Re: MRO Thread
Poor decision. Does the player not have a duty of care to his opponent? Maynard put himself in a path of collision with Brayshaw, he has a duty of care to ensure that any contact does not do Brayshaw harm? Whether it s football act or not is relevant only in context of mitigation.
I don't believe Maynard set out to harm Brayshaw, but his actions were at a minimum careless. If you are going to take head injuries seriously then you have to start from a premise that the party initiating contact has the obligation to ensure that there is no harm done. This is a decision that opens up a loophole ina n area your don't want loopholes.
Poor decision. Does the player not have a duty of care to his opponent? Maynard put himself in a path of collision with Brayshaw, he has a duty of care to ensure that any contact does not do Brayshaw harm? Whether it s football act or not is relevant only in context of mitigation.
I don't believe Maynard set out to harm Brayshaw, but his actions were at a minimum careless. If you are going to take head injuries seriously then you have to start from a premise that the party initiating contact has the obligation to ensure that there is no harm done. This is a decision that opens up a loophole ina n area your don't want loopholes.
Comment