"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." 

That's what we were taught to say as little kids whenever someone insulted us. Of course as we grew older we came to understand that words can indeed hurt. In fact, they can cut very deeply. 

The biggest story in the AFL this week - other than Rodney Eade's departure - revolved around words. During an on-field scuffle, West Coast's Patrick McGinnity told Melbourne's Ricky Pettard that he would "rape his mum." For that masterpiece of elocution, McGinnity was fined $2,500, suspended for one match and ordered to undergo counselling. 

The incident has polarised much of the sports world. While the consensus seems to be that McGinnity's words were offensive, horrific and reprehensible, there is considerable debate about the punishment. 

Some, like my BackPageLead colleague Charles Happell, believe he got off lightly. The thinking is that if Justin Sherman got four weeks for his racial vilification of Joel Wilkinson, then why did McGinnity get only one? 

Others think Pettard broke a footballer's (or sportsman's) code by complaining to the umpire about the sledging. 

The issue is also complicated by allegations - not included in some newspaper reports - that Pettard started the slanging match by telling McGinnity he was going to come to Perth and "kill him." 

Now I've played enough basketball on enough urban American playgrounds to accept the fact that verbal taunting and teasing - and much of it focused on one's mother - can be par for the course in some cultures. However, I have to admit that what McGinnity said does seem to be outside the boundaries of what we consider acceptable in our society. 

The only thing I feel strongly about is that the AFL, by getting involved in this dispute, has opened a Pandora's Box. It's now found itself in the strange position as arbiter of what is morally and socially acceptable, particularly in a country that believes in free speech. 

Will the AFL now have to introduce a commission to determine what sentences are offensive and what aren't? 

Clearly, racial and religious vilification is unacceptable. It's also relatively easy to assess. A player makes comments about another player's race or religion and he's punished. End of story. 

This McGinnity incident reminds me of United States Chief Justice Potter Stewart, who when discussing hardcore pornography, said he struggled to define it, but "I know it when I see it." 

Pettard's father said that McGinnity "crossed the line." I think most of us are in agreement with that statement. 

However, where is that line drawn? What comments would be considered on the safe side of the line? Could McGinnity have said "I want to take your mum on a date?" What about "I want to have sex with your mum?" I know that sounds ludicrous, but don't be surprised if these sorts of arguments start raising their nebulous heads. 

And what about the implications of bringing the concept of "respect for women" into the middle of a highly-competitive, mano a mano contest? 

The AFL has been a leader in helping to eradicate racial and religious vilification. It's also gone out of its way to honour the women who help support and promote the game. I applaud them for those efforts. 

And the idea of educating players on treating women respectfully makes perfect sense. Any number of recent, tawdry incidents justifies it. But to carry this idea into the heat of battle, well to me that's very different. And very dangerous. 

I say all of this having a mother I dearly love, a wife who's also a mother, and three sisters, all of whom are mothers.