If the letters to The Age mean anything, the AFL has a lot to worry about following the dismissal of the case against Maynard.  And most is coming from parents and grandparents – like me.

The discussion has been oceanic.  No discussion I have seen cited the relevant rule.  A lawyer would say the discussion might cover four questions.

First – what does the relevant rule of the game – or, perhaps, law of the land – provide?

Secondly, what findings of fact were open on the evidence before the tribunal to determine whether those findings of fact showed conduct that breached the relevant rule?

Thirdly, if a charge was found to be proved, what was the appropriate range of penalty?  This presumably would require assessing the custom or precedents of the tribunal.

Finally, does the consequence so arrived at conform with the expectations of the community or market?

I have little notion on the first three, but the answer to the fourth looks to me to be ‘No’.

Which term is á la mode.