Whether it should be or not is not the matter at hand: is that the wording/interpretation of the rules and laws of the game? We should try and be objective.
Genuinely, I am not wanting to appear obtuse (or be it) and I do understand your point, however my issue is that people are directly jumping to the consequence.
You talked about drink driving, so if you would let me put it into another context for you regarding law, where in each case a man dies, my point may be clearer:
- A defendant takes a knife and in a pre-mediated attack stabs someone causing death.
- A defendant takes a knife and in an unplanned attack stabs someone causing death.
- A defendant in a pre-mediated attack repeatedly punches a defenceless victim, including when on the ground, causing death.
- A defendant in an unplanned attack (confrontation etc.) punches the victim once causing the victim to collapse, bang their head and die.
The first three would be pushed for murder because the wording under common law is an intention
"to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully.'
Big custodial for the first two, but the second while having no intent carries the likelihood that you will cause serious injury by acting in a manner.
That would either be murder or manslaughter - the push would be for the former and rightly. By using a knife, you must expect to cause serious injury or death.
The fourth, while causing death, would in many cases be involuntary manslaughter due to reduced mens rea - a reduced intention to do wrong and cause harm.
Basically, would all four actions justify the same punishment? All would likely to endanger the person and have ultimately caused the same result.
However, quite rightly the consequence is not the deciding factor and rather intent and many other mitigating factors are brought into a complex process.
I think where it boils down to is our perspective of the first challenge; personally while I have said it was rash, I simply do not think it meets the threshold for a red.
Did he in making the tackle, with reasonable forethought, have the intent to cause serious injury or did the tackle itself show a likelihood of causing serious injury?
For me, it's again a no because so many similar tackles happen in football all the time, where injury does not occur and if so no where near to that extent.
Why I mentioned the Mina scenario is simple: the offence and the consequence are not intrinsically linked, which has been my point throughout.
If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tackle knowing it could injure and he did so, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a lengthy, lengthy ban.
If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tackle knowing it could injure but hadn't injured him, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a ban.
But because the first aspect is in my humble opinion not of that sort, then I don't feel that he is deserving of a ban. That's me trying to be objective.
