Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Footballers Grog Coke Aggression and Roids

Jump to new
Krusty the Klown said:
No, this is different from what GG is saying, because there is no drugs, grog and roids involved.

This is natural aggresssion and is no different to any other all in brawl in any other kids sport. It was the same when I played sport as a youth.

And if parents are worried about their kids getting hurt by being kicked in the head then they shouldn't be playing the sport in the first place.
Click to expand...

I dont agree with that...

That kid got a 20year ban, can never play in Australia again -- good

Its playing the ball, not the man..

My sons played footy, soccer, cricket, to name a few, and has never crossed paths with an idiot like that..

ThankGod I say..
 
johnnyg said:
Wow, I'm glad your not my father!
Click to expand...

I'll clarify, I was obviously a bit blunt.

What I'm saying is that you can get kicked in the head in general play, or injured just as badly the same way - like a scrum collapse.

I should have said "they shouldn't play contact sports" if they fear injury in their children.
 
Mr J said:
There's a big difference between knocking your head in a tackle, and having some a-hole kick it in.
Click to expand...

The only difference is intent. The potential for the injury is still there regardless.

Fighting in sport is as old as sport and it only seems to happen in contact sports.

So, logically, if you don't want your child to get their head kicked in intentionally, is not to allow them to play contact sports.
 
Essendon's rising star Michael Hurley has been quizzed by police after allegedly bashing a taxi driver in Melbourne early this morning.

A spokeswoman for Victoria police confirmed a 19-year-old Rosanna man was questioned over an assault following a disputed cab fare in Hoddle St, Richmond, about 5.30am today.

The taxi driver was allegedly kicked and punched but only suffered minor injuries and was not taken to hospital.

Hurley left a police station in Fitzroy just before midday.

Speaking on Melbourne radio, AFL chief Andrew Demetriou confirmed the bulky forward was interviewed by police.

"Essendon has been proactive in informing us that Michael Hurley has been involved in an incident in the early hours of this morning," he told 3AW.

The radio station reported Hurley was involved in a drunken dispute with an Indian taxi driver.

Essendon issued a brief statement following the reports.

"Essendon can confirm that one if its players was involved in an incident in the early hours of this morning," the club said.

"The club is investigating the facts of the matter and will make further comment later today."
Click to expand...

um ......... is this acceptable also ?
 
Krusty the Klown said:
The only difference is intent.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it makes a huge difference to many. If someone lets their child play a physical sport, they accept the potential injuries that naturally occur during that sport. They wouldn't, however, accept the risk of some thug bashing their child. A sporting injury is an acceptable risk, an injury as a result of on-field violence is not.

Fighting in sport is as old as sport and it only seems to happen in contact sports.
Click to expand...

There's also a difference between throwing a punch, and stomping on someone's head.

So, logically, if you don't want your child to get their head kicked in intentionally, is not to allow them to play contact sports.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. You may as well argue that parents shouldn't let their kids out of the house, since they don't want their children to be mugged on the street :rolleyes:.
 
Mr J said:
Yes, and it makes a huge difference to many. If someone lets their child play a physical sport, they accept the potential injuries that naturally occur during that sport. They wouldn't, however, accept the risk of some thug bashing their child. A sporting injury is an acceptable risk, an injury as a result of on-field violence is not.
Click to expand...

There's also a difference between a physical sport and a contact sport. If a parent lets their child play a contact sport and does not know that that sport has ended in brawls many times in the past, then that parent is just naive. It is a risk of contact sports.

A parent would have to have been living in a cave not to know the risk of brawls in contact sports. If they have knowingly put their child in a sport that has had brawls in the past then they are accepting the risk.

There's also a difference between throwing a punch, and stomping on someone's head.
Click to expand...

They are both acts of violence with intent to cause harm, one just leads to the other in most fights.

Is it acceptable? No

Is it a fact of life? Yes.

That's ridiculous. You may as well argue that parents shouldn't let their kids out of the house, since they don't want their children to be mugged on the street :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

Logically, you can't use that argument because kids NEED to leave the house to go about normal life.

The kids don't NEED to play a contact sport with a known history of violence. There are many team sport alternatives for fitness.
 
If they have knowingly put their child in a sport that has had brawls in the past then they are accepting the risk.
Click to expand...

No they're not, and they shouldn't have to. Brawls are not part of the sport - I've never seen 'brawling' listed anywhere in the rulebook.

Logically, you can't use that argument because kids NEED to leave the house to go about normal life.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to my point. Next you'll be arguing that parents accept the risk that other loony parents will berate and beat their kids during the game.

I'm not sure how you can argue that thuggery is a part of contact sports.
 
There isn't really much for me to add that Mr J hasn't said, and he's probably put it alot better then I could also.
 
