Did Richmond’s Mad Monday Controls Reduce Risk — or Create a Different Problem?
RTSSG’s full member feature Richmond Eliminated the Risk. Now It Is Being Called the Problem opens this question from the evidence rather than the headline.
Richmond’s players did not approach Mad Monday as an uncontrolled pub crawl. They travelled together by bus, privately booked one venue during the day and used supervision. After the AFL’s Pullman controversy, the event was clearly designed with controls around it.
Then one detail became the headline: the reported request that no female staff work during the function. Taken by itself, what does that request mean? Does it reveal something about the players, something about the risk plan, or something about how the event has been interpreted after the fact?
Safety systems often try to remove variables before relying on behaviour alone. But where is the line between prudent control and a control that creates a separate cultural question? Can both concerns be examined without pretending they are the same thing?
What responsibility did Richmond have to protect venue staff, players and the club from foreseeable problems? What responsibility did it have to make sure the measures themselves did not send a message the club never intended?
And if the players were trying to create a contained environment after a serious league-wide controversy, should the quality of that decision be judged only by how it looked once one element became public?
This is not a useful story if the answer is decided before the questions are asked. The interesting part is what responsible risk management should look like for a young football group—and where culture, perception and prevention collide.
Not a member yet?
Join here for less than a cup of coffee a month and unlock the full RTSSG experience: https://www.rtssg.com/plans-pricing
RTSSG.com: Richmond News By Richmond People For Richmond People!
Comments