Cutting your losses to secure your gains is one of those sound business practices that applies equally well to other areas of life.
Having achieved an absurdly advantageous result at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday, Richmond’s legal strategists were never likely to contest the fine imposed on Dustin Martin for aiming a couple of unsporting gestures in the general direction of giant Giant, Shane Mumford.
That’s because there was another giant involved in the transaction, one they particularly didn’t want to provoke.
The AFL could have challenged Martin’s reduced suspension on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate, and it would have won.
Why?
Because a one-week suspension for a deliberate elbow to the head of a stationary opponent is manifestly inadequate.
It opted not to.
Martin was duly advised to apologise and pay the fine, most of the which was suspended anyway.
It was the pragmatic decision.
It was also plain wrong. The ‘please explain’ letter sent to Martin for his alleged misconduct was risible to the point of vexatious and should have been challenged on general principal.
The phrase was a term of derision long before the AFL gave further cause for mocking it.
Let’s re-examine the case. Martin was fined for two gestures which together and separately constituted misconduct, bringing the game into dispute or whatever other synonym for ‘not a good look’ happens to feature on Gillon McLachlan’s desk calendar on any given day.
(AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
The first was the vertically raised finger colloquially known as the ‘one finger salute’, and regarded as offensive. The second was the simulation of a certain recreational activity Mumford was filmed engaging in a few years ago.
Our grounds for dismissal are prior disclosure, provocation and the truth defence.
Is it Dustin’s fault big Mummy was filmed hoovering up a few neatly measured columns of white powder. Of course not. Nor is it an allegation. It’s a fact that has been in circulation since late last year.
It’s also beyond dispute that Martin was provoked into making the gesture. By all accounts, including his own, the giant Giant is a graduate of the Davey Warner school of sledging.
Nor is the provocation limited to words – Mumford has been the most physically vigorous AFL player of his era, to stretch a euphemism to breaking point. Like Jordan Lewis, he’s owed plenty.
A quick perusal of Mumford’s history suggests a distinct predilection for targeting players of incalculably greater talent and achievement than himself.
That Gary Ablett Jr still managed to earn three Brownlow Medal votes after surviving a Mumford piledriver in 2011 was due entirely to genius and good luck. It didn’t make the violent spear tackle inflicted by his former team-mate any less indefensible.
The best player of his generation could have ended up in a neck brace for life.
That Dusty was largely ineffectual after his varied harassments suggests he’s got a good way to go before he’s in any conversation with Little Gaz.
The raised finger is even more easily explained. The gesture was not the one finger salute. Simple as that.
It was a stock-standard piece of physical mime practised by lovers of rap and hip hop music since the dawn of the genre, identifiable as such by the inverted 270-degree angle of the raised digitus medius – or middle-finger, for those west of the border.
It means ‘Yo, bro!’ It’s an innocuous gesture as commonplace in the hip hop community as adjusting your protective equipment is in the cricket world.
Ian Chappell would have spent half his life in the pauper’s court if he’d been fined every time he adjusted his protector. He may well have done time.
(Photo by Adam Trafford/AFL Media/Getty Images)
Martin’s team-mate and friend Shaun Grigg will depose to the fact that Dusty is a long time fan of gangsta rap, a well-known variant of hip hop, and that he has post-football aspirations of entering the entertainment industry.
Look at the angle of the raised digitus medius one more time. Then google Everyday Normal Guy by Jon Lajoie.
It’s stone cold obvious what Dustin is saying by that gesture, and it’s not ‘up yours’. It’s ‘Yo!’
We can probably dig up old video footage of Public Enemy, NWA, Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, Boo-Yaa T.R.I.B.E., Dr Dre, Ali G, DJ Shadow, DJ Luke Dahlhaus and one or two others by way of further demonstration if necessary.
It shouldn’t be. It’s hardly Dustin’s fault the AFL Commission isn’t always the exemplar of cross-cultural inclusivity it purports to be.
In closing, the case should be re-opened on the grounds that my client was badly advised.
His admission is therefore withdrawn and his apology recanted.
We request that: (i) cash in the sum of $2500 be promptly returned, (ii) the CEO of the AFL and at least three commissioners be required to attend an upcoming seminar in cross-cultural awareness, and (iii) that request (ii) be suspended subject to the satisfactory meeting of request (i).
Don’t argue, Gill. It’s in East LA.
Andrew Deery
Guest
Interesting piece David. Whole heartedly agree. Another example of the narrow mindedness of our so called liberal, inclusive AFL management that can't see past any main stream, ratings improving cause.
RT
Roar Rookie
I wasn't referring to you as one of the nuffs nuffs, but now I am not so sure. Some others, not you, called Dusty a thug. I was only saying his intent in this case is relevant in disputing those silly thug claims (plus prior history). Never have I said the intent should be downgraded from a MRP point of view. As for high impact, you don't even understand the difference between high impact and high contact. In fact, I don't think you even realise they are two different things. Maybe go away and do some reading on how the MRP classifies incidents before commenting on the next high profile case (Patrick Dangerfield no doubt).
