Their every move is under scrutiny and any real or perceived
transgression results in a wider society, led by a scandal hungry media, launching into a hyperbolic frenzy and certain analysis about player “role model” status.
Nowhere is the scrutiny or role model expectation greater than for Melbourne,
Adelaide and Perth based Australian Rules Football players.
I expect all people, sports star or not to abide by the law, be
respectful of others and to be conscious of the impact their behaviour will
have on others.
However, the Sport’s governing body the AFL, has a clear expectation
of player behaviour including them being community role models in all they do.
The players are under continuous scrutiny not only about their performance,
but also their friends, relationships, family, social preferences, where they
holiday and what they eat. Is it any wonder there is an increase in the number
of players taking a break to deal with mental health issues?
The AFL seems quick to condemn any real, perceived or reported so
called poor behaviour by players. It is all about the image of the game. I am
not unsympathetic with the AFL but, they require young athletes to be role
models and ambassadors for the sport when all they want to do is play the best
football they can for as long as they can.
It is about time the AFL Administration set an example of its own.
It is about time the AFL accepted responsibility for the example the
sport provides to the wider community.
It is about time the governing body itself adhered to the standards it
expects of its players.
Blatant acts of violence on the field are rare in this day and age.
In consecutive weeks, we have witnessed two acts of striking to the
head resulting in concussion. Without doubt, one was deliberate while the other
was a deliberate action but claimed contact with the head was accidental. Both
were outside the run of play.
They were both examples of the “one punch can kill” mantra being
promoted as part of anti-community violence campaigns.
In the first case, the initial penalty granted was a two week
suspension, increased to 4 weeks on appeal.
The second case resulted in a 6 weeks suspension.
The penalties in both cases are manifestly inadequate.
In my opinion, the starting point should be 20 weeks, with a probation
period .
This might have meant 20 weeks with 14 to serve in the first case and
16 in the second.
The penalties handed out are not in my opinion, reflective of what
would happen if such acts took place in the general community.
Given the AFL wants to set an example, and holds players to a
higher level of behaviour expectation, they should be imposing penalties for such cold hearted
acts of violence that reflect their 'higher' expectation.
Maybe it is just a matter of the Administrators following the example of
role modelling behaviour shown by the vast majority of players?
After all, you are a role model too.
No comments:
Post a Comment