Murray MiddletonOver The Line
July 3rd 2008 11:38
On Saturday night Will Minson clashed with Port Adelaide’s Kane Cornes. While they clashed, Minson aimed a sledge at Cornes’ two year old son, who suffers from a heart defect. After the match Minson rang Cornes to apologise. Later on he was reportedly telephoned by Chad Cornes, Kane’s brother, who unleashed a verbal tirade on the Bulldog’s ruckman. By Monday night Minson had made his apology public. He even consented to a television interview with Mike Sheehan. Minson was internally punished for the incident, but was not suspended.
Will Minson is widely acknowledged as being different to most footballers. He is probably the only ruckman in the league who enjoys playing chess and the clarinet in his spare time. Minson is enjoying his best season to date. He has been a flexible member of the Bulldog’s team; a team that has taken the competition by storm in 2008. The sledging incident was, seemingly, out of character for Minson. It will be interesting to see how it affects his form for the remainder of the season. But should he be playing in the coming weeks?
There is no doubt that Minson overstepped the line. Judging from his demeanour during the Sheehan interview, he will be plagued by the sledge for some time. But he has got off lightly. The majority of his punishment – the trial by media in the days following Monday’s revelation – was self-inflicted. Over the past decade the AFL administration has put a great deal of time and energy into stamping racial vilification out of the game. The Peter Everitt-Scott Chisholm incident was crucial. Everitt and his club came up with their own punishment. The punishment (four weeks, a large fine and an extended spell of counselling for the player) was hefty, which demonstrated the magnitude of the offence.
Last season’s spiteful West Coast-Fremantle derby involved a similar incident between Des Headland and Adam Selwood. It was alleged that Selwood made a derogatory comment about Headland’s young daughter during the match. The tribunal threw out Selwood’s ‘abusive language’ charge and amazingly acquitted Headland of his six-week striking charge because of provocation. The decision was disgraceful. If Selwood made no sledge, how was Headland provoked? The tribunal needed to draw the line. Instead, they tried to have it both ways.
Des Headland effectively put an end to the age old motto: whatever happens on the field stays on the field . The Minson-Cornes case is, however, slightly different. Whereas Selwood’s alleged sledge toward Headland was fanciful (only a fool would have fallen for it), Minson’s sledge was grounded in fact. The sledge was callous in its executation, which would suggest a hint of pre-meditation. According to last season’s tribunal hearing, Kane Cornes would have been within his right to strike Will Minson. If anything, the two cases show how difficult it is, and is going to be, for the tribunal to adjudicate the tactic of sledging.
Sledging will always be a part of the game, for better or worse. In the heat of battle players are inevitably going to use the verbal medium to gain any possible advantage. The line has to be drawn. Unfortunately, it is not going to be drawn by the tribunal. A private apology carries more weight than a public apology. But a public apology is always necessary for the image of the game. These two factors alone seem to pull the debate in different directions. Although Will Minson seems to be a decent person and is clearly hurting, his punishment has not been severe enough.
Sledges of a factual and callous personal nature now must sit alongside racial vilification. This is because they both require months, if not years of counselling. Why did the words escape Minson’s lips? The tribunal might implement a policy whereby first time offenders are suspended for two matches, second time offenders for eight matches, third time offenders for a season, and so forth. But the best solution, as the Peter Everitt case demonstrated, is to make the player and club decide what their punishment is. This way the public will get a proper insight into the way that the offender views their sledge.
Will Minson is widely acknowledged as being different to most footballers. He is probably the only ruckman in the league who enjoys playing chess and the clarinet in his spare time. Minson is enjoying his best season to date. He has been a flexible member of the Bulldog’s team; a team that has taken the competition by storm in 2008. The sledging incident was, seemingly, out of character for Minson. It will be interesting to see how it affects his form for the remainder of the season. But should he be playing in the coming weeks?
There is no doubt that Minson overstepped the line. Judging from his demeanour during the Sheehan interview, he will be plagued by the sledge for some time. But he has got off lightly. The majority of his punishment – the trial by media in the days following Monday’s revelation – was self-inflicted. Over the past decade the AFL administration has put a great deal of time and energy into stamping racial vilification out of the game. The Peter Everitt-Scott Chisholm incident was crucial. Everitt and his club came up with their own punishment. The punishment (four weeks, a large fine and an extended spell of counselling for the player) was hefty, which demonstrated the magnitude of the offence.
Last season’s spiteful West Coast-Fremantle derby involved a similar incident between Des Headland and Adam Selwood. It was alleged that Selwood made a derogatory comment about Headland’s young daughter during the match. The tribunal threw out Selwood’s ‘abusive language’ charge and amazingly acquitted Headland of his six-week striking charge because of provocation. The decision was disgraceful. If Selwood made no sledge, how was Headland provoked? The tribunal needed to draw the line. Instead, they tried to have it both ways.
Des Headland effectively put an end to the age old motto: whatever happens on the field stays on the field . The Minson-Cornes case is, however, slightly different. Whereas Selwood’s alleged sledge toward Headland was fanciful (only a fool would have fallen for it), Minson’s sledge was grounded in fact. The sledge was callous in its executation, which would suggest a hint of pre-meditation. According to last season’s tribunal hearing, Kane Cornes would have been within his right to strike Will Minson. If anything, the two cases show how difficult it is, and is going to be, for the tribunal to adjudicate the tactic of sledging.
Sledging will always be a part of the game, for better or worse. In the heat of battle players are inevitably going to use the verbal medium to gain any possible advantage. The line has to be drawn. Unfortunately, it is not going to be drawn by the tribunal. A private apology carries more weight than a public apology. But a public apology is always necessary for the image of the game. These two factors alone seem to pull the debate in different directions. Although Will Minson seems to be a decent person and is clearly hurting, his punishment has not been severe enough.
Sledges of a factual and callous personal nature now must sit alongside racial vilification. This is because they both require months, if not years of counselling. Why did the words escape Minson’s lips? The tribunal might implement a policy whereby first time offenders are suspended for two matches, second time offenders for eight matches, third time offenders for a season, and so forth. But the best solution, as the Peter Everitt case demonstrated, is to make the player and club decide what their punishment is. This way the public will get a proper insight into the way that the offender views their sledge.
| 51 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
