How many weeks for Mackay?
- Thread starter CrowInFiji
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 19, 2013
- 9,796
- 11,304
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Was talking to a colleague at work the other day (prior to this incident) and we agreed that contact sport may well not exist in 50-100 years. It's a shame, but it's just how society is heading.
Dunstall said there was no reasonable way to change the rules to prevent this sort of thing happening. It was Whately and King pushing the narrative that the rules will change.
He did respond to Kings point about below the legs pointing out the AFL wants to reward players for keeping their feet. How do you pick out who to reward in a Mackay/Clark scenario where both guys get to the ball at the same time?
Last edited:
This retrospective 'unreasonable conduct' argument reminds me of the old line that gets trotted out sometimes - the line that you ought to have known your act was illegal even though it was never outlawed. Bull****. In a society where the rule of law exists, everything is legal until it is specifically prohibited by law. I know the Mackay trial was not part of the general legal system, but my point still stands.
There's every chance contact in AFL ends up looking quite similar to gaelic football in years to come. Accidents will still always happen though.
- Sep 19, 2013
- 9,796
- 11,304
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
What are the rules for contact in Gaelic Footy?
In regard to your last sentence I think society will eventually decide that the risk of accident is unacceptable.
I got the below rules off the web. In general, gaelic football is considerably less physical without being completely contactless. There's a study which shows a head injury rate of 0.26 per 1000 hours of play (https://www.researchgate.net/public...te_male_gaelic_football_and_hurling_2007-2012), compared to AFL which is something like 5-6 per 1000 hours.
Tackling:
1. Tackling in Gaelic Football is confined to tackling the ball.
2. It is illegal to trip, punch, hold, drag, pull or rugby tackle another player.
3. It is legal, however, to make full body contact as long as it is a clear attempt to win the ball.
4. The main methods of trying to dispossess a player are as follows
a) Blocking the kick: A defender may attempt to block the ball as it leaves the attacker’s foot, as shown in the picture above. If the ball is blocked it is considered ‘loose’ and players may compete for it again.
b) Knocking the ball: The defender may try to knock the ball out of the attacker’s grasp by hitting it with one of his hands. It is important to play the ball in this case, as striking the player can result in a free-kick and also a yellow or red card.
c) Jostling the opponent: A player may jostle, or shoulder-to-shoulder charge, an opponent when racing to win a loose ball, or when trying to knock an opponent off the ball.
Many will not like it but it seems fairly obvious to me that AFL is heading in this general direction.
Possibly, yeah. Accidents are inevitable, I don't know what specific rule you could make to stop a repeat of the Mackay incident without outlawing contact altogether (or set a tribunal rule for strict liability for any head injury which in any case is reactive not proactive).
standupand
Club Legend
I'm not sure why umpires aren't given more credence in these sorts of situations. They are usually the one person closest to the incident, able to view it in the moment and the full context of the play and interested in making a fair decision about whether the rules of the game are adhered to or not. Now in this case, the ump probably made an error in not paying a free. MacKay came in a split second late to the contest and collected him high. But that was the umpire's call and I'd be happy to let that stand rather than have it being filtered through the lens of a million cameras. The ump was there to view the incident, the fact he called play on should weigh in favour of there being no charge. But if, on the other hand, the ump had paid a free, well then its an indiscretion and it can be looked at. If you've broken the rules of the game and the direct consequence of it is to have struck someone so hard as to break their jaw, surely there should be some further penalty than just the free kick? He chose to run filt tilt at a ball he was less than 50% likely to win and more than 50% likely to cause some serious harm to someone by going at.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,275
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Your blurry stills showed nothing, I had to go to the video and roll it frame by frame multiple times to convince myself that, yes, Hunter did get to the ball first, by about 1 frame.
Not sure where you get these percentages from.
In every game we see dozens of instances of opposing players approaching a free ball at different speeds (such is the nature of the human anatomy), and it is the vagaries of the bounce that dictate how likely either player is to win the contest.
Then, based on how the ball bounces, the players may not even come into contact.
Do they now need to consider changing the shape of the ball to ensure consistent bounces in order to minimise the risk of collisions of this nature?
To me it sends the wrong message. As soon as he knew he wasn't going to get the ball he made the decision to line up Clark.
If that's how this is to be applied, Matthew Lloyd should be cleared retrospectively on the Brad Sewell hit...very similar.
If that's how this is to be applied, Matthew Lloyd should be cleared retrospectively on the Brad Sewell hit...very similar.
At what point did he know he wasn't going to get the ball? He got there 0.04 seconds after Clark, and he had his hand on the ball at the point of impact. He never made any decision to line up Clark, and he never lined up Clark, and he never knew he wasn't going to get the ball. Both players lined up the ball, both players got hands to it, a collision resulted which is an unavoidable part of a contact sport. The only way to prevent this would be to bring in a rule requiring players to pull out and not contest the ball, in which case Mackay and Clark would both have to be suspended. Or both players would have obeyed the rule and pulled out of the contest and just stood there staring at the ball between them saying "after you, sir", "oh no, I insist - after YOU, sir".
He chose to hit Clark high. Why not just go for the ball and if you clash heads you clash heads?
standupand
Club Legend
My point was that umpires are best placed to adjudicate whether there is an indiscretion or not by being in the moment and the closest to the action and knowing the rules of the game. The umpire probably made a bad call in this instance. It wasn't an easy one. It was split second. But wouldn't the system work better if we at least went with those umpires calls for the sake of some certainty and faith in those decision-makers in terms of how the game is played and assessing the dangerousness of certain actions, rather than every dog and his man analysing the video footage afterwards?
He didn't choose to hit Clark, high or otherwise. He did just go for the ball, which is what Clark also did.
Last edited:
There's a fair amount of competition, but this might be the craziest post in this thread
They were stills taken from the same video. Anyway, point proven.
tiggsy
Senior List
People seem to be ignoring that Clarke also chose to contest the ball. perhaps he should have seen that Mackay had greater intent ands stood back to let him get it. Clarke couldn't tell that he would beat Mackay to the ball by 4/100 of a second so really it's his fault he got hurt (and no, I am not serious about this).
This type of hit on another player will come up again, maybe even this weekend, and the player will get weeks.
All I want to see is consistency. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.
All I want to see is consistency. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.
Maybe if the tackles actually got paid more players would opt to tackle more.
Brad Shepard knocked himself out on Saad as he was late to the contest by a split second and just left himself open, not sure to bump,tackle or what.
Mackay may have also slowed slightly to lay a tackle if he thought he was a chance of winning a free.
Brad Shepard knocked himself out on Saad as he was late to the contest by a split second and just left himself open, not sure to bump,tackle or what.
Mackay may have also slowed slightly to lay a tackle if he thought he was a chance of winning a free.
If that contact was 100% legal, reasonable and unavoidable the only rule change I can see to help prevent injury, while maintaining football as a contact sport, is for all players to wear head gear.
hawkman
Hall of Famer
I can see it being a strict liability that if you make contact with the head and they are injured you will be in trouble
Which of course will mean more players go in head first and not protect themselves which will lead to more issues with head clashes
Similar threads
