Not just history on its own, there would be other factors involved as well.
I think one can use hindsight to claim a moral right or wrongness regarding past events. I don't believe it is just confined to success or less-successful outcomes.
For example, slavery is wrong - it can't be excused in the past (or present) by saying we didn't know better. Newer, or rediscovered understandings (in this case Christian/biblical ones) allowed western society to change its view on the past slavery evils. We look back and say the people were wrong in their decisions; not just more or less successful.
Now it is true, everyone is a product of their time, but there may be information available to us that we miss read or fail to understand, that would have changed the course of our decisions had we understood them. It is not just the evidence/info available for a decision that makes it right or wrong, but how we interpret said info.
Of course in a drafting situation bigfooty posters will never know, b/c we are not privy to the info. We can only make our guesses as best we can - usually in hindsight according to success or not. But that would not automatically absolve the decision makers of any liability for their decision. We just don't know. Which is why we speculate here.
In terms of moral or ethical correctness, one would need to have a foundation for morality, and that is where the modern secular humanist or material naturalist has no grounds forever calling something right or wrong. Here is where I think the Geelong Footy Club parts ways with some modern Australian thinking. It has built its club culture on character first, which is actually derived from Christian program. they are taking morality/or character if you like, into the equations.
This is where the complexity comes in. We are talking about not drafting some due to ethical or moral information/decisions. Will we draft so and so - because of his behavior - which we don't find conducive to club harmony etc?
Enough for me. This takes too long! lol.
