Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Tribunal chairman says if the jury does determine Mackay is guilty, there would be a further discussion about penalty.
The jury will now deliberate.
It's a waste of time and money for some type of 'gottcha' moment.The funniest part is if this was taken to an actual court, where precedent is followed, it wouldn’t make it past the opening argument.
You shredded our argument, but just cop a fine so our hideous precedent stands.
Maybe he is not a contortionist and simply a footballer attempting to win possession of a loose ball, as has been the case since the game was invented.
And if people are going to query why McKay didn't do something different in that contest, they should also query why Clark didn't change his approach to the ball.
OFFICIAL SUBMISSIONS
First up Jeff Gleeson on behalf of the AFL.
The entire argument comes down to whether what Mackay did was reasonable in the circumstances.
"If you think it was unreasonable, that's the end of the matter."
Gleeson asks whether it was reasonable for Mackay to run 20m at high speed towards a vulnerable player.
"it wasn't an accident in the sense it wasn't unforeseeable.
"If Mackay sprinted the way he did and hurtled into the contest he would bump into Clark at high speed. That was foreseeable."
He said ti was not only possible, but likely that high contact would occur and if it did at that speed, injury was almost inevitable.
Gleeson says Mackay's evidence that he always thought he would get to the ball first should be disregarded, along with his evidence that he didn't distinguish whether it was a Saints or Crows player he was about to collide with.
AFL responds to Adelaide's testimony, disagreeing with the idea there has been a change in the rules and that this is a test of what is reasonable or unreasonable in the circumstance.
AFL: I'll restrain from myself from describing my learned friend's argument as garbage, citing the old adage the stronger the language, the weaker the argument.
No, it was really the last 10 metres as the ball came close to both of them.That bolded bit didn't happen did it?
That's what i thought. And 10m was quoted as the measured distance.No, it was really the last 10 metres as the ball came close to both of them.
That's his job, sadly.That's what i thought. And 10m was quoted as the measured distance.
Gleeson is lying to make Mckay look bad.
Low....
And it makes it sound like the other player was on his hands and knees, or possibly a small child selling flowers on a street corner.That bolded bit didn't happen did it?
I mean he literally told the tribunal they should disregard Mackay saying he thought he could win the ball...That's what i thought. And 10m was quoted as the measured distance.
Gleeson is lying to make Mckay look bad.
Low....
The chair is Geoff Giudice and the Tribunal panel is Paul Williams, David Neitz and Richard Loveridge.I missed it who is actually sitting on the tribunal tonight?
CLEARED!!!
If McKay gets suspended to night, then I'm nominating for this years draft. I'm slower than a snail going backwards bogged in treacle, so I'll never run into anyone, but equally no-one will be game to run into me in case the inflict some damage. I'll be out there (if picked) waiting for the ball to land in my immediate vicinity - an inch or two away- gather it and then get a kick. Should go well.