AFL invite backlash as they make it up as they go with Willie Rioli case
There are a lot of factors at play here, the most glaring of which is the way the AFL responds to these incidents. The weekend's controversy needed to be dealt with decisively and coherently. Indeed, in recent times, the AFL has been the most punitive of organisations. Last year, they suspended one of their umpires for dressing up as Osama Bin Laden. It begged a few questions. What sort of rollicking knees-up is an umpires' dress up day? And given the state of umpiring at the moment, can we afford for one of their brethren to be in the sin bin for such an atrocity?
The other crackdown has been on players raising their middle finger. If you abuse players as they come off the field, perhaps you deserve be to given the bird. Back in the day, a football crowd was a bit more self-policing. These days, it's the player who has to do the explaining. When Bailey Smith was filmed giving the double-barrelled bird, he was issued with one of Pauline Hanson's 'please explains'. 'The AFL is set to reach out to the Cats so it can understand the motivations or background behind the interaction,' the very serious statement read.
In things that actually matter, however, they've been decidedly more hesitant and lenient. The way they handled the Noah Balta court case was instructive. There are a lot of harsh penalties in footy. They'll penalise the piddling and the accidental. You can get three weeks for a tackle that would have earned the praise of coaches just a few years ago. You can be a 16-year-old who tosses a flogger on the field and they'll ban you from going to the footy for two years. Compared to that, what Balta did was a disgrace. And yet he'll be running out on Sunday – a very fortunate and free man.
You know what I'm doing here? I'm being a whataboutist. They abound on X. What about this? What about that? Where's my parade? They have an obsession with climate activists using airport lounges. They're almost always middle aged and presumably very hard-done-by blokes. And in a case like Rioli, it's an excuse to voice what they're really itching to say – that the woes of Aboriginal footballers get too much airtime, and that everyone is a victim in their own way. Invariably, after 200,000 versions of the same tweet, what they're essentially saying boils down to three words: 'what about me?' They like to think they're above the trolls, but they are just as contemptible. They embolden them and fan the inevitable abuse.
The AFL has invited that kind of backlash with their inconsistency. In doing so it obscures what is a key factor in all this – that Willie Rioli is clearly struggling, that he cops vile abuse and that any chance of a nuanced conversation about that is now probably impossible. When he lashed out on social media following the Hawthorn game, Port said they were supportive. But it felt like a smother. It was a variation of 'we understand your pain, but please express it on our terms'.
And it is a shame because he had important things to say about the racism he alleges his family was subjected to at Hawthorn. But no-one wants to talk about that anymore. It's football's great unspoken. We, and the word 'we' is always loaded when we talk about such things, all moved on from that didn't we?
Sign up to From the Pocket: AFL Weekly
Jonathan Horn brings expert analysis on the week's biggest AFL stories
after newsletter promotion
A few weeks later, the impression in Ballarat was of a frustrated man who clearly needs a break. Playing in the Showdown on Saturday, at the best of times one of the most febrile environments in Australian football, would have added kerosene to the situation.
What a tedious, toxic, utterly avoidable mess. This whole thing could have been handled so much better. It required decisive action, proper English, common sense and a semblance of consistency. It warranted a strong, early sanction and the appropriate support mechanisms. Instead, the AFL shilly-shallied. They had a few bob each way. And they perpetuated the prevailing view that they're making it up as they go.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The stranger in a strange place is an enduring narrative in Australian fiction. But what if the crime scene is a whole continent?