Mr J and johnnyg,

Maybe I have note been eloquent enough so I apologise, but I actually agree with what you are saying that intentional violence is not acceptable in contact sports.

Mr J said:
No they're not, and they shouldn't have to. Brawls are not part of the sport - I've never seen 'brawling' listed anywhere in the rulebook.
Click to expand...

Thuggery is not in the rules of any contact sport, but it still happens in every contact sport. Speeding is against the law, but people still do it. Drink driving is against the law, but people still do it. Striking an opponent in any sport is against the rules, but people still do it.

What I'm saying is that even though thuggery is not in the rule book..... it always seems to happen in contact sports. Thuggery is inherent in human society regardless of the culture, so when you have people smashing in to each other for sport, there is always going to be one oaf who takes offence and takes it personal...... and then the thuggery begins.

Irrelevant to my point. Next you'll be arguing that parents accept the risk that other loony parents will berate and beat their kids during the game.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that happen when I was playing rugby as a teenager.

I'm not sure how you can argue that thuggery is a part of contact sports.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it should be a part of contact sports, I'm just observing that brawls in sport only occur in contact sports..... so, logically, if you don't want your kid in a brawl, don't let them play contact sports.

This will probably not surprise you, johnnyg and Mr J, but I actually grew up in Blacktown. So what I saw in that video was nothing more than what I saw on the street growing up. Its just a reflection of the society where the kids live. And to me it was pretty tame.

For me that sort of violence is just part of life in most parts of the world, when you grow up with it, its just life... that's all....

I grew up expecting the worst from all people, now I'm pleasantly surprised when I meet a good person, but still don't trust them!!!!

P.S. That expression on my avatar is a good reflection of how I felt by the time I was 18.
 
Mr J said:
No they're not, and they shouldn't have to. Brawls are not part of the sport - I've never seen 'brawling' listed anywhere in the rulebook.



Irrelevant to my point. Next you'll be arguing that parents accept the risk that other loony parents will berate and beat their kids during the game.

I'm not sure how you can argue that thuggery is a part of contact sports.
Click to expand...
Totally in agreement with you Mr J. Footballers should be setting a good example especially for the youth of today. Most of them do behave, but there's a growing element that think they can do whatever they like. The penalties need to be increased.
 
my moment to be on the flip side

Brendan Fevola sacked from carlton

now here i disagree with this punishment , the bloke was being a Goose thats all . he didnt punch anyone out ,streak around naked , knock up the police commisioners daughter ............. He did however act the goose on tv while giving fellow footy players and associated hob nobs a bit of stick at a function in the media spotlight ..........

sheet happens but think it may have been harsh to sack him
 
nunthewiser said:
my moment to be on the flip side

Brendan Fevola sacked from carlton

now here i disagree with this punishment , the bloke was being a Goose thats all . he didnt punch anyone out ,streak around naked , knock up the police commisioners daughter ............. He did however act the goose on tv while giving fellow footy players and associated hob nobs a bit of stick at a function in the media spotlight ..........

sheet happens but think it may have been harsh to sack him
Click to expand...

Maybe Carlton are trying to avoid the dodgeland image.

Don't get me wrong Fevola is a brilliant footballer but...

 
nunthewiser said:
my moment to be on the flip side

Brendan Fevola sacked from carlton

now here i disagree with this punishment , the bloke was being a Goose thats all . he didnt punch anyone out ,streak around naked , knock up the police commisioners daughter ............. He did however act the goose on tv while giving fellow footy players and associated hob nobs a bit of stick at a function in the media spotlight ..........

sheet happens but think it may have been harsh to sack him
Click to expand...

Being an a$$ or playing an a$$. Still comes back to being in a position of being a role model for young viewers........

If they want the dough that comes with being at the top, then they have to accept the restrictions that apply when their faces are household names. Otherwise they can try and become CEOs of very large companies to make the kind of money that they make.
 
inenigma said:
Being an a$$ or playing an a$$. Still comes back to being in a position of being a role model for young viewers........

If they want the dough that comes with being at the top, then they have to accept the restrictions that apply when their faces are household names. .
Click to expand...


i understand and respect that and have mentioned that in this thread so my post maybe somewhat hypocritical to some of my previous posts .......

i found his humour pretty darn funny actually and in good sort of taste as blokey humour goes .........

just a shame , thats all .
 
inenigma said:
If they want the dough that comes with being at the top, then they have to accept the restrictions that apply when their faces are household names. Otherwise they can try and become CEOs of very large companies to make the kind of money that they make.
Click to expand...

well said..

He has been in trouble more than once Nun, think this was the last straw for them..
 
But he kicked the most goals of any forward in the AFL this season.

He needs a Buddhist monk.

Start breathing and he will be double the player compared to the team he used to play for. JMO. :D
 
Top