
This process from Brennan's legal team could really bite the rest of the AFLW competition on the arse, it's a bit selfish!
I said the above example earlier. I also included the Sarah Darcy kick to one of the hosking twins vagina as precedence. She got 2 (or 3?) weeks for that, whereas in the mens game it would've been minimum 4 or 5.
The sliding scale of punishment has been talked about on a few footy shows before the Brennan suspension. I don't think its any official rule, per se, more of a common sense type of guideline.
The sliding scale of punishment has been talked about on a few footy shows before the Brennan suspension. I don't think its any official rule, per se, more of a common sense type of guideline.
Agree, the fact that this legal action could take away that common sense and force equal penalties seems contradictory to the idea of equality.
The tackle wouldn't even be a free kick in the men's game.
The tackle wouldn't even be a free kick in the men's game.
Yes, but as you rightly point out that is the mens game, and it's been made clear by the AFL they see it as a different sport played under different rules and conditions.
Personally, I have no problem with that, as much as the equality debate rages men and women are not the same.
The tackle wouldn't even be a free kick in the men's game.
It was for Jack Riewoldts first goal on thursday night. Weitering barely touched him.
The tackle wouldn't even be a free kick in the men's game.
I cannot recall who it was but there was a free kick given against St us for a 'dangerous tackle' which I complained about. My friend pointed out it was almost identical to the Brennan one.
It was on the wing in the first half, against us
I cannot recall who it was but there was a free kick given against St us for a 'dangerous tackle' which I complained about. My friend pointed out it was almost identical to the Brennan one.
It was on the wing in the first half, against us
Second quarter.
Umpire off the ball paid it. Think it was against SPS.
Katie has her wish and the AFL has promised to remove anomalous differences between the MRP decisions for the AFLW and AFL.
The result has probably subjected her fellow AFLW players to greater bans, bans that for men would be moderate but for the AFLW could be their season! Also fines that for the men might be a days wage but for the girls could be a weekly or season wage!
So I gather the next logical step is for the AFLW lawyers to argue for higher pay and more games! Will they risk killing this competition before it even gets off the ground, are they getting the rewards before they actually deliver the goods?
I note that some reports claim Katie will work collaboratively with the AFL to establish new conditions, does she speak for all AFLW players, and if those AFLW conditions are different from AFL how is that equality?
Stupidest rule I have ever heard off. Stupid decisions made by the very people running a billion dollar organisation. Fancy creating a rule discrepancy between the mens and womens comp and using their lower salary as the reason. That is, they suspend the women instead of fining them (like the men) because they dont get paid as much. Ever heard of pro rata AFL imbeciles?
Good to see that they sorted it out but it was a bit late for Katie who missed a grand final.