Rugby League - Suspension for 18 matches
Australia - 4/08/2004
I’m not a Rugby League fan. The game does nothing for me. But I don’t think anyone has escaped hearing about and seeing footage of the Danny Williams "King Hit" incident.
I think the judiciary got it right when it handed out an 18-match suspension. If it had listened to claims of concussion being the reason behind Danny’s actions, every Rugby League player who appeared before the judiciary would use the same defence. The only person who would know whether a player was legitimately concussed during the game would be the team’s doctor/physician. Such a person, being on the team’s payroll, could hardly be considered impartial.
But what if Danny WAS concussed and couldn’t remember the hit? Whether he remembers it or not, it was his reaction to the situation. If he was concussed, it was probably more an "automatic" reaction. Do we really want someone who automatically reacts in such a way on the playing field? I think not!
| Others' Views: Based on 1 vote |
|
| Totally agree: | 
(0%) |
| Mostly agree: | 
(0%) |
| Mostly disagree: |
(0%) |
| Totally disagree: |
(100%) |