Lyon vs Robinson: This round goes to Robbo

Whenever a player punches another player on a footy field, there is always lots to be said in the media.

Questions of severity and suitable punishment are debated at length for several days, sometimes longer. But the aftermath of Paddy McCartin’s strike on Geelong VFL captain Aaron Black made for some interesting commentary and maybe some insight into one of modern AFL media’s more hostile relationships.

I’ll leave it to you to brush up on the details of the incident, and instead focus on the fallout.

After the incident, the VFL immediately asked for a six-match ban. With the precedent set three years ago by the eight-match suspension handed to Andrew Gaff, many viewed even six matches as a light penalty.

Yet, the Swans defended McCartin, asking for a reduced suspension. While I find it discouraging that clubs still see fit to stick up for players who do terrible things (see my article from September, 2019 for more on that), I acknowledge this is pretty standard.

Still, how could the club ask for a reduced ban after getting off lightly? The answer: club legal advisors had the gall to suggest the Tribunal should be even more lenient with McCartin because his diabetes causes low blood sugar, which made him agitated.

The next week, Mark Robinson commented on the matter on AFL 360.

Talking with Gerard Whateley, Robbo said: “[McCartin] has to ask himself some serious questions about his mentality. Should he actually play the game? If he’s going to react like that, I don’t think you should be playing the game.”

This is a bold statement, to be sure. But when a club suggests a player may never be in complete control of himself, these are the very questions that should be asked.

Enter veteran commentator Garry Lyon. Lyon told SEN that Robinson’s comment was “breathtakingly ignorant”.

Lyon went on: “[Robinson] knows nothing about blood sugar levels and diabetes – I do – and I’ve seen and witnessed it firsthand.”

The rest of the interview involved Lyon expounding on how difficult it is to live with diabetes and how awful Robinson is for saying anything about it.

He finished by maligning his colleague again: “To turn around and then say he shouldn’t play? That’s breathtaking.”

This entire squabble is fascinating, along with the issues it raises, and Lyon is wrong on almost every point.

First, Lyon seems to be lashing out at a peer whom he apparently doesn’t like all that much. I don’t know who started it, but there is a history of acrimony between Lyon and Robinson, stretching back a number of years.

Robinson has a habit of being a little harsher with public criticism than most sports media personalities, and Lyon has been on the receiving end of that criticism more often than he likes.

Regardless of which one is more at fault (but please debate in the comments), the feud has left the Melbourne champion a tad bitter. In this case, he seems unable to objectively examine Robinson’s commentary.

Garry Lyon speaks with Gerard Whateley (Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)

Second, Lyon subtly affords himself the authority to comment on a player’s medical situation, while denying that right to Robinson. He’s adamant Robinson should never talk about medical issues, ostensibly because Robinson, unlike Lyon, is uneducated.

“Just stay out of the medical stuff until you educate yourself.”

I wonder, then, when is someone sufficiently educated? Is a license to practice medicine required? Would simply having a particular condition be enough? I can’t see how Lyon is qualified to declare that Robinson is unqualified to pass judgment.

The biggest thing Garry Lyon gets wrong, and the most interesting discussion topic, is whether a player’s medical situation is fair game, especially under these circumstances.

Lyon says Robinson “shouldn’t be wandering into that territory.” The fact is it was the club that brought McCartin’s diabetes into the public arena when they claimed it was the cause of his intense agitation.

And because the Swans used low blood sugar in their plea for a reduced penalty, McCartin’s diabetes became not just an explanation, but an excuse. So it must be addressed, must be evaluated. And Robinson was right when he questioned whether McCartin should take the field again.

At McCartin’s Tribunal hearing, the Sydney Swans officially cast doubt on whether McCartin is in fact able to control himself on the footy field. After hearing the club’s argument for leniency, the Tribunal’s first question should have been: “Are you saying Mr McCartin cannot control himself during a football match?”

If the answer were no, then the entire argument should have been thrown out. And shame on the club for even attempting to blame diabetes for their player’s wretched actions.

However, if the answer were yes, the next question would have to be: “Why should he take the field again?”

No player can guarantee he’ll never lose his temper, but a reasonable assurance of keeping emotions in check is not asking too much.

If a player is at significantly higher risk of committing violence against his opponent, the privilege of playing would obviously be in jeopardy for him. It’s only fair to the other players.

Ultimately, the Swans’ legal team is to blame for this ridiculous situation. I wonder if Paddy even agreed to use his diabetes as a defence.

If so, did he understand the ramifications? The lawyers certainly didn’t do him any favours. For mine, I suspect McCartin is not at much greater risk of losing his temper than most players, during most matches.

So it’s a huge shame that on top of all his disappointments with concussion and his grief at having punched another player, he now has the footy world questioning whether he’s a risk to those around him.

The Swans could have done better by him, but regardless, it’s definitely not Mark Robinson who started this.

Garry Lyon should have the professionalism to see that.