Autopsy Round 13, 2021: St.Kilda v Adelaide

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Jan 10, 2011
34,367
57,683
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
You said he's being emotive for mentioning the dire long term effects of those kind of injuries while saying you will stop watching footy and everyone else will if they stop acts that cause those kinds of injuries. You don't see some hypocrisy?
It’s not hypocritical to say many won’t watch it the high mark and 2 players contesting the ball are taken out of the game. They are 2 of the most vital features of the game. The bump to the head wasn’t. Be honest gringo how would you enjoy watching the game if no player went for a high mark or one player sat back and waited for the other player to get to the ball because he thought he would be 4 hundredth of a second late. It would destroy the game. Don’t see that as emotive. See it as logical when you take 2 of the best aspects out of the game.
 
Oct 18, 2011
10,548
28,824
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
St Kilda, Ocean Grove Collendina Cobras
Well obviously he was a second or two late for tbe contest. These freeze frames ignoring speed are clear evidence of that. Burn the freeze frames that show he got there and suspend the bugger!
Inadvertently you've actually nailed the issue. Speed is actually at the heart of this and why the AFL referred it to the Tribunal and why the AFL will change the Reporting Guidelines.

Mackays speed has a direct correlation with the amount of "Energy" he will impart on a point of contact and if that point of contact happens to be a players head then that impact could be substantial.

And that's it - given that Mackay was traveling at such a speed, it is not "unreasonable" for him to expect that contact with Clark could result in substantial injury and if the contact was with the head that injury could be severe. (In fact it goes past not being "unreasonable" to an almost an inevitable consequence)

(E (energy) = M (mass) x (C (speed) squared)

End of story
 
Last edited:
Some people dont know what CTE stands for and any way it is just copy and paste. Does the words offend you or something? i an confused?
Yes I am very offended
 
Yeah but you don't contest a footy against your team mate so it's completely different
He lined him up and knew exactly what he was doing

Basically took out one of our best players.


Couldve tackled
Didnt
Decided to hit

'Saw him in my peripheral vision'
Lmfao
Full of s**t
 
Oct 2, 2010
19,485
69,932
AFL Club
St Kilda
chronic traumatic encephalopathy is emotive? Actually talking about a mark 17 years ago is emotive. Fact is that a player got shouldered at poace has multiple breaks in the jaw and will eat through a straw for eight weeks.

You obviously like that type of football with your posting. I don't like seeing any player injured. If it was Clark who did that to McKay, I would have the exact same position.
We are having multiple players retiring early with head knocks, we have had the AFL going down the path of protecting the head, taking it to the degree that a player missed a final because he hit a player high who was uninjured, and played on and played the following week with no concussion. He was suspended with potential to cause injury.

I said at the time the AFL had made a rod for its own back with this potential to cause injury.

Now we have a player out for two months, not potential, but actual injury. So you now have St.Kilda players suspended for potential to cause injury, and a St.Kilda players smashed out of the game for 8 weeks but no worries.

if you don't have the intelligence to understand this, thats on you.
Mackay didnt actually break any rules in this incident and you cant suspend someone over a rule that doesnt yet exist.

The 'potential to cause injury' clause isn't for cases where someone contests the football according to the rules and then causes injury. It is so they can worsen the charge in cases where someone performs a non-football action and the player escapes without an injury.
 
Anyway done with this thread, Mckay got off, Hunter has a broken jaw and it has descended into the usual P66 tit for tat thread jack.

I hope Hunter is ok long term.
The whole joints eneded up a p66 tit for tat show

Every second post is a ******* quote arguing some stupid point spamming up the forum in most threads.
 
Jan 10, 2011
34,367
57,683
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
The whole joints eneded up a p66 tit for tat show

Every second post is a ******* quote arguing some stupid point spamming up the forum in most threads.
I’d suggest the stupid points are coming from those who bring up irrelevant stuff regarding this incident. I’ve discussed the case. Some don’t like that because it doesn’t suit their agenda. By the way jb quoted me first so responded and then it went on. If people quote me I respond and I certainly respond to a post like this.
 
Sep 28, 2016
6,626
21,651
AFL Club
St Kilda
Can he teach Billings to box..?
I’ve gone right off Bing.
The last thing we need is some hot head punching on in the forward line in a GF.
Like Alistair Lynch.
This is the second time he has hit someone.
Got away with it the first time because he hit his teammate.
Just let GC deal with this hothead, we have bigger problems.
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,525
52,484
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Mackay didnt actually break any rules in this incident and you cant suspend someone over a rule that doesnt yet exist.

The 'potential to cause injury' clause isn't for cases where someone contests the football according to the rules and then causes injury. It is so they can worsen the charge in cases where someone performs a non-football action and the player escapes without an injury.
High contact...

