Is chivalry dead?

Ross Lyon may have “no issue” with the tactics employed by Steven Baker against Steve Johnson last Friday night, but one wonders how he would have reacted had it been his suspected broken hand that was being repeatedly punched by his opponent whilst many, many metres off the ball.

 

Baker will see his black eye as a mark of his commitment to his team’s cause, but, in truth, it marks him as nothing more than a thug.

 

Johnson’s retaliation was understandable, but cannot be condoned.

 

Where, we wonder, were the umpires?

 

Lest readers’ thoughts be muddled on this, we’re not considering the sort of holding, blocking and frustration dished out to great players every week — the sort of treatment that Chris Judd has taken to bleating about recently.

 

As we have previously canvassed, our traditionalist view is that aggression at the ball is to be applauded, but premeditated, off the ball attacks on players designed to take advantage of some physical weakness are deplorable and the work of thugs.

 

There is close checking, and then there is thuggery. Baker’s actions fall clearly and unarguably into the latter category. We applaud him for ‘succeeding’ at the highest level in spite of self-admitted modest talents, but we wish him and his ilk gone from the game as soon as possible.

 

Postscript: The MRP have assessed Baker’s actions as warranting twelve weeks’ suspension according to their activation points table and loading for previous offences, discounted by three weeks for guilty pleas.

 

Paradoxically, given how much we despise Baker’s actions, we find this penalty excessive.

 

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that a weekend of media following the Friday night game and a barrage of criticism over the Judd-Pavlich incident through the week has had some influence on the MRP’s deliberations.