Maybe St Kilda's Stephen Milne should walk for the good of the game DO we believe the batsman who knowingly feathers the ball through to the keeper has the same obligation as the opponent who issues a thick edge to first slip? Are those who heckle and jeer the Tour de France leader because he wins with the dominance of Lance, entitled to express their disaffection for the unsubstantiated fear that he is winning in the manner of Armstrong? Would the people who booed a footballer charged with rape have cheered him had he been in their colours? As an audience we demand incessantly of the players in the morality tale of sport. We seek affirmation of virtue, valour and integrity beyond the skill and the imperative of victory. Yet collectively, in the baying and the howling, we obfuscate our own questions of ethics, abandoning standards on the basis of circumstance, allegiance or urgency. Stuart Broad was vilified for the audacity of playing to the umpire's call. It was a desperately cynical moment as the Englishman tested the limits of what he could get away with. Stuart Broad. At the climax of a thrilling finish, Brad Haddin nicked a ball that would condemn Australia to defeat. He knew it. He preyed on the uncertainty of the umpire and allowed events to run their course to see if he could get away with it. Where there was none, otherwise intelligent people invented differentiation between the two. Somehow Haddin was entitled, even obliged to stay, while Broad was a bald-faced liar. Cricket would be richer if the players took responsibility for the game. A man playing club golf would never think to cheat his competitors in such a way. On the evidence before us that same person would go to the local oval and, while batting, make a teammate standing as a makeshift umpire give him out rather than acknowledge the truth. Given the events of the Trent Bridge Test, had Haddin walked it would have been the greatest act of sportsmanship since John Landy doubled back for Ron Clarke. It would have been more than England deserved and thus restored the antiquated notion of the spirit of cricket. Sadly, one suspects he would have been pilloried at home rather than hailed. The faint touch of Hot Spot would have been used as evidence that Haddin should have tried his luck. As it was, Haddin was adjudged out because he was out and only the opportunity passed untouched. It followed the shameful night a stadium full of people consciously decided to cheer or boo Stephen Milne because he had been charged with four counts of rape. The reaction was governed by the pantomime division that you're one of ours or you're one of theirs. Had those fans engaged in the debate as to whether a footballer facing serious criminal charges should continue to ply his trade, it would have been a watershed moment. What a powerful message it would have been if a civilised crowd had offered a neutral response towards Milne, acknowledging there was nothing to be said in a sporting context, instead trusting the judicial system to deal with the matter. But the uncomfortable truth is the Carlton fans who booed would have been cheering with equal gusto had Milne been wearing navy Blue. The inverse is equally true. The AFL denies sexual assault was trivialised by the reaction. It is wrong. The game, and all that it might stand for, was diminished. In most forms of public life a person in such a position would be stood down from duty on full pay with uncompromised support until it was resolved. Footballers were suggested to be different. Last week proved why they are not. Should such mindlessness continue perhaps Milne will see clearly that the decision must be his. In the ethical dilemma lies the toughest equation, when the cost of doing the right thing is more than the price you're willing to pay.