The bitter feud which was reignited between Dayne Zorko and Touk Miller on Saturday is five years old.
It dates back to Round 5, 2018, when Miller won the second of his four Marcus Ashcroft medals.
Miller, who had 21 disposals, held Zorko to 10 touches in a stirring five-point victory.
“You’d have to say Touk won that battle tonight,” Chris Fagan told reporters after the match.
At the end of the game, Miller ran up to Zorko, patted him on the back and gestured to shake his hand.
Clearly frustrated, Zorko refused, telling his opponent: “F--- off mate.”
In Round 22 of that same season, the duo clashed again. They were at each other's throats for the entire first half.
“His breath smells,” Zorko said in a half-time interview with Fox Footy’s Ben Dixon.
“I’m sorry, he got in my face and I was like oh.”
Brisbane was ahead of Gold Coast by four points when the game ended. Zorko, having collected 17 disposals to Miller’s 15, ran up to the Suns midfielder and before shaking his hand let him know about the result.
Zorko eventually put out his hand while laughing in Miller’s face. Players from both clubs had to separate the pair. It was an ugly moment rarely seen in the AFL.
Zorko played it down when interviewed, but the vision was clear.
“I just shook his hand and said thanks for the game,” he said.
On Saturday, Miller tackled Zorko and in doing so, made contact with his genitals.
The vision shows that unequivocally.
Zorko was incensed and immediately remonstrated with the umpire.
“He just grabbed my f---ing nuts,” Zorko was heard telling the umpire.
Match review officer Michael Christian assessed the vision. For a misconduct charge to be delivered, he would need to prove Miller’s action was intentional.
On Sunday Brisbane delivered its medical report to the AFL. It’s understood there was no mention of any bruising specific to the incident.
With evidence, Christian would have had no choice but to perform any of the following three actions:
1) Send the matter to the tribunal under serious misconduct provision, which is reserved for acts which bring the game into disrepute.
2) Charge Miller under the rough conduct provision. Under the MRO table, the same weighting for head high hits is given to strikes to the groin. As such, severe impact would lead to a minimum three-week ban and a trip to the tribunal.
3) Instruct an AFL staffer to investigate the incident, leading to interviews with Miller and Zorko.
Because the medical report was clean, none of the aforementioned scenarios were actioned.
Miller was cleared of any wrongdoing.
Zorko expressed his dissatisfaction in an interview with SENQ on Monday morning.
"It's interesting, you're allowed to grab the groin region now and squeeze it and do whatever you want to it," Zorko said.
"So that's an interesting rule that's been cleared by the AFL.
"It's quite interesting that (he) got off. We had really good evidence to support the case.
"I tell you what, my groin region is quite bruised at the moment. It's funny how that all happens."
As frustrated as Zorko was about the perceived lack of justice, it was matched by the Gold Coast Suns.
Interim coach Steven King, who was asked about it on Monday night, stood by his co-captain, telling AFL 360 it was “completely accidental.”
“I’ll defend Touk every day of the week,” King said.
“He’s an amazing character and leader inside our four walls. He’s an inspiration to all of us. I saw it as two ferocious competitors attacking the ball with real vigour… And I think that’s what happened.
“I know for a fact that was Touk’s intent and that’s where it sits with me. Knowing Touk myself, we found those (Zorko) remarks a bit disrespectful to be honest. We know the integrity of the man and we will back him 100 per cent.”
So where are we now?
Dayne Zorko feels as if justice has been disregarded. It’s worth pondering how the medical report could be clear if the level of bruising he spoke about on radio was legitimate. Did he not tell the doctors? Did they not listen? Or did the bruising develop after the report was delivered to the AFL?
And does Brisbane support Zorko's public criticism? Or would they have preferred him submit a formal complaint to the league in private and via the appropriate channels.
Brisbane's view on Monday was that the incident would be looked at again by the AFL, but nothing had been confirmed by midday on Tuesday.
As for the Suns, they trust their star midfielder. They feel as if his clean reputation has been sullied by accusations which have no basis.
If there is an investigation pending, Gold Coast was unaware of it at midday on Tuesday.
And the AFL? SEN.com.au understands they are not happy about Zorko’s public criticism of the MRO - which could lead to a please explain - but on Monday night would not rule out opening a formal investigation.
Speaking on SEN's Sportsday, Kane Cornes said Zorko's public criticism was justified if he felt Miller's action was intentional.
"There are some incidents that are worthy of criticism," Cornes said.
"And others that aren't."
An AFL investigation would almost certainly occur outside the parameters of the MRO. So even if found guilty, how does the league punish a player for an on-field incident if the match review’s statute of limitations has expired?
Furthermore, a lofty burden of proof will make it difficult for the AFL to categorically conclude Miller intentionally grabbed Zorko anyway.