For AFL players on Twitter, there is a new pitfall to using social media – the threat to your hip pocket. The AFL has issued suspended fines to both Melbourne and two of their players who “tweeted” their disapproval of teammate Jack Trengove’s ban.
Ricky Petterd and James Frawley were among several players critical via social media of the three-match suspension given to Trengove for his slinging tackle on Adelaide’s Patrick Dangerfield – which the Demons failed to overturn on appeal.
They received $2,500 fines suspended for two years, while the Demons were given a $5,000 suspended fine.
AFL boss Andrew Demetriou said he didn’t understand the attraction of Twitter to players, whose SMS-style messages can reach the mobile phones or computers of anyone who wants to read what they have to say.
He warned players who use social media, that unfair criticism of the AFL and its tribunal is overstepping the mark.
“I am one of those cynics; ‘Go to the toilet, Twitter everybody. Been to the toilet, run out of toilet paper’. I don’t get it,” Demetriou told Melbourne radio station 3AW earlier on Friday.
“We understand the use of Twitter has become more prevalent, more common, and it’s now an accepted form of social media.
“But it doesn’t mean that unfair and unreasonable criticism should be tolerated because it’s a new form of media.
“We encourage free speech. There’s no issue with that.
“But if it’s unreasonable, we’ll have an issue with it.”
Western Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade believes players have more to lose than gain by using social media.
“I can’t believe players would want to be on Twitter and want to be on Facebook,” Eade said.
“Call me an old man and that sort of thing, but the dangers of it and the risks in it for an AFL player, I don’t see the reward in actually taking that risk.
“Words taken out of context, someone looks at your pictures and you say something that’s there in black and white, you may as well put it in the paper.
“I don’t think players in general have got that concept yet … I just think it’s a dangerous element.”
But Eade and the Dogs say they haven’t contemplated a ban on social media, believing they provide enough education to help those who want to use Twitter and Facebook navigate it.
“Most of our players don’t use Twitter. We educate and talk them through and there’s been some sessions this year on that already,” Eade said.
“If I was a footballer, I wouldn’t be taking any risks on it.”
Melbourne coach Dean Bailey said he would not restrict his players’ use of Twitter despite the AFL’s sanctions on his club and players.
“They were a bit frustrated and they were just supporting Jack,” Bailey said.
“The AFL were concerned with some of the language that was used … but you’ve got young men who were fairly disappointed in the decision and it was probably just them being open and honest. “I’m not going to put them in a straightjacket and stop them from tweeting, they’ve just got to be smarter in how they communicate their message.”
Bayman
Guest
I would suggest to young Andrew that he is in the minority, by a factor, if he considers the Melbourne players criticism of the AFL unfair. Indeed, I do not believe it is stretching the point to say that any organisation, or government, which will not tolerate criticism is dictatorial and NOT the type of leadership the people need. Or want. I am reminded of the story of Nikita Khrushchev giving a speech to the politburo in the late fifties on the evils of Stalin. He was interrupted part way through by a lone, anonymous voice yelling, "But you were one of Stalin's ministers. If he was so bad why didn't you do something about it?" Khrushchev stopped and asked, "Who said that?" Silence, total silence. After a while Khrushchev said, "Now you know why!" Fear is no way to run a government or a sporting body. Organisations which oppress comment which may be seen as unfavourable are the very antithesis of free speech. Organisations with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from an alternative opinion. Does the AFL doubt it made the right call on Trengove? If not, why try to oppress an alternative view? The AFL should remember that it is the tail, not the dog. Like a government (at least in this country). It was created to help administer the the competition, not to become the master of the clubs. Over time, of course, like any government, it starts telling us what we should be doing instead of the other way round. At least, these days, the government pretends to be at the mercy of the people one day every four years or so. The AFL suffers no such humility. We're in charge and don't you bloody forget it. The AFL may counter that it is non productive to continually criticise the administration. Others may say get it right and you won't get criticised. Personally, I treat with great suspicion any organisation which does not tolerate an alternate view. None of us much like the oppression of the Nazis, or the communists, or the religious nutters of Iran and the like. Why on earth would we want the AFL to behave in the same manner? I think Andrew is enjoying his power a little too much.
"“But it doesn’t mean that unfair and unreasonable criticism should be tolerated because it’s a new form of media." “We encourage free speech." What a joke! In my, and thousands of other peoples, opinion the AFL tribunal were wrong in the estimation of the Trengrove tackle but, because they are their own judge and jury, anyone who speaks against the decision is "unfair and unreasonable". Bureaucracy gone wrong.