How many weeks for Mackay?

[Alesana]

Players give away high contact free kicks in every single game while contesting the ball. This is a bizarre line of argument. You can be contesting the ball and still give away a free kick. Contesting the ball doesn't give you a free pass to smash into someone's face with your shoulder.

If Mackay does not get suspended, are you going to say they got it wrong?

 

[Matera92]

Players give away high contact free kicks in every single game while contesting the ball. This is a bizarre line of argument. You can be contesting the ball and still give away a free kick. Contesting the ball doesn't give you a free pass to smash into someone's face with your shoulder.

But taking a mark gives you a free pass to smash your knee into someone's face?

 

[pjcrows]

Players give away high contact free kicks in every single game while contesting the ball. This is a bizarre line of argument. You can be contesting the ball and still give away a free kick. Contesting the ball doesn't give you a free pass to smash into someone's face with your shoulder.

If there's a ground ball and you attack the ball with your hands then yes, it literally does.

 

[Brenton Davy]

It was interesting to see Whateley’s expression when Dunstall took a differing view to his. Similar to when Treloar and Riewoldt were defending DMac. He tried to question them in a way that would have them change their minds but they never did. In the end he just sat there and didn’t argue.

It almost looked like Dunstall wanted to rip into Whateley but had to restrain himself.

If the tribunal has “read the room” MacKay gets off. If the AFL brings pressure to bear then he gets 4+

 

[El_Scorcho]

So you agree that there are times where high contact isn't necessarily illegal?

Yes. This isn't one of them.

You were the one who said "He got him high which is illegal". No, it's not. There are varying examples of "high contact".

Running past the ball to bump, striking a player high off the ball, bumping resulting in a head clash are all examples of prohibited high contact.

High contact whilst contesting a 50:50 ball is not prohibited. Never has been. You can argue that it SHOULD be (I'd disagree with you), and there's no doubt the game is moving towards that, but it isn't currently prohibited.

Which is the whole point. The decision by the tribunal has the potential to change a core part of the game.

This bleating about the fabric of the game is ridiculous. This argument gets rolled out for a contentious suspension every year, and players are still free to bump.

The AFL have been (mostly) consistent for a decade that if you go in hard, you need to ensure that you don't make forceful contact to the head of an opponent. With what we know about long term concussion effects and CTE, it has to be that way.

A suspension here will not change the way the game is played, because players already take mitigating action at almost every contest to ensure that they don't hurt their opponents or give away a free. That's their responsibility.

 

[Matera92]

It was interesting to see Whateley’s expression when Dunstall took a differing view to his. Similar to when Trekoar and Riewoldt were defending DMac. He tried to question them in a way that would have them change their minds but never did. In the end he just sat there and didn’t argue.

It almost looked like Dunstall wanted to rip into Whateley but had to restrain himself.

If the tribunal has “read the room” MacKay gets off. If the AFL brings pressure to bear then he gets 4+

Whateley is a grub. Every person he's had on the show who's played the game at an elite level has basically said there's no case to answer for.

He's pushing the corporates agenda and struggles when the people who actually know and understand the game tell him that he, and his leash holding masters are flat out wrong.

 

[pjcrows]

This bleating about the fabric of the game is ridiculous...

...A suspension here will not change the way the game is played, because players already take mitigating action at almost every contest to ensure that they don't hurt their opponents. That's their responsibility.

Can you see the direct contradiction in these statements or do I need to point it out?

 

[Mudman85]

Yes. This isn't one of them.



This bleating about the fabric of the game is ridiculous. This argument gets rolled out for a contentious suspension every year, and players are still free to bump.

The AFL have been (mostly) consistent for a decade that if you go in hard, you need to ensure that you don't make forceful contact to the head of an opponent. With what we know about long term concussion effects and CTE, it has to be that way.

A suspension here will not change the way the game is played, because players already take mitigating action at almost every contest to ensure that they don't hurt their opponents or give away a free. That's their responsibility.

You lost me at the AFL has been consistent.
Literally the opposite

 

[Alesana]

Yes. This isn't one of them.



This bleating about the fabric of the game is ridiculous. This argument gets rolled out for a contentious suspension every year, and players are still free to bump.

The AFL have been (mostly) consistent for a decade that if you go in hard, you need to ensure that you don't make forceful contact to the head of an opponent. With what we know about long term concussion effects and CTE, it has to be that way.

A suspension here will not change the way the game is played, because players already take mitigating action at almost every contest to ensure that they don't hurt their opponents or give away a free. That's their responsibility.

Players take mitigating actions in contests when in their mind it is the right decision. When they think they can win the ball they go for it. Mackay did not know he wasn't going to win the ball. You're asking for him to know what's going to happen before it happens, for which he cannot know until it happens.

 

[Matera92]

Players are expected to pre cog every outcome to ensure no one gets hurt according to some.

Good thing AFL is such a predictable game with a ball that bounces consistently and is played at a gentle place to allow people to make such decisions in a timely fashion.

 

[El_Scorcho]

If there's a ground ball and you attack the ball with your hands then yes, it literally does.

I disagree. Players give away frees for high contact because they run into a player with his head over the ball in every game. This one was just especially forceful and resulted in an injury.