Aus in Engerland
Guest
Your immediate reaction of 3 weeks is based on what? Your impression that it was high impact no doubt. Well wrong as it turns out. Ah yes. Right as it turns out. It was high impact. Even the recipient says it deflected up to his head. And deflected or direct doesn't matter. So not wrong. Regardless of whether it started lower, it hit the head. There isn't much higher on the body than the head. Andrew Gaff aimed lower but due to Brayshaw being in the action of lowering his knees he got him high. Not the intent, but still got him high. Based on your relevance of 'true intent', Gaff should have played in the GF after a much lesser ban. Dusty went with a 'forearm' to the upper body and with a deflection hit him in the head. High, high, highdee high. No matter how you paint it. And I never called Dusty a thug, so get over yourself. Just as I have never called Gaff a thug. Now Barry Hall, he was a thug.
RT
Roar Rookie
What I will tell you is 1. I have never suggested it was not off the ball. 2. The fact that it was deflected is relevant to the important point you seen to be missing, i.e. that head contact was re-assessed as low impact. 3. I am not disputing it is classified as intentional, even though his intention was probably a whack to the shoulder based on the fact it was only a deflection and on Kennedy's evidence. But the true intention is relevant when I am replying to the nuff nuffs calling him a thug and so on. Your immediate reaction of 3 weeks is based on what? Your impression that it was high impact no doubt. Well wrong as it turns out.
Aus in Engerland
Guest
Come now Richie. Regardless of the distance there are some things that can clearly be seen. 1. It's off the ball. Surely you couldn't suggest otherwise. 2. The arm was raised and hit the player in the head. Whether it deflected or was a forearm or the elbow is irrelevant. Even the player says that the head was hit. Blurry or not, this cannot be in dispute. 3. It was intentional. When someone runs past a player, raises the arm and belts them, it is intentional. Again, it doesn't matter if the footage is blurry. That is the available evidence. Come on, tell me he didn't make contact to the head at all, even deflected. Tell me he accidentally raised his arm as he ran past the player. Tell me it was in play. Please do that. Use the Barry Hall defence and tell me it was in play.
Larrikin
Roar Rookie
Dusty is just another protected species, coping only a week for all his crap is mystifying and an enigma. He joins the franklin club of AFL protected species. Appalling and double standard
Gezbee
Guest
All this talk about defending a so called superstar. Do you not think every footballer is not subjected to provocation and verbal abuse from opposition? Dies every footballer react in this way? Yep I thought do take off your biased pro Dusty glasses and stand by the facts. In my book thuggish behaviour and so should be made an example of especially due to his high status. Would I support the same treatment if it was one of the Eagles stars , absolutely. Every one is human and can get frustrated I understand that but going soft on someone just because they are high profile is not acceptable.
RT
Roar Rookie
Yet another person whose ability to decipher some blurry footage is greater than the sum of others' and all available evidence.
RT
Roar Rookie
I guess you are thinking 4 weeks for Dangerfield, hey Cat. 2 strikes, 2 weeks each.
Peter
Guest
Just out of interest, can anyone tell me the last time any victim of an on-field incident like this told the truth about it? The standard approach is so obviously “I ain’t no grass, copper!”
Aus in Engerland
Guest
When I first saw this my immediate thought was 3 weeks. High, intentional and off the ball. And deliberate. Clearly a raised elbow/forearm used in a belting motion.Regardless of impact it was still to the head (supposedly sacrosanct) and so far off the ball as to nearly be on a different paddock. I could wear the argument that it was a forearm (don't really believe it but the boy's club will stick together) and argue it down to a very soft 2 week ban. But one? Come off it. I can now see the defence other players will use for the rest of the year. 'compared to Dusty m'lord', 'mine was in play your honour', 'it was softer than Dusty's hit', 'if Dusty was a week I should get a warning', 'how can you give me two weeks when Dusty got less for more' and so on. The AFL has once again sent the wrong message and set a precedent that is going to bite them.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
True, but they are in the AFL and every other for, of life on this planet. Frustrating.
Seymorebutts
Roar Rookie
If you connect properly with an elbow you will fracture the cheekbone, eye-socket or if he had of hit jaw, broken it. It was pure luck none of that happened.
Seymorebutts
Roar Rookie
Did you see the video? I dont care what the MRP say, it was an elbow.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
— COMMENT DELETED —
Peter Warrington
Guest
yep Intentional High contact Low impact 1 week
Cat
Roar Guru
The AFL and Media have survived just fine without Richmond playing finals for most of the last 40 years. Just a return to normal.
Cat
Roar Guru
Penalties shouldn't be based on outcomes, but that's an argument for another day.
Cat
Roar Guru
So you are admitting his elbow did hit him in the head then? Regardless of whether it clipped his should first he hit the bloke in the head. When someone lays a tackle that starts on the shoulders and slips to the head a penalty is still assessed based on the head high contact. There was no reason what-so-ever for Dusty to raise his elbow at an opponent 80m off the ball. It was intentional and the other player got hit in the head.
RT
Roar Rookie
Better than what the Giants kids are doing.