Non-Indigenous Australians of my generation might have fleetingly pondered the curious names that flashed past the car windows on long ago family road trips – Massacre Bay, Skull Hole, Butchers Creek. Too few, however, might contemplate today how it feels to be dispossessed in a continent replete with topography, public buildings and institutions named in honour of your people's murderers – names celebrating the very acts of massacring Indigenous people without commemorating those murdered. Just on that, at least 10 places in Queensland alone are named Skeleton Creek. Discuss. Much contemporary Australian crime fiction is set in farms, small towns, the hostile bush and the red dusty expanses of various deserts; rural landscapes from which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would probably have been violently dispossessed and massacred after European invasion. These crime novels are captivating, understandably popular and skilfully written. Most, with notable exceptions, focus on crimes committed within fictional contemporary settler communities. The names of some Australian places and the violence they connote seem perfect for the crime genre. Stranger than fiction indeed. But perhaps they are too real. In late winter 2023 I was well advanced on the draft of a novel I'd been steadily progressing since my last was published a year earlier. The characters were circling one another – conversing, doing to each other and being done to. Ghostly lines of plot were finding definition to steadily form a blueprint. I could envisage the final pages. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads This coincided with Australia's purported national conversation about the looming October 2023 Indigenous voice to parliament referendum. The mainstream political atmospherics were ugly and the so-called robust debate gave licence to resentful torrents of racism that manifested in absurd propositions that Indigenous people would somehow be unfairly advantaged by a yes result. Added to that was a burgeoning (and, as the referendum result would have it, emphatic) national repudiation of long-overdue imperatives of historical truth telling of how Australia has violently oppressed the world's oldest continuous civilisation. The debate and the referendum result reflected Australia's past as much as its present. This urgently changed my plans. I dropped what I was writing. New thoughts impelled me. What if I wrote a place that encapsulated this racism, historical denial and hatred? How would that history reverberate today? What is the town called? How did it get its name? These questions quickly gave shape to a place inspired by my travels throughout Australia and from my non-fiction writing and journalism. There were so many places where terrible acts of violence against Indigenous people were committed both in colonial and post-federation times. A number of these violent acts involved troopers, police and 'hunting' parties chasing or 'herding' Aboriginal people over cliffs to their deaths as infamously happened at Appin under the orders of Governor Macquarie in 1816. The fictional Leap could be in any Australian state or territory. It is ubiquitous for its violent connotation – the history of terror and colonial massacre seared into the landscape. Its imagined surrounds embody murderous frontier conflict, where the Indigenous custodians survived and endured but remain dispossessed, discriminated against and marginalised. Where a racially motivated cop can still shoot dead with impunity an Indigenous person in response to a wildly disproportionate physical threat. Where Aboriginal people die in police lock-ups after needless arrest. Where violent deaths of other Indigenous men and women have always been swept under the carpet by cops, journalists, politicians, the broader community … too many historians and writers. Where the very name of the town is a celebration of mass colonial murder. Fanciful? Read the news. It's a place where direct descendants of Black people's killers and the descendants of those they massacred walk the same streets. Where the Indigenous people will talk of that violence as recent because, given hundreds of generations of civilisation, it is only yesterday and today's oppression is part of its continuum. It's where the settler families mostly choose not to dwell on it at all. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion Welcome to The Leap! The stranger in a hostile, strange, remote place is an enduring narrative in Australian fiction whose modern exemplar is, to my mind, Kenneth Cook's brilliant, unsettling 1961 novel Wake in Fright. This book was formative to the teenage reader – and the adult writer – in me and The Leap is partly intended as paean to it. My stranger is Ben, an Englishman who is vaguely conversant with his empire's colonial crimes (more so than many Australians he meets). The story begins, like many crime novels, with a dead white person. But Ben's quest is not to solve this killing. Instead he finds himself peeling back the layers of the victim's home town, its racially divided community and reverberating history. There is no misanthropic cop or prodigal son or daughter returned home to unearth clues about a mystery killing. For there is no single crime to solve in The Leap. No killer to track down. Just a vast colonial and contemporary crime scene involving countless offences against race, gender and social function. The scene – the whole district, the town and its stranger-than-fiction name – is the crime. Everyone knows who the offenders are – now and back when. There is no deeply buried big secret here, just deliberately forgotten truths. And that seems like an apt description of a far bigger place. Perhaps an entire continent. The Leap by Paul Daley is out now through Simon and Schuster.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
