I was more surprised by Gus's comments on the telly last night still going into bat for Mitchell saying there was no intent other than a collision to protect his try line. I have watched that hit about 20 times and also his body language after, even when he realized the damage done. Gould said anyone that implies that he meant to hurt him was childish and completely wrong.
Mitchell has a history of lashing out with his boots and his arms and as previously mentioned he broke Brimsons jaw kicking out in a tackle. If there was no intent by Mitchell and if he sincerely did not mean to hurt his "mate" they way he did then he is hopeless at showing or expressing that. When approached by Manu he did not show any remorse or concern for his mate, instead he looked pissed off about being challenged about it. Even after having time to see the hit replayed over in the sin bin and a chance to cool down he still acted like a pissed off child after he came back on and scored, slamming the ball down beside at the rooster player on the ground.
Don't get me wrong, I think the game has gone soft and there is some ridiculous policing like the hair pull bullshit or tackles called high shots when players have fallen over just before being tackled. Control aggression is great but if you fuck up a tackle, or intentionally attack the head expect consequences.
Not sure what Gould's angle with it is, or if maybe he is looking at the players we are assembling and thinking about the many future judiciary visits he might have with the likes of TPJ, Hetho, Thompson etc.
