In a hard-fought but slippery game on Thursday night Carlton managed to get within ten points at the final siren. Perhaps it didn't reflect that West Coast had ten more scoring shots but most of the Carlton players were giving their all in the second half and they almost upset the Eagles at home.
Â
Through-out the game there were several peculiar calls. The 50-metre penalty against Carlton captain Chris Judd, the holding-the-ball against Aaron Joseph and numerous 50-50s that went to the home team where others that were borderline for Carlton were not paid. Admittedly the umpiring was not quite as bad as many Carlton posters alluded to but it was clear that the Blues were not aided in many ways by the men in green.
Â
Because of some of these decisions many of the Carlton players made Twitter comments alluding to the obscurity of some of the umpire's calls. The most pertinent of these being Zach Tuoey's "Pity afl players cant have an opinion on the game we play without being criticized".The Irishman in his second year understands the stupidity of the AFL's position. He hasn't been constantly blasted and indoctrinated into being the tame modern footballer with a PC attitude.
Â
It is likely the AFL will come down hard on him, Marc Murphy, Jeremy Laidler and Jarrad Waite. AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou has expressed his position on this issue before, "Everyone knows that commenting on umpires - whether it's through Facebook, Twitter, email, during a press conference or during a radio interview - is unacceptable."
Yet it is now time to challenge this position. Demetriou knows the AFL stance is positionally opposite to freedom of speech. However, he has qualified the AFL's position because "[f]reedom of speech has to come with some responsibility, if we were all allowed to say everything we wanted to say, we'd be in a bit of strife, particularly me".
Â
This is deeply disturbing. The statement directly above is essentially quashing freedom of speech. You can't have conditional freedom of speech. Either you have or you don't. In this case AFL players and coaches do not have it. Furthermore, Demetriou's logic is flawed "if we were all allowed to say everything we wanted to say, we'd be in a bit of strife". Freedom of speech needs to operate in such a way that people can say whatever they want even if it is silly or hateful. Threatening another individual is the obvious and historical line where freedom of speech stops and for safety reasons should be continued.
Â
Demetriou's position is ethically questionable. He has silenced the players, coaching staff and I'm sure different media outlets are on notice as to what they can and cannot publish. Essentially all the experts who are involved in the game cannot say a word against the umpires. Demetriou's reason for mimicking North Korea in this regard: "We have trouble recruiting umpires. There's more umpires leaving the game than coming in, at all levels. "So we will not accept any criticism of umpires."
Â
Now I have no inclination to criticise umpires, unless they deserve it. I particularly try to avoid discussing the umpiring of West Coast because I know I am biased. However, there must be some way players and fans can voice their disapproval of erroneous decisions. To ignore this need is to limit freedom of speech, and a limited freedom of speech is actually an oxymoron.
Â
The AFL's aims are excellent. We do need more umpire's in the game and sure, they are always the bad guys, no matter what side you are on. Yet, it is completely unethical that the AFL now holds a stance that allows zero speech regarding the performances of the umpires. It is post-modernist thinking and it is wrong. To inflict this upon the chief proponents of the AFL is unethical and dangerous.
Â
In much the same way we have vilification laws that exist, and are proposed that limit our freedom of speech. Now, people should not be promoting hatred against any groups, but this is different from saying they must not. It is undemocratic to support such a law and most of the time these laws are extrapolated to include people who are not being hateful but merely are interpreted in a way that would allow legal action against their comments. Simply because others don't like their position. Like with the AFL's position, moving from freedom of speech destroys this right entirely. Indeed local Melbourne filmmaker Topher has made a short video on further developments against freedom of speech in the media:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
What we are seeing, then, is a systemic problem in society. These collective decision-makers are trying to do something positive but to achieve it they must take a position that cannot be supported in a democratic society. The AFL stance is just one small area where it is happening and it must be challenged. Most footballers are too worried about their playing future to do so. As fans, however, we should not be silent. Our game and our liberties are at stake.
Because of some of these decisions many of the Carlton players made Twitter comments alluding to the obscurity of some of the umpire's calls. The most pertinent of these being Zach Tuoey's "Pity afl players cant have an opinion on the game we play without being criticized".The Irishman in his second year understands the stupidity of the AFL's position. He hasn't been constantly blasted and indoctrinated into being the tame modern footballer with a PC attitude.