Tag: trouble

In the courts of footy justice, as in life, both punishment and perception are now all about the consequences.

When a player is placed on report, match review committees spend as much time studying the victim’s medical report as they do the video of the wallop that sent him to la-la land.

A stray elbow that leaves a player concussed might mean a two-week ban. A similar action that inflicts no trauma might attract only a fine.

The anomaly is obvious. Surely the penalty should be dependent on the act itself, not the resilience of the victim. But this is a time of Old Testament punishment — an eye for an eye.

The line is drawn, however, at a tooth for a tooth. For in the case of biting, it is still the act, rather than the consequence, that provokes our ire.

Loading

At the NRL judiciary this evening Gold Coast Titans’ captain Kevin Proctor will not merely be fighting to keep his season alive.

He will be desperately trying to retain an impeccable reputation that could be shredded by one allegedly mad munch.

Proctor was sent off during the Gold Coasts’ defeat by Cronulla on Saturday after appearing to bite his New Zealand teammate and Sharks half-back Shaun Johnson.

The video viewed by The Bunker officials shows Proctor’s mouth closing over the forearm of Johnson, which is wrapped around his neck. Soon after, Johnson leaps to his feet yelling: “You bit me! You bit me!”

Prime facie, short of a camera angle showing Proctor dipping Johnson’s arm in a red wine marinade, there seemed little more the officials needed to see before Proctor was given his marching orders.

At the judiciary, a bite mark would validate a guilty decision. But there will be no evidence needed that Johnson has been incapacitated or even superficially wounded for Proctor to receive a penalty of anything between four and 12 weeks.

Punching, elbowing and shoulder charging are all against the rules, yet they remain within the lingering spirit of a game that retains trace elements of its gladiatorial past. These offences carry penalties but they usually don’t cause public affront.

Conversely, biting — with spitting and far more potentially damaging eye gouging and spear tackling — breaches the unwritten agreement that there are specific and “manly” ways in which to inflict harm on an opponent, even if they are no longer authorised in these more squeamish times.

Thus the condemnation of Proctor upon his dismissal was both predictable and universal: “low act”, “animal”, “grub”, “disgrace”. It was irrelevant that Johnson had jumped to his feet having suffered less harm from his mouthguard molestation than he might have from a vigorous tackle.

The charge of biting, as much as the impending penalty, prompted Proctor to mount an impassioned self-defence in which he pleaded: “I will fight to the death to clear my name.”

Proctor knows that he is not just trying to save his season. He is battling to protection his reputation from an accusation that would overshadow an exemplary 12-year, 250-game career during which he has never been banned.

Proctor keen to avoid Biting Hall of Shame

If guilty, Proctor will be inducted in the NRL Biting Hall of Shame alongside Englishman James Graham, the Canterbury-Bankstown enforcer who was suspended for 12 weeks for biting Billy Slater during the 2012 grand final.

Naturally, Graham’s chomp on Slater’s ear created enormous controversy and saw the Englishman labelled with the same shaming epithets now aimed at Proctor.

Yet when I quizzed Slater about the incident while ghostwriting his autobiography some years later, the great full-back was unexpectedly sanguine — frustratingly so for a publisher hoping to sell copies with controversy.

Slater was adamant Graham bit him and had apologised for doing so despite his not-guilty plea.

Yet his authorised version was: “He went over the top on that occasion, but I don’t hold a grudge.” Otherwise, there is surprisingly little rancour from the victim of an incident that is part of grand-final infamy.

As well as biting existing outside the “manly” realms of punching and charging, in the AIDS and now the coronavirus era you might argue the act carries the potential to spill blood and exchange fluids.

And, yes, I know COVID-19 is an airborne virus. But with players who roll around on top of each other on the field now performing the pandemic pantomime of spacing in the sheds for the benefit of the cameras, perceptions are currently everything.

In the same vein — no pun intended — the perception of biting as a heinous and cowardly act means Proctor would have been viewed more leniently had he risen to his feet and belted Johnson for putting him in a choke hold rather than giving him what appears to be a bit of a nibble.

None of this is to excuse the act of biting. Nor is it to suggest that, if found guilty, Proctor deserves anything less than the substantial ban the offence carries.

But there will be players that leave opponents scarred for life who receive lesser bans and far less attention than the Titans’ skipper should he be suspended.

At a time when pandemic protocols have made us acutely aware of the consequences of our actions, Proctor’s impulsive moment could leave him stigmatised for life due to our perception of an offence rather than the harm it caused.