So, a few thoughts on this one.
I�m generally in the camp that the act rather than the outcome should dictate the penalty. For example, when Hodge tried to break Wingard�s neck on the behind post a few years ago, the act demanded a severe penalty. That he was a micro second out in impact shouldn�t have diminished the penalty.
Cameron�s act was always going to risk severe consequences, too. If you remember the Steven May hit on Stefan Martin a few years ago, sharp hits to the head meant Martin�s form suffered for close to 18 months.
The fact Harris actually had brain bleeding is in some ways irrelevant. The fact that Cameron�s act risked that outcome is what he should be judged on. The fact Cameron could have had a broken jaw from a deliberate action, or whether it was either the contact or the impact on hitting the ground that caused brain bleeding, or whether or not Andrews� career suffers badly, is not the issue.
It�s the fact Cameron brought all these risks into play through a deliberate choice. So in my mind, it�s as bad an act as he could have committed. Eight weeks minimum.
Bookmarks