Season 2017 - Richmond

I think I’ll steer clear of this thread for a while

6 Likes

So much for the inside sources, eh?

To be honest I am sick of men taking advantage of women and then blaming the victims.

Three weeks is an absolutely pathetic suspension. You can get worse than that for stepping over the line with a bump or tackle on field in the heat of play. Richmond (and the AFL if they go along with this) have shown that their clearly not serious about dealing with sexism and sexual abuse. I know for a fact that Richmond has lost numerous memberships because of their weak penalty.

7 Likes

On the other hand, it is more than you get for chasing down a guy as the ump directly tells you not to king-hit him, and then you king-hit the guy anyway.

Stuff is random.

A sex offender?

Hahahahahaha

1 Like

He humiliated her and she’ll live with that forever. She is not the first to put her trust in a scumbag.

1 Like

What’s this referring to?

1 Like

Yep, this person was given false information clearly. But you know what, at least he isn’t being an ■■■■ about it like you.

Anyway, it was very courageous of Hodge to say the penalty should be higher. As courageous as slamming a guy into the point post and nearly breaking his neck, almost as courageous as drink driving.

2 Likes

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/richmond/richmond-midfielder-reece-concas-hit-on-gws-midfielder-devon-smith-appalling-says-afl-chief-gillon-mclachlan/news-story/316229459913436a9fe3119b4bdd2b29

Note how the decision was “appalling” but the AFL chose not to appeal it.

for reference

2 Likes

WOuldve got 10 weeks+ in any other sports league in the country.

Emergency umpire behind it. Fkn pathetic.

yes, what would you call it?

He did something without consent, and this thing was sexual in nature.

I suppose to you the odd grope/comment/leer in the office is all good as well?

It’s because of this sought of attitude that half the population don’t feel safe.

1 Like

Given there is no legal case to answer here, this is entirely a moral issue and the case against Broad needs to be based on facts, not typical AFL brandwashing and their use of the ‘disrepute’ clause to cover anything they want it to.

Broad doesn’t have to be a nice guy and he certainly wasn’t when he lied to the woman and shared the photo. But the issue of consent is more complex than we think.

What did the woman actually consent to when she posed for the photo? Did she actually agree on the grounds that only 2 people would ever see the photo? Did she intend to show her GFs and then changed her mind? When she asked for it to be deleted is that a request to delete someone else’s property or is it her property and she has a right to demand deletion?

Is Broad responsible for the photo going viral or did he share the photo in confidence with another friend or 2? The problem here is the woman cannot totally undo the act which she willingly engaged in. She can ask for the photo to be deleted and a friend or a decent person would agree. But Broad doesn’t have to be either one of these.

Telling lies and showing some friends a tasteful nude photo or 2 is totally unremarkable. Broad’s stupidity is more about not understanding the potential for the photo to go viral, and for the media to blow up the issue on a fashionable quasi-moral platform when their own actions (together with the AFL) are just causing more pain to the victim.

These issues are complex and I don’t think the AFL (or media) know or care about the critical issues here as this is just grandstanding for them as they try to protect their brand. For Broad to be publicly shamed, humiliated and suspended (which appears from the little information we have to be contrary to the woman’s wishes and has resulted in more publicity when she was seeking to shut this down) requires a thorough analysis which they are incapable of. And frankly, the debate in the media about whether he should’ve got 3 or 4 or 6 weeks is mindnumbingly stupid as they haven’t even established the essential facts of the case.

4 Likes

Im not saying it was right, but she chose to pose topless with the medal. He didnt hold a gun to her head.

As is her right. It isn’t his right to decide what to do with that photo and to share it with his mates. This isn’t complicated. He breached her trust and broke the law.

4 Likes

See my previous comment. She could have said no to the photo to begin with

I’m not even sure where to begin with your original statement, given the massive scope of its ignorance, but ultimately you are victim blaming, pure and simple.

2 Likes

Ehhh…I’m kinda with WOB here.
A ‘sex crime’ to me, is something a little different.
This is more a gross betrayal of trust and privacy. Throw ‘indecency’ in there somewhere.
He didn’t commit a ‘sexual act’ without consent.
He published a personal (and nude) photo without consent. By implication, the identity of the girl will be known by certain people.
It is different though.