I dont even disagree with the outcome but the defense of the decision is so wrong.

The MRP lacks consistency and determined that this didnt warrant a suspension, thats fine, all this "he was contesting the ball" and "he didnt break any rules" is just dumb.

Hes second to the ball, by an inch or a mile, hes still second, at that point he has elected to bump, thats the MRPs guidelines, theyve gone against them here for what is absolutely a grey area within their definitions.

Thats all fine and Mackay getting off is a reasonable outcome in isolation but with the context of the precedent they have set (Lachie Plowman in particular) he should have been suspended.

In a weird way im happy to see some flexibility in their interpretations as every incident is unique, but it is absolutely contrary to the way they have adjudicated for 5-6 years now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Oct 2, 2010
19,485
69,932
AFL Club
St Kilda
High contact...

I dont even disagree with the outcome but the defense of the decision is so wrong.

The MRP lacks consistency and determined that this didnt warrant a suspension, thats fine, all this "he was contesting the ball" and "he didnt break any rules" is just dumb.

Hes second to the ball, by an inch or a mile, hes still second, at that point he has elected to bump, thats the MRPs guidelines, theyve gone against them here for what is absolutely a grey area within their definitions.

Thats all fine and Mackay getting off is a reasonable outcome in isolation but with the context of the precedent they have set (Lachie Plowman in particular) he should have been suspended.

In a weird way im happy to see some flexibility in their interpretations as every incident is unique, but it is absolutely contrary to the way they have adjudicated for 5-6 years now.
High contact is not a classifiable offence. It is just one of the grading categories use by the MRO.
 
Sep 28, 2016
6,626
21,651
AFL Club
St Kilda
I used to have a DVD of the 1966 GF. It was like a different sport to what footy was like in the 1990s. It's been 20+ years since I watched it but if I remember correctly there was no out on the full or was it free kick off last kick. They seemed to have no real system and the ball pinged around. I also watched some footage someone put up of a 1920s game and it was even more insane. They just seemed to roost the ball as high as they could in the air with no direction and then all leaped at it like under 9s. There was no order and free kicks looked like random calls.

Footy is constantly evolving and with brain studies it will get further and further from that head bashing style of the 1970s and 1980s. Old guys will have to adjust like they did with zones and uber defences.
The 60’s is a completely different game.
Anachronistic really.
It started to evolve into the modern game in the 1970 GF.
I think Ted Whitten was yelling “Hit the boundary“ in the commentary during those last few seconds of the 66 GF, so you are correct about the boundary line rules.
I could argue it was more skilful, particularly the kicking.
There is nothing more beautiful in football than seeing a perfectly executed torpedo like Jeff Fehring at Moorabbin, a raking left foot drop kick (or right foot, I’m not biased) like Bob Murray in that GF, or the dart of a stab pass onto a leading forwards chest like Barry Price to a leading Peter McKenna.
All those skills have disappeared from the modern game, to my regret.
So I found watching us implement the Lyon method in 2007 really really difficult to watch.
TBH, I hated it.
I hated that the much lauded Leo Barry mark in the 2005 GF was him ignoring team rules and reverting to the game style of his upbringing. I didn’t hate his mark or effort. I hated the way football had changed to the extent he won the game by ignoring his team game style. The way he was supposed to be playing.
Irony in football huh?
Who’da thunk?

Having said all of that, I do appreciate how our game has evolved and the individual skills that players demonstrate.
And wonder how the champions of today would fare back then, and the champions then fare today.

But always, deep down, I long for that perfect torpedo, that raking left foot drop kick and that stunning dart of a stab.
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,525
52,484
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
High contact is not a classifiable offence. It is just one of the grading categories use by the MRO.
You said rule, not classifiable offence.

Im point out that he absolutely broke a rule.

The MRP has gotten out of this by referring it, if they graded it (which they should have) its Careless and Severe.

Again, im not arguing the outcome but the defense being put forward by you and plugger is silly imo.
 
High contact...

I dont even disagree with the outcome but the defense of the decision is so wrong.

The MRP lacks consistency and determined that this didnt warrant a suspension, thats fine, all this "he was contesting the ball" and "he didnt break any rules" is just dumb.

Hes second to the ball, by an inch or a mile, hes still second, at that point he has elected to bump, thats the MRPs guidelines, theyve gone against them here for what is absolutely a grey area within their definitions.

Thats all fine and Mackay getting off is a reasonable outcome in isolation but with the context of the precedent they have set (Lachie Plowman in particular) he should have been suspended.

In a weird way im happy to see some flexibility in their interpretations as every incident is unique, but it is absolutely contrary to the way they have adjudicated for 5-6 years now.

Steven Baker would have liked this result. What was the rule he broke to get that world record suspension again?