'It means the world': Maro Itoje on British & Irish Lions series win
The British & Irish Lions claimed a 29-26 victory and series win over Australia after a late try from Hugo Keenan on Saturday. At one stage the Lions were trailing 23-5, stunned by three Wallaby tries inside nine minutes but the Lions responded with five tries of their own to complete a dramatic comeback. It is the first time the Lions have won the first two tests of a series in 28 years, and secures their first series win in 12 years. Maro Itoje, the Lions captain, hailed a 'massive squad effort' after the game. 'I'm delighted, it's what dreams are made of.' The Lions head coach, Andy Farrell, said: 'If you're a child watching that back home, do you want to be a British and Irish Lion? One hundred percent.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Kevin Pietersen is wrong to say batting was harder 20 years ago
Kevin Pietersen did not often bowl, although he first came to English attention when he represented KwaZulu Natal as an off-spinner on England's 1999-2000 tour of South Africa, but he has delivered some bouncers at Joe Root. Root in the course of his 150 at Old Trafford rose to second place in the all-time list of Test run-scorers. But this was not enough to impress Pietersen. Far from it. He declared, like a real old-timer, that batting was twice as hard back in his day. 'Don't shout at me but batting these days is way easier than 20/25 years ago!' Pietersen posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. 'Probably twice as hard back then.' Pietersen names 22 bowlers of his time and dares the cricket follower of today to name 10 bowlers to compare with them. Of his contemporaries, he nominates four Australians: Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee, Jason Gillespie and Shane Warne; four Pakistanis in Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Wasim Akram and Mushtaq Ahmed; three Indians in Anil Kumble, Javagal Srinath and Harbhajan Singh; three New Zealanders in Shane Bond, Chris Cairns and Daniel Vettori; three South Africans in Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock and, bizarrely, Lance Klusener but not Dale Steyn; two Sri Lankans in Chaminda Vaas and Muttiah Muralitharan; and two West Indians in Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh. A single England bowler was nominated by Pietersen in Darren Gough. His colleagues in the Ashes-winning attack of 2005 seem not to have impressed him. Most of the variable factors in Test cricket have changed little in this century: balls, pitches, DRS and so forth. The biggest change has been the impact of T20 – the first professional T20 tournament was started in England in 2003, by when Pietersen was starting out for Nottinghamshire. My interpretation, therefore, would be that Pietersen is wrong to say that the standard of pace bowling has gone down. The finest seamers today are a match for their equivalents of '20/25 years ago'. Don't shout at me but batting these days is way easier than 20/25 years ago! Probably twice as hard back then! Waqar, Shoaib, Akram, Mushtaq, Kumble, Srinath, Harbhajan, Donald, Pollock, Klusener, Gough, McGrath, Lee, Warne, Gillespie, Bond, Vettori, Cairns, Vaas, Murali,… — Kevin Pietersen🦏 (@KP24) July 26, 2025 'Please name me ten modern bowlers that can compare to the names above,' Pietersen goes on to say. Well, in that case, Australia's Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon can all compare; South Africa's Kagiso Rabada is up with his forebears, not bowling so fast but moving the ball more; Mark Wood and Jofra Archer have been timed as England's quickest ever; New Zealand's Will O'Rourke is a serious customer, as is Jayden Seales, even if West Indies are nowhere near what they were; while a case for Jasprit Bumrah being rated the best of all time has been made, although he has been down on pace in the Old Trafford Test. Where Pietersen is right, although he does not spell it out, is that the standard of finger-spin bowling in Test cricket has decreased, while that of wrist-spin has plummeted. And this is where T20 must have had its impact: spinners bowl a higher percentage of the overs in a T20 game than they do in a red-ball or Test match, but it is a different sort of spin: fired in, flat, at the batsman's legs, denying him room. It is a distant relation of flight and dip and turn and defeating the batsman past either inside or outside edge. The presence of finger-spinners in international cricket has faded. If the Test match is in Asia, they will have their say all right, but elsewhere? New Zealand and West Indies might not select one at home. Pakistan, to defeat England last autumn, had to dust down a couple of veterans. It is Lyon and South Africa's Keshav Maharaj who keep this show on the road outside Asia. Of wrist-spinners, Pietersen had to face Warne, Kumble and Mushtaq, and he might have added Yasir Shah who took five wickets per Test for Pakistan. Their successors are not visible, in England or anywhere else: India do not select Kuldeep Yadav, and while Afghanistan have Rashid Khan, they have been able to play only 11 Tests. England have been as culpable as any country in allowing spin to decline, whether in the county championship or the national side, and especially wrist-spin. In almost 150 years of Test cricket only one wrist-spinner has taken a hundred Test wickets for England, Doug Wright, and only one other has managed 50 wickets, Adil Rashid.
