Taking Barrett out of the equation, you only need go by Clarke’s reaction to the incident on the day, Someone was lining up for goal and he’s going bezerk swinging arms. Not hard to put two and two together to find out why he was doing it.
Taking Barrett out of the equation, you only need go by Clarke's reaction to the incident on the day, Someone was lining up for goal and he's going bezerk swinging arms. Not hard to put two and two together to find out why he was doing it.
He’s a windmill?
Quoted PostTaking Barrett out of the equation, you only need go by Clarke's reaction to the incident on the day, Someone was lining up for goal and he's going bezerk swinging arms. Not hard to put two and two together to find out why he was doing it.He’s a windmill?
I did have a mental image of this scene from the simpsons when I said it, if that helps
Brian Lake the accused but is denying it.
His manager is denying it.
Maybe he said something ambiguous like ‘cheer up’.
Im the worst fkn sledger you’ll ever meet. I love a good sledge. Probably wouldn’t go that far though
Im the worst fkn sledger you'll ever meet.Come play forum games for Blitz and I think you’ll find you rank second to Denton…
SWMNBN almost revealed her source last night on footy classified for naming Lake.
Apparently Steve Hocking (cats footy manager) told Hawks footy manager it was Lake. And AFl were the go between.
Now i think Steve Hocking will be ■■■■■■ off, he was named by wilson if the afl leaked the information to her.
Mitch Clark came out on twitter saying he didnt say it was Lake.
Mitch Clark @mitchjclark · Apr 11
Reports are completely false. Never named Brian Lake. Story blown way out of proportion and I wanna just get on with the footy #mightycats
So why did Lake say ‘it wasn’t me’ through his manager, rather than his own mouth?
Pretty much. I don't think it's necessarily a completely black and white issue.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.Quoted PostQuoted PostIt 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.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.
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…
Spot on.
There is the chance someone will say something to him and not draw a link to depression. But Clark might and that’s where the issue will lie going forward. Interpretation, and how he reacts.
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.Quoted PostQuoted PostIt 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.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.
Living it and experiencing it are different though. And if you have lived it, you do think differently.
Also, it is his workplace. Do you go to work and get sledged, or is that considered bullying? Why is it acceptable for professional athletes to be abused and bullied? It is more than a fine line with sport.
If you want to sledge him on leaving Brissie, fair game. But also recognise that in doing so, if he reacts, you have culpability.
I'm not saying that is what happened (and I don't think we'll ever know.) I just think it's worth discussing or thinking about why (or even if) sledging about all your life and all your life and career decisions up until point X is fair game, but from point X forward isn't. Cos these aren't exactly phD papers we're talking about here.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...i’d be surprised if this became an issue because Clark ‘misunderstood’ some jibes about him chasing cash.
I don’t think there should be any penalty or punishment for it, but if you sledge somebody about their depression, you’re a rubbish person, and a good public ‘outing’ is worthy.
I agree on the second bit btw.
Good post, and I agree with pretty much all of it.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.Quoted PostQuoted PostIt 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.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.
Living it and experiencing it are different though. And if you have lived it, you do think differently.Also, it is his workplace. Do you go to work and get sledged, or is that considered bullying? Why is it acceptable for professional athletes to be abused and bullied? It is more than a fine line with sport.
If you want to sledge him on leaving Brissie, fair game. But also recognise that in doing so, if he reacts, you have culpability.
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.Quoted PostQuoted PostIt 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.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.
Living it and experiencing it are different though. And if you have lived it, you do think differently.Also, it is his workplace. Do you go to work and get sledged, or is that considered bullying? Why is it acceptable for professional athletes to be abused and bullied? It is more than a fine line with sport.
If you want to sledge him on leaving Brissie, fair game. But also recognise that in doing so, if he reacts, you have culpability.
Every workplace has different social etiquette. I wouldn’t shove someone at work but I would on the footy field. Sledging is a part of our game (unfortunately) so you can’t always equate one workplace with another.
Even the people you sledge are different; someone else may brush of a line about depression as nothing and play on. There’s no universal line that everyone follows.
I guess the real question then becomes, as we are more professional, should it be allowed at all? It is apart of our culture, but does it need to remain. And I am guilty of sledging as a fan.Good post, and I agree with pretty much all of it.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.Quoted PostQuoted PostIt 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.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.
Living it and experiencing it are different though. And if you have lived it, you do think differently.Also, it is his workplace. Do you go to work and get sledged, or is that considered bullying? Why is it acceptable for professional athletes to be abused and bullied? It is more than a fine line with sport.
If you want to sledge him on leaving Brissie, fair game. But also recognise that in doing so, if he reacts, you have culpability.