Ok I am going to channel my inner Morgan here and be a bit contrary.
I've been thinking about the sudden change from the worst and to be honest, it doesn't really make sense. Newspapers don't have principles, they have revenue targets and suddenly holding up a team that you sponsor to account when you've spent 25 years enabling poor behaviour is a little hard for me to accept at face value.
Duffield's article is making me reconsider my initial pleasure at seeing the dirty birds held up to scrutiny. Lots of hand wringing about how terrible it all is then calls for 6 weeks, which is lower than almost everybody else is assessing the punch by Gaff.
Danny Green, after more than 24 hours has broken his silence and called for fixed penalties for a punch without regard to outcomes. Which sounds good from a bloke who often publicises his opposition to punches on the street. Then you think about it, a fixed penalty would reflect the average 'jumper punch' and call it 2 weeks. You certainly wouldn't give any more for an average AFL type punch. Fixed penalties with no regard for outcome or circumstances would be seeing Gaff get a 2 week penalty and back for the slime. No thanks.
So I'm wondering if all this handwringing from all and sundry followed by calls for lighter penalties isn't just more orchestration from the dirty birds. Even Basil's effort on Simpson was pretty soft. It only looked good because it wasn't as sycophantic as normal.
Maybe I'm just being cynical but I think I have reason to be.
