Tweet
Re: MRO Thread
The league already makes it a lottery. Why was Maynards actions deemed ok, yet other not. I'd argue a sling tackle is a lot harder to avoid than the front on collision? In Rugby Union the principle that governs is one of care. Yes it sees guys sent off and suspended for acts in the ordinary course of play. But it does that because it wants players to take care and look to avoid those situations where possible.
The Cordy-Ward comparison is a great example. Cordy only has eyes for the ball takes out Ward with an errant knee. SHould he have been more careful? You would assess this as being in the course of play, if for no other reason that the impact on Ward is at the point the mark is taken/attempted. The attempt is not unrealistic or exagerated or in a manner that you would say recklessly endangers an opposition player. The question therefore is not whether he took enough care, but what care he could have taken to avoid injuring Ward.
Applying this logic to the Maynard case - what care could he have taken to avoid injuring Brayshaw? I think its obvious. The moment he leapt uncontrollably into the air he put himself in a reckless position where he could not control the impact/effect of his contact. The contact that follows is late, outside the rules of the game and causes a serious injury to another player. Yes smothering is an act within the game. Leaping full pelt to smother a ball with no real chance of doing so and then collecting the oncoming player is not.
If you want to look at it from another perspective, take a basketball take on the impact. Maynard "Blocks" the run of Brayshaw, because he moves into the path of the offensive player. He commits a defensive foul. What else could Maynard have done? He could have stayed on the ground and sought to tackle low - within the rules - but elected not to because he wouldn't have gotten there in time to prevent the kick. his decision to jump at the player and block the offensive path led to the foul.
There is so much wrong with the "footy action" that Maynard claims that to allow it as a defence is a terrible indictment on the game. It has never been ok to collect someone after they disposed of the ball. Its a free kick. How can it be a football action?
The league already makes it a lottery. Why was Maynards actions deemed ok, yet other not. I'd argue a sling tackle is a lot harder to avoid than the front on collision? In Rugby Union the principle that governs is one of care. Yes it sees guys sent off and suspended for acts in the ordinary course of play. But it does that because it wants players to take care and look to avoid those situations where possible.
The Cordy-Ward comparison is a great example. Cordy only has eyes for the ball takes out Ward with an errant knee. SHould he have been more careful? You would assess this as being in the course of play, if for no other reason that the impact on Ward is at the point the mark is taken/attempted. The attempt is not unrealistic or exagerated or in a manner that you would say recklessly endangers an opposition player. The question therefore is not whether he took enough care, but what care he could have taken to avoid injuring Ward.
Applying this logic to the Maynard case - what care could he have taken to avoid injuring Brayshaw? I think its obvious. The moment he leapt uncontrollably into the air he put himself in a reckless position where he could not control the impact/effect of his contact. The contact that follows is late, outside the rules of the game and causes a serious injury to another player. Yes smothering is an act within the game. Leaping full pelt to smother a ball with no real chance of doing so and then collecting the oncoming player is not.
If you want to look at it from another perspective, take a basketball take on the impact. Maynard "Blocks" the run of Brayshaw, because he moves into the path of the offensive player. He commits a defensive foul. What else could Maynard have done? He could have stayed on the ground and sought to tackle low - within the rules - but elected not to because he wouldn't have gotten there in time to prevent the kick. his decision to jump at the player and block the offensive path led to the foul.
There is so much wrong with the "footy action" that Maynard claims that to allow it as a defence is a terrible indictment on the game. It has never been ok to collect someone after they disposed of the ball. Its a free kick. How can it be a football action?
Comment