Barry's brought back the biff: should it stay?
April 16th 2008 10:08
The stifling scrutiny that the AFL, and seemingly the entire Australian Media Machine, has put Barry Hall under for his callous ‘king-hit’ attack on West Coast Eagle defender, Brent Staker, has sparked questions in the minds of warm blooded footy fans, and social commentators alike, regarding the responsibility of professional sports identities to maintain an acceptable level of behaviour both on and off the field, and whether such violence still has a place in ‘contact’ sports such as AFL.
Firstly, I should point out that I do not condone violence in a social context, and there are enough statistics and emotional examples to suggest that violence in clubs and pubs is not worth the bottle of bourbon that was consumed to fuel such behaviour. However, is there a different code of ethics and moral obligations that can be applied when the violence takes place in the competitive and emotional environment of professional football?
Admittedly, I take a good night at the footy to mean the Lions win in a thrilling, two point victory- does Collingwood, round two ring any bells?- and a great night to mean that I walked away with a nose clogged with the pungent fumes of fierce and unbridled rivalry. If Jonathon Brown becomes overwhelmed with emotion that ends up teaming up with a heavy dose of testosterone, the few thousand Lions supporters, including me, who brood from the lower alcohol-permitted tier of the Gabba, probably won’t mind if his fists momentarily intervene. Fortunately, unlike Hall and three-time-Lions’-premiership coach, Leigh Mathews, who today admitted his own feelings of regret over his violent misconduct on the footy field twenty years ago, Brown seems to have a good grasp on the provisions of the silent footy ethics constitution.
Perhaps Hall did breach section one of the constitution: any player that wishes to king-hit another player shall do it while the camera is scouting good looking female members of the crowd, or not at all. However, I would bet Geelong’s potential 2008 earnings on the fact that every footy fan, from every code, felt a slight smile build in the corner of their mouth at the sight of Hall’s fist flying. That’s just how the footy mind works. Despite this, I do agree that Hall’s seven game ban was necessary and that the type of violence he exemplified should be left in the boxing ring.
Hall made a formal apology in regards to the incident today and asserted that he had no justification for his actions. Cognitive dissonance has swung into full force in my mind and I am now under the assumption that Hall was only acting to re-spark the competitive fire that once burned between the two teams in the days when Ben Cousins and Chris Judd held spiritual and formal leadership of the Eagles.
Firstly, I should point out that I do not condone violence in a social context, and there are enough statistics and emotional examples to suggest that violence in clubs and pubs is not worth the bottle of bourbon that was consumed to fuel such behaviour. However, is there a different code of ethics and moral obligations that can be applied when the violence takes place in the competitive and emotional environment of professional football?
Admittedly, I take a good night at the footy to mean the Lions win in a thrilling, two point victory- does Collingwood, round two ring any bells?- and a great night to mean that I walked away with a nose clogged with the pungent fumes of fierce and unbridled rivalry. If Jonathon Brown becomes overwhelmed with emotion that ends up teaming up with a heavy dose of testosterone, the few thousand Lions supporters, including me, who brood from the lower alcohol-permitted tier of the Gabba, probably won’t mind if his fists momentarily intervene. Fortunately, unlike Hall and three-time-Lions’-premiership coach, Leigh Mathews, who today admitted his own feelings of regret over his violent misconduct on the footy field twenty years ago, Brown seems to have a good grasp on the provisions of the silent footy ethics constitution.
Perhaps Hall did breach section one of the constitution: any player that wishes to king-hit another player shall do it while the camera is scouting good looking female members of the crowd, or not at all. However, I would bet Geelong’s potential 2008 earnings on the fact that every footy fan, from every code, felt a slight smile build in the corner of their mouth at the sight of Hall’s fist flying. That’s just how the footy mind works. Despite this, I do agree that Hall’s seven game ban was necessary and that the type of violence he exemplified should be left in the boxing ring.
Hall made a formal apology in regards to the incident today and asserted that he had no justification for his actions. Cognitive dissonance has swung into full force in my mind and I am now under the assumption that Hall was only acting to re-spark the competitive fire that once burned between the two teams in the days when Ben Cousins and Chris Judd held spiritual and formal leadership of the Eagles.
| 97 |
| Vote |
Comment by Harry
Sydney Diary
Personals
Brisbane Diarystar
Zoo Parent