Was it in the spirit of the game or should Steve Johnson be punished?

The fallout from Friday night’s grand final re-match is set to continue today when the match review panel combs through the video footage. Three big issues and talking points have arisen from the fiery stoush between St Kilda’s Steven Baker and Geelong’s Steve Johnson.

Not only will the match review panel’s consistency be tested, the clash also opens up the debate about provocation as well as asking more questions about what acts are considered within the spirit of the game.

I must admit though, I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I read the Herald-Sun front page headline yesterday: ‘Footy Fury’ over Steven Baker’s spiteful tactics.

What a classic beat up! Has the AFL gone soft?

How can Geelong greats such as Paul Couch criticise a player for using every means possible within the rules to nullify an opponent?

What about when the Cats targeted Luke Hodge’s ribs before the 2008 Grand Final? Some people have short memories when the boot is on the other foot.

If Baker was continually acting outside the laws of the game the umpires should have picked up on it and paid a free kick to Johnson.

Obviously the umpires are unable to see every incident and that’s why we have the match review panel, no doubt both players will today be cited for their involvement in the stoush and that’s more than fair enough.

Baker’s massive black eye and possible concussion will also come into consideration, but to suggest the Saints pest ‘deserved a smack in the mouth’ is nothing short of outrageous.

Since when has provocation been a defence anyway?

Johnson retaliated and must be held accountable!

Why didn’t his team-mates step in and provide a chop out?

Football is a tough bruising game and every player in the league has at times had to deal with niggles and close courting from the opposition.

However the question must be asked, was it in the spirit of the game?

Mostly I believe it was, but when Baker physically tested Johnson’s suspected broken hand I think he stepped over the line.

This is the one act of Baker’s actions I disagree with.

But it seems the players don’t necessarily, when Jimmy Bartel hyper extended his elbow and the trainers were helping him off the ground, Sam Fisher tried to give him a knock on the arm.

Interestingly Jimmy himself said yesterday “I’m a believer in what happens on the field stays on the field, it’s man’s game”. He simply didn’t have a problem with it.

Will the AFL see it that way though?

Only last month the league pledged to crack down on players impeding opponents trying to leave the ground, relating specifically to Barry Hall in the aftermath of the Scott Thompson headlock.

Ironically a similar incident involving St Kilda captain Nick Riewoldt five years ago also brought the spirit of the game into question. Brisbane players were criticised for physically testing Riewoldt’s broken collarbone, and rightly so, I am of the belief when a player is injured in the heat of battle there is an element of gamesmanship that should be upheld.

It has been a tough initiation for match review panel chairman Mark Fraser and this afternoon’s findings will be his biggest test so far.

The inconsistency of many decisions has left players, fans and the clubs frustrated.

Last week Carlton captain Chris Judd was deemed to have no case to answer for a wayward elbow that connected on Fremantle’s Matthew Pavlich.

So it’s going to be extremely interesting to see how the panel judge this one on a number of different levels.

Further more, if Friday night’s grand final re-match becomes this year’s grand final preview, I for one can’t wait for the return bout on that last Saturday in September.