It’s the inherent contradiction in a code predicated on the certainty,indeed the valorisation,of high-speed,heavy impact collisions. Even in a high marking duel,the game’s most spectacular aspect,a footballer is liable to,and sometimes is,knocked out. Really,that line can only safely be drawn in red through the existence of the code altogether,but no one is going to take up that pen.
The line has shifted far from,say,30 or 40 years ago when naked thuggery was celebrated,but it is still loosely drawn. Codifying forms and degree of collision have expedited the judicial process,but otherwise has not helped to define the line with any greater clarity. That’s because no two collisions are exactly alike. Footy’s 360 degrees aspect makes this so;collisions happen on every imaginable plane.
The game is as hard as it ever was,and fairer than it ever has been,but is it fair enough? Could it be fairer but no less hard? This will not be the question at the heart of the tribunal’s deliberations,but it will be informed and shaped by their verdict.
Loading
A commonly heard expression to excuse Maynard’s smother-gone-wrong is that it wasa “football act”. Another commonly heard word to indict him is “reckless”.
But are not many football actions intrinsically reckless? Jumping for a mark,laying a tackle,breaking a tackle,dare we say smothering;even with the best technique,even when quickly but finely calculated in an athlete’s mind,all entail the possibility of injury,to a player,his opponent and sometimes even a teammate.