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is watching, assume that Baker king hit it.
 
Oct 2, 2010
19,485
69,932
AFL Club
St Kilda
You said rule, not classifiable offence.

Im point out that he absolutely broke a rule.

The MRP has gotten out of this by referring it, if they graded it (which they should have) its Careless and Severe.

Again, im not arguing the outcome but the defense being put forward by you and plugger is silly imo.
Except he didnt break any rules per the AFL Tribunal Guidelines.

You can grade something severe and careless but if the action the player performs doesn't fall under one of these classifiable offences, then you can't suspend them.
- Striking
- Kicking
- Kneeing
- Charging
- Rough Conduct
- Forceful Front-On-Contact
- Headbutt or Contact using Head
- Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact to the Eye Region
- Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact to the Face
- Tripping

The AFL tried to argue that MacKay's action fell under Rough Contact. The issue is, the AFL tribunal guidelines say this

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:
  • » The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or
  • » The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.


The bolded text is what Adelaide argued, that MacKay was contesting the ball in a manner which was reasonable and expected. Therefore, it doesnt matter that there was high contact to Hunter Clark because the original action performed is deemed reasonable under the AFL tribunal guidelines because MacKay was contesting the ball at the time of contact. And you cannot suspend him under the current AFL rules for contesting the ball.
 

LiterallyNobody

Cancelled due to poster being a Campaigner
30k Posts 10k Posts Cake Connoisseur SFA Daffodil Day Fund Raiser Harry Potter Fan Song Contest Winner - 5+ Rounds Shiny Penny
Jul 26, 2006
35,635
32,224
AFL Club
St Kilda
only on this forum would we still have Thursday night melts despite no team being announced.
 

LiterallyNobody

Cancelled due to poster being a Campaigner
30k Posts 10k Posts Cake Connoisseur SFA Daffodil Day Fund Raiser Harry Potter Fan Song Contest Winner - 5+ Rounds Shiny Penny
Jul 26, 2006
35,635
32,224
AFL Club
St Kilda
Contesting the ball - no free kick - play on.

Accidents happen.

richmond thread going up soon? Will that be at the G in front of no fans???
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,525
52,484
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Except he didnt break any rules per the AFL Tribunal Guidelines.

You can grade something severe and careless but if the action the player performs doesn't fall under one of these classifiable offences, then you can't suspend them.
- Striking
- Kicking
- Kneeing
- Charging
- Rough Conduct
- Forceful Front-On-Contact
- Headbutt or Contact using Head
- Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact to the Eye Region
- Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact to the Face
- Tripping

The AFL tried to argue that MacKay's action fell under Rough Contact. The issue is, the AFL tribunal guidelines say this

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:
  • » The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or
  • » The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.


The bolded text is what Adelaide argued, that MacKay was contesting the ball in a manner which was reasonable and expected. Therefore, it doesnt matter that there was high contact to Hunter Clark because the original action performed is deemed reasonable under the AFL tribunal guidelines because MacKay was contesting the ball at the time of contact. And you cannot suspend him under the current AFL rules for contesting the ball.
Charging, forceful front on contact or rough conduct.

There all up for interpretation which is exactly my point.

Everyone used to decry the lack of consistency so they brought in this system. Now they have a case that sits in the grey area of the system they refer it.

precedent clearly doesn’t exist for them, therefore consistency doesnt exist for them therefore the whole point of the grading system is utterly pointless.

again, I have no issue with the outcome but they may as well admit the system means absolutely nothing because it’s all subjective anyway.
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2007
35,525
52,484
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Ironically i just went and looked at the Long suspension and the Plowman suspension.

They both get closer to the ball (Plowman actually looks like he gets a hand on it) than Mackay did. So why werent they considered to be "contesting" the ball.

The answer is the AFL determined that they both could have reasonably foreseen that their contest could cause damage and thus needed to exercise a duty of care.

Why was Mackay not held to the same standard... because the MRP has no consistency... which is literally my only point.

By all means defend the outcome, i think Mackay being cleared is fine, but dont defend the process because its a mess with absolutely no objectivity at all
 

St Significant

Team Captain
Sep 10, 2015
368
1,000
AFL Club
St Kilda
He lined him up and knew exactly what he was doing

Basically took out one of our best players.


Couldve tackled
Didnt
Decided to hit

'Saw him in my peripheral vision'
Lmfao
Full of sh*t
So obvious if you watch the vision a few seconds before the hit - Mackay knew he was going to be 2nd to the ball all along. Hunter had his hands ready to grasp the ball but Mackay chose to bump not try to grab the ball. What has happened to AFL's mantra of protecting the head in this case? Total injustice where a St Kilda player is involved again with the AFL tribunal. Ben Long in Mackay's shoes - 4 weeks!!!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back