The resonations of Jack Trengove’s refusal to alter the way he attacks the football and players of his cohort has thoroughly impressed many, whilst AFL officials have been quick to label him stupid. Punks are alive and well in our game!
Punks can be defined as individuals who use their individual style to differentiate themselves by refusing to conform to society’s majority.
There is little doubt that AFL subculture is a society in itself, where social norms are different to the working man’s day-to-day reality.
Due to intense media and club scrutiny surrounding the actions of players, we have seen Hamish Hartlet fined for privately having drinks with friends after a game and nothing made of Jarred Waite’s assault on Luke McGuane’s nether-regions during a game.
These are not the consequences of the real world.
Within the AFL bubble, punk culture is not illustrated in the holistic styles of clothing, music or art but rather through appearances, politics and most dominantly, through playing styles.
Players distinguish themselves from the preponderance who abides by all of football’s norms.
These of course, are the players we love.
Trengove’s brief comments about not changing the way he tackles should be raising alarms at AFL headquarters, because it demonstrates the weakening grasp of AFL tyranny.
Players often bring personal values into the game and it is the job of our tribunals to fine and suspend individuals who project these values against those of the AFL.
Bringing the game into disrepute, they call it.
At a time when the line between attacking an umpire through the media, cannot be distinguished from being downright pissed off, the AFL’s Orwellian policies supress free speech to the point Nick Maxwell claimed players were victimised by the media.
Uncommon in the AFL, are players with political motives. Often openly speaking about philanthropic issues, Heritier (Harry) O’Brien uses his position as an AFL footballer to discuss issues outside of football, often on Twitter.
Easily admissible is Jeff Kennett’s work raising depression awareness through his BeyondBlue initiative. Had it not been for the other 90 per cent of rubbish which comes out of his mouth, Kennett may be a much more respected member of the AFL community.
The AFL’s stance on social media, Twitter especially, is bringing an end to all concepts of freedom of expression.
These personal mediums of communication have quickly been seized by the AFL and clubs who monitor tweets, scrutinise where they feel a player has misbehaved.
How does this differ from Room 101?
We often admire players like Joel Selwood and Nick Riewoldt for disregarding their own safety when playing the game to win a contest. This is how they play the game and despite all warnings from medical staff, they refuse to change their playing styles to conform to authority.
We love this.
This is the essence of punk culture in the AFL and it will not be long before Jack Trengove joins this list.
Other players are known to go so hard at the contest, which, not even repeated sanctions by the ‘Match Review Panel’ will alter their aggression.
Campbell Brown and Steven Baker are both players who have frequent encounters with the panel but these players are not bad people. They’re not angry people.
They just go hard and their clubs’ supporters appreciate the passion they exert on the field.
It may be frustrating to watch at times, but these are the acts which shape their character.
It would be remised of me not to give some mention to the tattoo culture, obnoxious haircuts and worldly expressions of facial hair, but these aesthetics really have no merit, nor do they stand for anything.
Ben Cousin’s tattoo could be the exception, but that’s a huge stretch.
The AFL’s need for control across all aspects, both on-field and off, are quickly forming all the characteristics of a nanny state.
Whilst policies are in place to protect the values of the game, the severe consequences within the AFL judiciary are steadily impeding on the rights of players in the greater context of freedom and liberty.
Breaking away from the tyranny of AFL norms, the refreshing alternative of on-field football punks beckons the idea that individual thought still exists within the tyrannical dictatorship we know as the AFL.
Alfred Chan
Expert
"Punks are alive and well in our game!" "Punks can be defined as individuals who use their individual style to differentiate themselves by refusing to conform to society’s majority." Ahh, the joys of irony. Well spotted.
bam
Guest
AlfredC Tyrannical dictatorship? Calm down 'Tex'. I dont think Hitler is running the show. What the hell is with the use of the thesaurus? preponderance, dominantly, holistic styles, Orwellian policies, philanthropic issues, heritier. Really???? That is one hell of a dramatic style. Do you speak like that? Wow, and you suggest some players are obnoxious due to their hair cuts. (pot?, kettle?) Worldly ex pressions of facial hair? That one I need explained to me. Is this you being an AFL punk? Or is it me being....well.....???????(Fell free to insert a word you will understand and i will have to look up that best suits that space) P.S. I agree with Bayman and you on the subject. .
