He still should have passed, right?
Like the rest of the country, we've watched Austin Gleeson's goal back about a thousand times, and every time we do, we still scream for him to pass it to his right to Brick Walsh. It would have been a certain goal had Gleeson tossed the ball to Brick, with four Cork defenders ready to converge on the Hurler of the Year.
How Gleeson managed to dissolve and reappear through the sliver of the gap walled by the Cork defenders - and avoid overcarrying while he was at it - to finish all by himself was genius.
Those of us asking for Gleeson to pass are judging him by the standard that we usually see in hurling, that the pass should always be delivered to the player in the best position - the Position of Maximum Opportunity to the jargonists.
But such is Gleeson's absurd talent and skill, he is operating on a different level, meaning his mazy run and finish is the most natural way of scoring to him. So who are we to tell him to pass, when he is capable of skill like that?
We pondered exactly that on this week's edition of Talking Points, our weekly GAA show in partnership with Sky Sports GAA.
Jamie Barron was the game's best player, and is likely a shoo-in for Hurler of the Year should Waterford go on to win the All-Ireland. His energy levels are preposterous, and his perpetual motion carries with it a handy spin-off of putting him in situations where the opposition least want to see him: bearing down on goal.
But if Barron killed Cork on flow, Gleeson killed them on moments.
Moments governed by his own, transcendent talent.
In hurling terms, Austin Gleeson is a genius. That term brings with it romantic connotations of people so great, they can only be curbed by their own self-destructive tendencies.
We can't apply that theory to Gleeson's career, but an uncomfortable truth lingers from Sunday's game. He won't be suspended for the All-Ireland final, an outcome undoubtedly to the betterment of the game itself. The rules, however, dictate that he should be. In the first half, Gleeson inexplicably tore Luke Meade's helmet from his head. Whether it was aggressive or dangerous is a moot point. The rule assumes that it is.
behaving in any way which is dangerous to an opponent, including deliberately pulling on or taking hold of a faceguard or any part of an opponent’s helmet (in hurling).
For Gleeson to put himself in that situation, however, is staggering, particularly in the context of Waterford's summer so far: Stephen Bennett and Tadhg De Burca have both served suspensions for that exact offence.
Here's what JJ Delaney had to say about the incident in his analysis for Sky Sports:
It doesn't look good. [By the] letter of the law, it's a red card. He does get the helmet and yank it off. But I do have an issue with this rule. I don't think it is a straight red card. It's a harsh punishment, and I think it should be a yellow card.
It's a good thing that Gleeson will play in the final: the punishment is disproportionate to the offence. But Gleeson still yanked at Meade's helmet knowing that rule would come into play.
Later on in the game, however, Gleeson won the game by putting himself in a situation nobody else would.
Genius has two edges. Should we accept them both?
