But isn't that the point? If you think of it from a legal perspective (and all sports will do that now), the emphasis will either ben seen that 1 - all contact needs to be removed because any contact can cause injury and therefore sport is dead or 2 (the more likely - there are expectations of injury in any sport, the sport in question needs to do whatever it can do to minimise any unexpected instances of danger in a workplace. You can NEVER remove all instances of danger in a workplace. In a factory for example, can you ensure 100% that people can't be injured? No but you put safety gear in place to minimise the risk, but the risk still exists and the employee signs a contract to accept that risk. Risk mitigation can be a lot of things, safety glass, specific highlighted walking areas, blowing the horn on a forklift when entering a building etc. Ie. for all those known risks you minimise but you can't eliminate but you need to be elminating the unnecessary risks.
The fact that "you don't see people doing what Maynard did" is exactly a risk that should be eliminated because it is not a football action. You don't players flying through the air like that, because you teach them to tackle as it minimises risk but still putting pressure on the player. We want in those instances to tackle, not to fly through the air like a missile which is what he did. As soon as he left the ground, he was causing an unnecessary risk, and despite what collingwood managed to argue, that was the action in question. He left the ground and he then said "well its not my fault that Brayshaws balance pushed him in front of me". To me thats a ridiculous point.
