On-field deeds do not mitigate off-field discretions

Kirisome Auva’a is not less guilty because he played a major role in delivering South Sydney a long-awaited grand final win.

Robert Lui’s sins should not be forgiven if he ultimately proves to be the ideal halves partner for Johnathan Thurston in finally delivering the Cowboys a maiden premiership.

Kurtley Beale’s behaviour will still be disgraceful even if he plays a starring role in an unlikely Wallabies World Cup win next year.

Yet this is a common refrain among the sports journalism fraternity. Indeed, such an article was just published by Mike Colman on Sunday.

Colman argued that Kurtley Beale’s cameo off the bench against Ireland was part of his “road to Wallabies redemption”.

While the article is recent, the formula is familiar: Player X atones for off-field indiscretions with stellar on-field performance.

Seemingly, the better the on-field performance, the more they deserve our forgiveness. It is time that we called out this faulty logic.

For one thing, it is lazy journalism. Secondly, and more importantly, it implies that a player can redeem themselves for hitting, belittling or harassing a woman simply by kicking, running or throwing a ball well.

This pathway to supposed atonement appears reserved solely for sportsmen. You are unlikely to hear of an accountant that beats his partner, but is summarily forgiven because he put together a particularly complex spreadsheet the next day. A lawyer is not excused for misogynistic conduct because they are particularly efficient at drafting contracts. I could go on, but you get the point.

So why do we passively accept this line when it is applied to those that grace our TV screens with a ball in hand?

For one thing, one of the primary social roles of sport is to provide a source of refuge from the dreary monotony of our everyday routines. Many would simply rather not have the heavy burden of the mistreatment of women weighing on their mind as they try and enjoy watching their chosen team run around each weekend.

This is understandable, if not commendable. It is much harder to enjoy a stellar try, goal or shot if you are conscious of the fact that the people involved have committed some truly awful acts.

But it is important to recognise and remind ourselves of what these men and their actions really represent. On average, one woman dies every week Australia as a result of domestic violence. When these acts are committed by sportsmen in the public eye, it is part of this broader social problem. The worst response that we can make is to attempt to rationalise, justify and excuse, simply because we enjoy watching them play.

Whether the journalists and sub-editors that are writing these headlines recognise it or not, they are enabling and perpetuating this cycle of violence.

It is important to understand why they might engage in such practices. Journalists have a strong incentive to stay on the right side of the players and their managers in order to gain and maintain access to players for exclusive interviews and future scoops. It is time that we begin to question this dynamic.

What value do fans really get out of a few inarticulate grunts from a player at halftime or post-match? The majority of the answers are less than insightful, and do little to flesh out the personalities of the players beyond what we can infer from watching the action.

As fans it is time we demand higher standards, of not just the players, but the media and clubs that enable this behaviour. It is time for us to stop giving reverence to people that deserve our scorn simply because they can kick a ball.