ethos
BroncoKiwi
Taking a brief break (plus some thoughts on Matthew Johns)
May 15th 2009 00:50
Category: Opinion
As you would have probably noticed, NRL Live has been rather dead over the past month. It has been rather busy for me lately with work and university commitments and life in general. Not that I’m complaining, it’s great to be on the go, but unfortunately this blog (as much as I love it) has been shuffled down to the bottom of my list.
I’ve decided to take a short break from writing here until I get the mountainous weight of uni assignments off my shoulders. But never fear! I’ll be back bigger and better just in time for Origin One with the all important Queensland and New South Wales team announcements.
And folks, please keep up the discussions in the player movements thread. It’s been interesting reading and I will keep reading even though I won’t be writing.
Before I sign off for a few weeks, here are some of my fragmented thoughts on the Matt Johns saga, which I’m sure everyone is all too familiar with.
...
Firstly, I feel very sorry for all the individuals for have been affected. The young girl, who is obviously a mess, Matt Johns’ family and children in particular and Matt Johns himself – he is now obviously deeply remorseful.
Players need to learn a valuable lesson from this though. They, as high profile sporting figures, are under more scrutiny than the average population. Whether the amount of scrutiny they face at the hands of the media is wrong or right is another issue.
To be honest, the amount of scrutiny is probably not fair. The fact is – that’s just the way it is and I can’t see it changing any time soon.
Even though Matthew Johns committed no crime, he has lost his job and forever tarnished his reputation due to the headlines over the past few days. The National Rugby League will without doubt lose fans and sponsorship opportunities. Speaking personally, I’m less exciting about watching footy than I was last week.
Rugby league players must understand this and fashion their decisions accordingly. If some (and I must stress some) players continue to draw negative headlines they are ultimately ruining the reputation of game they apparently love and the game that pays their salary.
...
However, the on field action still continues with the Heritage Round this weekend. The two matches this evening will be crackers. In their short history the Broncos and Titans have always produced thrilling contests, while the match between the first-placed Bulldogs and second-placed Dragons will be equally as enthralling.
Enjoy the footy and I’ll be back in June!
| 66 |
| Vote |
Comment by the world of gaye
batty
Family Madness
bright lights greedy city
REFLECTIONS
THE WINDMILLS OF MY MIND
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
I've been following news on this case as well. The main thing that interests me is the notion of consent.
Three issues: --
1. How do you evaluate consent (legally or morally speaking)? And how black-and-white was this case?
Legally, Johns was cleared.
But in contract law (for instance), if you enter into an agreement while you're drunk, on drugs, or temporarily insane, that might invalidate the contract.
If there was a lot of alcohol involved in the Matt Johns incident, surely this is grey areas, and evaluation of consent is going to be messy?
2. Putting aside legality, is Johns morally in the clear? What counts as "consent" in a moral (rather than legal) sense?
If the moral conception is different from the legal conception, should the legal concept be modified to better reflect the everyday understanding?
Early writers on liberty and freedom talked about situations in which people were not free, and they included not only obvious restrictions on freedom (for instance, when you're a chained slave), but various "seductions" and "coercions of the will". So if someone threatens you or fast talks you, then in a sense you haven't acted freely.
In the Four Corners report, Clare talked about psychological presure. And I think, regardless of whether you believe her or not, everyone can sympathize with being pressured into doing something you didn't really want to do.
3. Even if you haven't committed a crime, and even if there was consent, is what you're doing moral? Is everything that happens between two consenting adults moral?
Many people seem to hold the view that, in general, you're responsible for damage you cause. Take the situation where you're playing cricket in your backyard, and you knock a ball through a neighbour's glass window. It was an accident -- you didn't intend the damage, and it might not even have been foreseeable -- but morally and legally the neighbour still has a claim against you.
So if Clare has suffered damage from the 2002 incident, are the players responsible for that, regardless of consent? Or does consent free them of any responsibility?