If Damian Barrett is correct in what he mentioned on The Footy Show just last night, then there may need to be questions asked about what can be used in the sledging of an opponent.
Mitch Clark, Geelong’s new recruit, is suffering a form of depression. He walked out of Melbourne to get treatment and it’s clear despite being down the highway, he is still being treated for his depression issues (based on comments by Joel Selwood last night).
However, certainly Hawthorn supporters and more than likely players, have decided to needle Clark about these issues.
Leaves questions.
We know that race is a no-go zone. Religion probably is too. Sexual preference, physical and mental health probably should be.
Or is it a case of what John Newman said that what is said on the field, stays there.
It should be a no go zone. Bag him about being a rubbish player or whatever but leave the illness stuff out of it.
As a sufferer of depression i wouldnt wish it upon anyone. Imagine if a supporter was bagging him about his illness and the person sitting next to him was going through the same thing, wouldnt exactly help that persons state of mind
Agreed. It’s no different to race, sex or sexuality.
My initial reaction was the same as yours, but why is depression (an illness, just of the brain more than the body) that much different to having a bung arm or ribs? Or having a gambling or drug problem (again, largely treated as an illness), or some form of legal trouble?
All of those have been used to get under opponents’ skin, with little or no repercussions.
Maybe my initial gut reaction was right, but I’m trying to find the logic as to why the line is exactly where it is.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one absolutely gobsmacked by Mitch Clark’s return to better health (depression as well as his supposedly career-endingly bung foot) as soon he got out of his contract at Melbourne.
From those comments I take it you have never suffered from depression. Because if you have, you would never think like that.
Spare me the "you wouldn't know" angle - I'm not trying to trivialise the condition. Believe me. I don't suffer from depression myself, but a parent, a partner, partner's parent, and a very good long-term friend do have clinical depression. I've dealt with it 2nd hand on all angles over 10+ years and I know how debilitating it can be.
My question is purely about the context of the footy field, and why we draw the line where we do. More about why we consider some stuff OK (like drug or gambling problems - hardly trivial) than the stuff we don’t.
It’s an interesting question HAP. You can question someone’s physical and mental toughness if they squib a contest. But as you know, depression is illness, not a measure of mental or physical toughness.
I would sledge someone about depression the sane way I would sledge someone about cancer. ie - I wouldn’t.
Clark should not be immune from all sledging though. If he squibs a contest, surely he’s open to the same criticism as Mark Murphy would be?
I wonder if he’s over reacted to something said on field and then after thinking about it without the emotion of the game, he’s backed away from taking any further action.
I imagine someone said something along the lines of “how many games will you play for at this club?”
Whatever the case, it was still a reprehensible attitude from Caro. She really is a terrible person.
Pretty much.
I don't think it's necessarily a completely black and white issue.
I wouldn’t even say a player for reacting a certain way in the heat of the game - but not wanting to take it further - means they over-reacted in the first place. A reaction is just an emotional response. (Similar to how Goodes reacted at the moment he got slurred vs Collingwood - his response might well have been different if he knew it was a youngster. But you can’t know that when you just hear something screamed at you from 20m away). But how can you criticise someone for a reaction, by definition it’s an emotional response?
Put it this way, I imagine players have always given Clark crap about lying through his ■■■■ to get out of Brisbane to go “home” to WA - only to end up at Melbourne when they found a few more dollars. So his behaviour has been questionable in the past and I’m sure he’s copped it about that. Is he now immune from copping it about that? And how far can we really expect players to go out of their way to not talk about his depression? These aren’t exactly considered, researched comments…
It should be a no go zone. Bag him about being a rubbish player or whatever but leave the illness stuff out of it.
As a sufferer of depression i wouldnt wish it upon anyone. Imagine if a supporter was bagging him about his illness and the person sitting next to him was going through the same thing, wouldnt exactly help that persons state of mind
Agreed. It’s no different to race, sex or sexuality.
My initial reaction was the same as yours, but why is depression (an illness, just of the brain more than the body) that much different to having a bung arm or ribs? Or having a gambling or drug problem (again, largely treated as an illness), or some form of legal trouble?
All of those have been used to get under opponents’ skin, with little or no repercussions.
Maybe my initial gut reaction was right, but I’m trying to find the logic as to why the line is exactly where it is.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one absolutely gobsmacked by Mitch Clark’s return to better health (depression as well as his supposedly career-endingly bung foot) as soon he got out of his contract at Melbourne.