Bayman
Guest
GeorgeO, Reasonable policy is all very well. The real question is what makes the policy maker more intelligent than the rest? Why should everybody blindly follow policy just because someone wishes to have complete control over what is said, written, tweeted. Is the policy makers judgement superior or is he/she simply exercising the power they think they have, and often do have, over the rest? To trust the policy one must trust the policy makers. In the case of the AFL I, for one, do not. It is easy to say it's all about not bringing the game/clubs/mum into disrepute but that blanket excuse for censorship is just that, an excuse. It's probably the same in your organisation. Why on earth would an HR department know more about anything than the rest of the organisation. A famous CEO of a world wide organisation who had begun the company in his back shed was once asked when it was that he realised the company was no longer simply "his company". He replied, "When I appointed someone in HR" More recently I was having a conversation with someone who had years of experience in senior roles within large corporations. He expressed the view that a great many of our corporate leaders were no more or less than sociopaths. Years of interacting with many senior execs in my IT capacities caused me to agree with my friends assessment. Happily I have now retired from the corporate world. These executives are often the policy makers so it's no wonder I tend to view their desires with a certain degree of suspicion. The old days of people rising to the top on seniority, or connections, alone are long gone. These days it is the "talent" which tends to be recognised but the talent, possibly, is a little tainted by the desire for power at any cost. Not unintelligent, I might add - often quite the opposite - but not nice people, either. I'm not sure these people should be followed blindly and without question. And yes, there will be someone somewhere who's a good guy and great to work for but not many of them are running multi-million dollar organisations. One test of "policy" is to observe how it is interpreted at the start, and how this changes over time to be something slightly more draconian. Once a privilege is handed over it does not come back without turmoil. So, GeorgeO, be careful about "policy".
GeorgeO
Guest
You're similarity to Room 101 isn't as outlandish as I first thought when I first read it. I'm not sure whether the AFL have a social media policy in effect but I work for a large multinational organisation and there are very strict guidelines about what we can and cannot say in the public domain via social media. When they first introduced the policy, I was skeptical because I didn't use any social media. I now use twitter to get quick access to news articles which interest me and shoot off the occasional tweet. While there are co-workers in my department who questioned the suppression tactics of our organisation, I think they are very reasonable. By having a set policy, employees know exactly what they can and cannot use social media for. Rather than suppressing us, we actually think before we tweet to ensure we stay within the guidelines of the policy. I don't know how strict the AFL would be, but ours is rather simple and easy to understand while it still enables us to vent frustration towards the organisation. If the AFL implemented a concrete policy with black and white interpretation guidelines, I don't think the Melbourne players who tweeted last week would have tweeted the way they did. The bloke who referenced the Vixins would have chosen other words because an AFL policy would have stated "AFL players may not reference other codes in a manor where either code is degraded." Done! Room 101 reprograms an individual's thought processes. With the amount of rules and processes in place for something which occurs over a second, like a tackle (!), in the time it takes to process the rules, the opportunity to tackle has been lost. Room 101 magic.
Alfred Chan
Expert
It astounds me that the Appeals board could disregard Adelaide's medical report regarding Dangerfield's health. They admitted they made the wrong diagnosis and Dangerfield would be free to play. Dangerfield then kicked 6 goals! Meanwhile Trengove is serving a suspension for an injury which doesn't exist! I suppose we will need to wait many years to see the state of Dangerfield's true health. The seems to take a lot of hits to the head.
ruckrover
Guest
Some fair points, the AFL does seem to have gone too far in suppression of free speech. However I support the AFL's stance on the slinging tackle with arms pinned. This is highly dangerous to players who have no way of protecting their head/neck in such tackles. On the one hand I know how Trengove feels, when I played (at a modest amateur league level) in the 70s/80s I slammed quite a number of opponents to the ground with this kind of tackle and received the praise of my team-mates and coach. However times have changed, we now know the risks of repeated concussions (which other codes like Gridiron, Ice Hockey, Rugby codes and Soccer with heading/head clashes all have to take account of too) is possible long term brain damage. I coached at junior level and one young player was concussed in such a tackle and under parental advice gave up footy. Trengove's tackle no longer has any place in our game. Perhaps the AFL's heavy handed approach to the protests on this rule reflect their awareness of the vital importance of softening the game in this area. "The head and neck are sacrosanct" as AD reminded us. But rather than suppressing debate, the AFL would do better to engage the footy community in more debate to effect this necessary cultural change.