What I find interesting about this is that there was much discussion recently about Darcy raising his knee into Pittonet’s knee at a ruck contest and injuring him, and whether Darcy should have to change the way he plays or the rules change to protect ruckmen’s knees.
And yet when a player launches knee first into the back of someone’s head, putting him out of that game and the next, no one bats an eyelid.
The arguments seem to always revolve around intent - the assumption is made that Horne-Francis only intended to go for the ball, but Darcy didn’t have his eye on the ball and therefore must have intended to hurt Pittonet.
If it were up to me I would take the whole notion of intent out of the argument altogether. Except on very rare occasions, you cannot claim to know if a player is genuinely contesting or sneakily trying to hurt an opponent. It shouldn’t even be relevant. In soccer if you’re trying to get the ball off an opponent but take his ankles instead, the ref doesn’t care what your intention was: it’s simply a free kick every time you miss the ball but get the man.
The AFL could end of a lot arguments by just making contact to an opponent’s head an offence regardless of whether the offender misjudged his leap or was deliberately trying to hurt someone.
That is, if the AFL genuinely want to protect the head. Limiting concussions very likely means making the game less exciting to watch.