From those comments I take it you have never suffered from depression. Because if you have, you would never think like that.
Spare me the "you wouldn't know" angle - I'm not trying to trivialise the condition. Believe me. I don't suffer from depression myself, but a parent, a partner, partner's parent, and a very good long-term friend do have clinical depression. I've dealt with it 2nd hand on all angles over 10+ years and I know how debilitating it can be.
My question is purely about the context of the footy field, and why we draw the line where we do. More about why we consider some stuff OK (like drug or gambling problems - hardly trivial) than the stuff we don’t.
It’s an interesting question HAP. You can question someone’s physical and mental toughness if they squib a contest. But as you know, depression is illness, not a measure of mental or physical toughness.
I would sledge someone about depression the sane way I would sledge someone about cancer. ie - I wouldn’t.
Clark should not be immune from all sledging though. If he squibs a contest, surely he’s open to the same criticism as Mark Murphy would be?
I wonder if he’s over reacted to something said on field and then after thinking about it without the emotion of the game, he’s backed away from taking any further action.
I imagine someone said something along the lines of “how many games will you play for at this club?”
Whatever the case, it was still a reprehensible attitude from Caro. She really is a terrible person.
It should be a no go zone. Bag him about being a rubbish player or whatever but leave the illness stuff out of it.
As a sufferer of depression i wouldnt wish it upon anyone. Imagine if a supporter was bagging him about his illness and the person sitting next to him was going through the same thing, wouldnt exactly help that persons state of mind
Agreed. It’s no different to race, sex or sexuality.
My initial reaction was the same as yours, but why is depression (an illness, just of the brain more than the body) that much different to having a bung arm or ribs? Or having a gambling or drug problem (again, largely treated as an illness), or some form of legal trouble?
All of those have been used to get under opponents’ skin, with little or no repercussions.
Maybe my initial gut reaction was right, but I’m trying to find the logic as to why the line is exactly where it is.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one absolutely gobsmacked by Mitch Clark’s return to better health (depression as well as his supposedly career-endingly bung foot) as soon he got out of his contract at Melbourne.
From those comments I take it you have never suffered from depression. Because if you have, you would never think like that.
Spare me the "you wouldn't know" angle - I'm not trying to trivialise the condition. Believe me. I don't suffer from depression myself, but a parent, a partner, partner's parent, and a very good long-term friend do have clinical depression. I've dealt with it 2nd hand on all angles over 10+ years and I know how debilitating it can be.
My question is purely about the context of the footy field, and why we draw the line where we do. More about why we consider some stuff OK (like drug or gambling problems - hardly trivial) than the stuff we don’t.
She doesn't represent any cross section of the football community.
She don’t represent women.
She don’t represent men.
She don’t represent players.
She don’t represent parents.
She don’t represent footy fans.
She don’t represent kids.
She represents the “get offended or outraged on behalf of others” group.
It should be a no go zone. Bag him about being a rubbish player or whatever but leave the illness stuff out of it.
As a sufferer of depression i wouldnt wish it upon anyone. Imagine if a supporter was bagging him about his illness and the person sitting next to him was going through the same thing, wouldnt exactly help that persons state of mind
Agreed. It’s no different to race, sex or sexuality.
My initial reaction was the same as yours, but why is depression (an illness, just of the brain more than the body) that much different to having a bung arm or ribs? Or having a gambling or drug problem (again, largely treated as an illness), or some form of legal trouble?
All of those have been used to get under opponents’ skin, with little or no repercussions.
Maybe my initial gut reaction was right, but I’m trying to find the logic as to why the line is exactly where it is.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one absolutely gobsmacked by Mitch Clark’s return to better health (depression as well as his supposedly career-endingly bung foot) as soon he got out of his contract at Melbourne.
From those comments I take it you have never suffered from depression. Because if you have, you would never think like that.
She doesn't represent any cross section of the football community.
She don’t represent women.
She don’t represent men.
She don’t represent players.
She don’t represent parents.
She don’t represent footy fans.
She don’t represent kids.
I'd argue she represents liars, sociopaths, the recipients of nepotism and arseholes.
She doesn’t represent any cross section of the football community.
She don’t represent women.
She don’t represent men.
She don’t represent players.
She don’t represent parents.
She don’t represent footy fans.
She don’t represent kids.