When I first heard of the Melbourne Storm tragedy, I laughed. It was a great story: one to be enjoyed, but not taken too seriously. But I was soon told that my attitude was childish, and that the events mattered very much. So I was forced to examine my conscience.
I recognised that my attitudes to games had indeed remained stuck in an ill-spent childhood in which a little cheating was part of playing games. Calling your opponent's serves out when they were just in, moving inconveniently placed golf balls slightly so you could have a decent whack at them, and failing to follow suit in cards when advantageous were devices not unknown. And as you did, so you were done unto.
Even now, I confess, I enjoy stories of cheating done in style. Tales of ringing in horses on country tracks, putting a block of ice on the pitch the night before the opposing team bats, or nobbling the goal umpire in a footy final always bear retelling.
I suppose it is a sign of a childish attitude that I am not only indulgent to cheating, but also approve heartily of the retribution exacted by the NRL on the Melbourne Storm. For a child it is important that when cheating is discovered it should be sanctioned. Unless the rules of games are strongly affirmed and cheating is heavily penalised, there is not much point in cheating.
Children are also partisan in their judgments. So my insouciance about the dark doings and retributions at Melbourne Storm may not be unconnected with distaste at having to read about a Melbourne rugby league club in Melbourne newspapers. My wistful regret that the AFL did not strip Carlton of a couple of premierships when they had the chance may also be used as evidence of immature judgment.
Convinced that my initial views were indeed childish, I asked those of patently mature judgment why the Storm affair mattered so much. The first response was that rugby league and the Storm's place in it were significant in the Australian economy. It was not simply a game but a money-making business, and money mattered.
How could any serious minded person argue with that? But I raised a difficulty. It lay in the heavy financial penalty levelled on the Storm. That might have been appropriate when something less significant was at stake, but not in the case of something that mattered, like money.