Broad banned by Tigers for photo

Don't agree with you there. I too am a father and I am horrified by want Simkiss and Lethlean did. They were married men who abused their seniority and powerful positions to take advantage of two younger and lower ranked women. They are predators and the fact it was consensual does not absolve them of being guilty, it just makes it not illegal according to our laws. Nathan Broad is a young man, first offense, who made a very bad decision probably on the spur of the moment to push a button. The punishment is perhaps a bit light but it is not about the punishment, its about the message.

I haven't seen the photo but wasn't it topless ... that's not naked in my book. Seems like you are distorting the facts a little to justify your argument.

Fine, maybe he should just do the 2 years jail for the crime he has admitted committing, would that be more fitting?

Fair point Butch. We can quickly lose perspective. Speaking for myself.

I think it's a joke, poor one at that, that all you moral police out there are so enraged by this decision without knowing all the facts of the incident and ensuing time period. Bad decision . . . yes indeed. Does he deserve to be crucified? Hung, drawn and quartered? Castrated? You morally indignant people should take a long, hard look at yourselves! Shame on him? Yes. And shame on you lot!

It's not a 'silly mistake' at all. She asked him to delete the photo and he knowingly lied to her. Told her it was deleted. That isn't a mistake. Then he knowingly sent it to others after it was supposed to have been deleted. Again, not a mistake. It was a willful act. He didn't 'pocket dial' it to someone, he made a choice to disregard and disrespect her wishes.

Of course she agreed to the photo!!! she is standing there posing. (In the censored version in The Age) That is not in question. The crime was he distributed it without her consent.

What utter rubbish Lucky Eddie...read what he said and don't just play judge and jury as you have made yourself look silly.

Yeah silly mistake that could have had much bigger consequences. A 6 week penalty probably would have been enough to close the matter. It’s hard to see 3 weeks being sufficient to end it.

Norherner, it's a new age for these young men and women and they will get it right most of the time and wrong some of the time. As for being dumb to allow the pic to be taken, I disagree, it's the modern generation and the way they go about it is up to them, they are finding their rules around what they do out the hard way all of them and if the young lady was having some fun with a picture, well that is her right to do that.

Not deflecting anything. As stated he did an awful thing, a bad, terrible thing, a bad decision, disrespected a young lady. I'm not excusing what he did, just observing how you lot love to sink the boots in....one bloke in here called Jay Jay wanting him sacked???? Come off it. How about you lay your lifes mistakes out for us all in here Jay Jay and we will all decide your punishment by social media? No? Thought not...self righteousness gone mad.

As a Tiger supporter, personally I thought he'd get four-six weeks. He's a lucky boy Nathan and this should help him grow up. Perhaps this may actually turn out to be a positive turning & learning point in his life. Doesn't change the fact that anyone else who does anything like this subsequently is going to be whacked pretty hard and rightfully so. So hopefully all learn from this. Thankfully for Nat the girl didn't want to press charges, preferring her anonymity (fair enough) and was satisfied with not seeing him again. There's been some banging on about RFC taking too long to deal with this, but reality is they had to wait for the outcome of the police investigation and that only finished last week. Then they just had to agree the penalty with the AFL and announce. That was done fairly quickly for all concerned and the quicker they put this behind them Richmond the better. A sobering post script on a fantastic year.

How can you compare what Simkiss and Lethlean done to Broad? Simkiss and Lethlean were CONSENSUAL acts whereas Broad's wasn't. Even comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, Simkiss and Lethlean shouldn't have done what they done and i as a husband and father don't agree with it but it wasn't illegal albeit highly immoral. Read the last paragraph that you wrote again and tell me if it really compares to Broad's actions

I didn't expect anything less, $20 grand fine to a women's shelter on top of the 3 weeks and the punishment might be getting close to what it should've been.

I think the cared about and had a relationship with her prior to the GF comments were to clearly establish that she wasn't someone whom he'd just met out on the turps celebrating the GF. As was the comment that he cared her. This immediately stops people jumping to certain conclusions about the girl and hopefully speculation about motives. The past tense I suspect is that she hopefully wants nothing further to do with him. Massive breach of trust. Thats not someone you really want any sort of friendship with.

3 weeks is very light on considering if the girl had of pressed charges the penalty could be upto a 2 year jail term. Really deserves a minimum of half a season suspension if the AFL is to demonstrate that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

Dumb to allow the photo to be taken; repulsive to distribute it. I'd take the dumb over the reprehensible any day of the week.

Ah, Nemesis. You won't pass opinion? Why not? It's a straightforward case of sexual harassment. Whether the person in question is an AFL player, an A League player, an English cricketer or a nobody posting on the Roar, seems to me to be irrelevant. What is relevant, perhaps, is that you don't seem to have an issue with a male humiliating a woman by posting salacious private photos, without her consent, on the internet, for all the world to see. I'll bear that in mind the next time you pretend to be a supporter of women's sports.

Oh please turn it Up. I was not referring to what she did, this whole mess is solely at the hands of Nathan Broad. What she did was not illegal. What he did was. There is a big difference, what's more she was a supposed friend. I'm tired of hearing excuses about youth or its the booze. Plenty of other males on the booze on a Saturday night don't do it. It's a pity the police did not pursue it further, I think any sex offences of any nature should be dealt with harshly. Let's keep giving those footballers more chances for breaking the law.

Very impressed. I saw there were 30 odd comments on this story, and expected a fair bit of victim blaming amongst them. To see only 1 clown blame the girl (and 1 other, kind of hedging his bets) fills me with some sense of satisfaction. Well done Roarers, we are getting it right.