Eden Park. Photo / Dean Purcell
OPINION
During the 1925 US Golf Open, Bobby Jones prepared to hit his ball out of deep rough on a bank approaching the 11th hole.
Taking his stance, his club brushed the grass, moving his ball ever so slightly.
He played his shot, then advised his opponent Walter Hagen and the US Golf Association official that he was calling a penalty shot.
Quite a discussion followed. Neither Walter Hagen nor the official had seen the ball move.
The spectators had not seen the ball move.
Bobby Jones was adamant, and an extra shot was added to his score.
After eventually being tied at the 72nd hole, he lost the playoff. Many sports writers praised him for this self-imposed penalty.
Bobby Jones apparently took the view that he might as well be praised for not robbing banks.
With Jones' probity in mind, I think referee Mathieu Raynal made a virtuous decision on 15 September in the first Bledisloe cup rugby match.
The All Blacks were effectively on the ropes being three points down with 90 seconds remaining.
Australia had a penalty in a deep defensive position, and first-five Bernard Foley appeared to overly delay his kick for touch.
Long story short, the referee reversed the penalty for a scrum, citing time-wasting. This created an opportunity the All Blacks took for the win.
Australian fans were obviously furious, and New Zealand fans nodded their heads in relief and support of the contentious decision.
In my view, Mathieu Raynal was trying to raise the professionalism of rugby, which has been blemished lately by leisurely walks to the lineout, difficulty getting scrums set adequately, supposed injuries allowing heaving chests to settle, and extended time in taking kicks.
Australia could have immediately kicked for touch, with 30 seconds to get the lineout set before they threw in again.
It is likely they would have retained possession and completed a remarkable comeback win.
Instead, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in a context that I believe lost them more than the match.
Perhaps rugby could do with more characters such as Bobby Jones.
The passion aroused by this unprecedented decision is not surprising.
Sports games are highly charged arenas; they are popular and emotionally stimulating, with specific ties to one's team and fellow supporters.
Being so meaningful, sport increases the potency of advertising.
When alcohol marketing capitalises on such emotional intensity, it not only influences brand preference, but it increases positive attitudes toward alcohol in general.
Repeated exposure to alcohol branding embeds in our subconscious – ignoring ads doesn't stop them from working.
Exposure to alcohol marketing has been shown to be a cause of young people starting to drink earlier and drinking larger quantities.
Children and adults exposed to alcohol marketing in sports specifically drink heavier still.
This sets up our children for harm, as half of alcohol abuse and dependence cases in Aotearoa are developed by the age of 20 and 70 per cent by the age of 25.
Research shows tamariki Māori are five times more likely and Pacific children three times more likely to be exposed to alcohol marketing than European children.
Smoking was normal years ago, as was advertising cigarettes in sports until political leaders called time on tobacco sponsorship. And the sky did not fall in when that happened.
Some sports teams improved their financial position after refusing to accept tobacco sponsorship.
I believe alcohol is likely to be no different.
If we were to regard alcohol policy as a game with high stakes, how should it be played?
Should the alcohol industry be able to appeal local alcohol policies? In my view, this effectively stretches limited council resources for lawful alcohol harm-reducing measures.
Should we continue to allow alcohol advertising in sports when evidence demonstrates that it harms our kids and glorifies alcohol use across society?
Why do we have a voluntary code for alcohol marketing and sponsorship? In my opinion, that's like Bernard Foley refereeing himself.
Chlöe Swarbrick's Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm minimisation) Amendment bill seeks to upgrade the rule book for our referees.
This bill would end alcohol marketing and sponsorship in broadcast sports and would stop appeals to local alcohol policies.
The bill is aligned with previous recommendations of the Law Commission, the Mental Health and Addiction Inquiry, and the Ministerial Forum on Alcohol Advertising and Sponsorship.
The bill was supported by 20 DHBs prior to their disbanding.
Now Auckland, Christchurch, Hamilton, Dunedin, and six other district councils have endorsed it.
In my opinion, ignoring this widespread clamour for better alcohol policy is akin to being like Bernard Foley. I hope our MPs can be like Bobby Jones.
Western Bay of Plenty District could have fewer councillors to vote for next election.