Opinion: What reaction to Redmayne’s antics says about good old Aussie bottle | Malcolm Knox
– while politely averting our eyes from the goalkeeper’s antics in putting off the Peruvian shooters and then swiping and throwing away the opposing goalkeeper’s notes on the Australians. But instead of blushing at those rather questionable ethics, most of us have celebrated them as the icing on the cake, the cheek and ‘enterprise’ on top of the skill.
Australians are pretty good at taking umbrage. Poor Peru, which struggles to get its voice heard in the world, has issued statements about Redmayne’s ‘dirty’ play. Criticism has emanated from England. I know this because on Twitter his actions have been repeatedly described as ‘shithousery’ and ‘elite shithousing’. No, I’d never heard this term either.
… how could anyone not love him? Even though it’s the world game, we close our borders to criticism and have a party on our little self-governing ethical island.Credit:Beneath the chauvinism are some actual arguments to support Redmayne’s ethics. The Peruvian goalkeeper, Pedro Gallese, was engaging in his own gamesmanship by taking a minute’s silence before allowing the Australians to take their shots.
Whether he did cross the line interests me less than the minute-by-minute shifting of where that line is, and the public discussion, or lack of discussion, that follows.There’s a sort of sliding scale between ethical expectations and the size of the event. If this were a school match and a goalkeeper acted this way, you would have field invasions by parents and the furious exchange of letters followed by a public apology on the principal’s letterhead. Small worlds demand high standards.