Why Richmond aren’t punishing Bolton and RioliJake Niall
The Age
May 12, 2021 — 5.00amRichmond have chosen not to take any punitive action against Shai Bolton and Daniel Rioli for their part in a nightclub fracas that has cost the club Bolton for two or three matches at a most inconvenient time.
The Tigers’ midfield was already depleted, without Trent Cotchin, Dion Prestia and Kane Lambert for the next couple of weeks at the least. Bolton has been arguably their best-performed player this season and his absence makes their next couple of games challenging; they will still be favourites against the Giants this week, but will be distinct underdogs the following week against the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba.
They should beat Adelaide in round 11, regardless of Bolton’s availability.
That they have decided against a fine or suspension, or even a suspended fine for Rioli and Bolton, will strike many observers as lenient, or of yet another instance of a footy club reflexively standing by “our boys”.
The AFL, which could step in and punish the players, has accepted Richmond’s position.
One way to view Richmond’s judgment - and of any that a club makes on off-field incidents of this kind - is to compare it to the way the AFL assesses incidents on the field and then determines any penalty.
To form their view, Richmond relied heavily on the testimony of the two players and Rioli’s girlfriend, who was subject to what the club described as “inappropriate behaviour” by another man - both verbal and physical - which led to Rioli’s objection and, according to the club, to a punch to the forward’s face under the eye.
Bolton jumped in to help Rioli, and in doing so suffered a wrist fracture that required surgery, an outcome that is worse than any punishment the club might have meted out to the pair.
In the Tigers’ telling, this is a simple, familiar case of player sticks up for girlfriend, and teammate defends teammate.
The non-punishment rests on Richmond’s assessment of a few key factors, the after-hours equivalent to the MRO’s criteria of impact, intent and location.
The first factor was that the players, who might have had a couple of drinks, had not been intoxicated.
Second, the incident was said to have taken place just after midnight, rather than in a dangerous time slot around 2am or later. “Nothing good happens after 1am,” as the clubs often say.
Third, there’s no police involvement, nor legal repercussions - in contrast to Sydney Stack and Callum Coleman-Jones, caught kebab-handed last September by police.
Further, in the Richmond assessment, the players were not the aggressors. They were acting in self-defence.
Finally, Richmond’s position is very much influenced by their view of Rioli and Bolton as decent young men who don’t court trouble and are truthful. Since no CCTV footage has yet surfaced from the city nightclub, and no one has come forward to contradict the players’ story (which happened in the Dustin Martin “chopsticks” incident - patrons in the restaurant essentially backed Dusty), the Tigers have no reason to dispute that version.
That said, the club could have adopted the same philosophy of “strict liability” that the AFL enforces for players who choose to bump - even if they didn’t collect the player high, they are suspended if the victim is concussed or injured.
In this scenario, Richmond would say to Bolton and Rioli: “You’ve chosen to be out late, in a nightspot with alcohol in abundance, even though you weren’t peeed. Trouble has found you, and you’re liable for putting yourselves in harm’s way. So we’re fining/suspending you/putting you on notice and demanding an apology.″
The one argument against leniency that Richmond have considered but not pursued is the question of whether, in those fateful seconds after Rioli was struck, Bolton had another another choice - like the player who chooses to bump. What reasonable alternative did Bolton have?
Could Bolton have walked away from the fight? If one suspects that he had that option (what would Cotchin, Shane Edwards or Jack Riewoldt have done?) it’s harder to judge when you’re not there and have no footage.
Brendon Gale, the club chief executive, acknowledged on Tuesday that it would have been better if the pair had not been out, while adding that they had to be allowed to live their lives.
As one official from a rival club who’s dealt with many such incidents pointed out, these fracas or confrontations are common, but they only become issues if a player gets arrested or, as in Bolton’s case, hurt.
Gale was quick to say on Tuesday that this incident would have no bearing on Bolton’s contract negotiations. Once upon a time at Tigerland, the fact of Bolton being a gun player coming off contract would probably have been grounds for cynicism about a non-penalty.
Richmond aren’t that kind of club any longer.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-richmond-aren-t-punishing-bolton-and-rioli-20210511-p57qw1.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true
