George@Isa

Lachie Neale intentionally struck Jack Ginnivan in the stomach, off the ball, in the preliminary final. He got a one-match ban, meaning he'd miss the grand final. At the Tribunal, his team argued his "exemplary record" should get him off. The Tribunal heard it, weighed it, and rejected it. The ban stood. So they took the exact same argument to the Appeal Board. No new evidence. They didn't even dispute the strike. Same facts, same record, same plea. This time the "good bloke defence" worked. Ban overturned, $10,000 fine, and he plays. Except his record isn't clean. He's been found guilty eight times before, three for striking opponents in the body. And nine other players were suspended for this exact offence this season. No pass for them. The star got one, in grand final week. So what are kids learning? That who you are matters more than what you do. That if you're good enough, the rules bend. And if the first answer doesn't suit you, keep asking until you get one that does. This is moral relativism in action. The act didn't change. The finding didn't change. The evidence didn't change. The only thing that changed was how much the person who did it matters. Once right and wrong depend on who you are rather than what you did, there is no standard left, just a sliding scale that always tilts towards the powerful. It's the same "good bloke" logic we've spent years fighting in courtrooms, where reputation and standing are used to soften consequences for harm. And here's what moral relativism always hides: the standard doesn't disappear, it just shifts onto everyone else. Leniency for the powerful is paid for by harsher judgement of the powerless. A rule that only applies to some people isn't a rule. It's a privilege. And yesterday the AFL told every kid watching exactly who that privilege is for.