You lost me at the AFL has been consistent.
Literally the opposite

This is fair. I'll say their messaging has been consistent about the need to protect the head, but that certainly hasn't been consistently applied by the tribunal.

 

[pjcrows]

Players are expected to pre cog every outcome to ensure no one gets hurt according to some.

Good thing AFL is such a predictable game with a ball that bounces consistently and is played at a gentle place to allow people to make such decisions in a timely fashion.

If the AFL had their way it'd be strip tag, with zones and a round ball. The cleanest TV product ever, with less concussion, and easy to umpire.

 

[Mr Magic]

”Knobs”?

View attachment 1154394

That footage right there would be why he’s off to the tribunal.

He did not even go for the ball when it was there at the point of contest. Mackay was more worried about the body contact with Clark and Clark never saw him coming

 

[Alesana]

I disagree. Players give away frees for high contact because they run into a player with his head over the ball in every game. This one was just especially forceful and resulted in an injury.

What? Ok you've just established that you do not understand how to play the game. Sorry but you do not get it

 

[Mr Magic]

But taking a mark gives you a free pass to smash your knee into someone's face?

The difference with a mark is the inertia is usually in a upward motion for a mark not a head on car crash scenario like with Mackay coming with a big long run up at speed

 

[pjcrows]

I disagree. Players give away frees for high contact because they run into a player with his head over the ball in every game. This one was just especially forceful and resulted in an injury.

We just argued this exact point, and you're repeating the same incorrect assertion. I don't know what else to say.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Players are expected to pre cog every outcome to ensure no one gets hurt according to some.

Good thing AFL is such a predictable game with a ball that bounces consistently and is played at a gentle place to allow people to make such decisions in a timely fashion.

Again, no, they just need take reasonable steps to avoid injuring their opponents. Footy collisions happen, look at Todd Marshall getting concussed against Geelong. The Geelong players came across to block in a marking contest with his eyes on the ball the entire time, didn't brace for contact, just sort of got in the way. Something that happens all the time in marking contests. A normal footy action with an unlucky result.

Mackay charged in at full speed from a distance away and unintentionally smashed his shoulder into Clark's face. He had time and space to do something different to make the contest safer and he didn't, and an injury was a perfectly foreseeable outcome from charging in at that speed.

 

[Mr Magic]

Players are expected to pre cog every outcome to ensure no one gets hurt according to some.

Good thing AFL is such a predictable game with a ball that bounces consistently and is played at a gentle place to allow people to make such decisions in a timely fashion.

The game rewards players performance including experience not necessarily those making dumb decisions

 

[pjcrows]

Mackay charged in at full speed from a distance away and unintentionally smashed his shoulder into Clark's face. He had time and space to do something different to make the contest safer and he didn't, and an injury was a perfectly foreseeable outcome from charging in at that speed.

How many times does it need to be said - under the current laws of the game, it is not Mackay's obligation to "contest the ball safer", i.e. not run in so fast, let his opponent win the ball because he was 0.5cm closer etc.

It might end up that way, or you might want it to be, but it currently isn't. That's the entire argument - as in, if the AFL does want a player suspended for that action, and change the laws to do so, it changes the game.

 

[Alesana]

The difference with a mark is the inertia is usually in a upward motion for a mark not a head on car crash scenario like with Mackay coming with a big long run up at speed

 

[Alesana]

Again, no, they just need take reasonable steps to avoid injuring their opponents. Footy collisions happen, look at Todd Marshall getting concussed against Geelong. The Geelong players came across to block in a marking contest with his eyes on the ball the entire time, didn't brace for contact, just sort of got in the way. Something that happens all the time in marking contests. A normal footy action with an unlucky result.

Mackay charged in at full speed from a distance away and unintentionally smashed his shoulder into Clark's face. He had time and space to do something different to make the contest safer and he didn't, and an injury was a perfectly foreseeable outcome from charging in at that speed.

Then why isn't there any onus on Clark to slow down and pull out of the contest given that another player was coming 'charging in'?

 

[pjcrows]

Just dumb footballers with no duty of care.

 

[hawkman]

Again, no, they just need take reasonable steps to avoid injuring their opponents. Footy collisions happen, look at Todd Marshall getting concussed against Geelong. The Geelong players came across to block in a marking contest with his eyes on the ball the entire time, didn't brace for contact, just sort of got in the way. Something that happens all the time in marking contests. A normal footy action with an unlucky result.

Mackay charged in at full speed from a distance away and unintentionally smashed his shoulder into Clark's face. He had time and space to do something different to make the contest safer and he didn't, and an injury was a perfectly foreseeable outcome from charging in at that speed.

I'm sure you weren't arguing Houston getting weeks for this

Taylor left groggy after copping an accidental knee to head

Curtis Taylor is taken out of play after a nasty clash during a marking contest

www.afl.com.au

 

[El_Scorcho]

We just argued this exact point, and you're repeating the same incorrect assertion. I don't know what else to say.

The laws of the game (and the way the rule is commonly interpreted) allow incidental contact provided you're solely going for the ball. They certainly don't say that you have carte blanche to do whatever you want provided you're contesting the footy.

 

[Mr Magic]

Your explanation is not, and has never been, Australian Rules Football. Even with all of the changes over the last 20 to 30 years, a player has had the right to contest the ball. This is quite literally what the sport is.

Actually this is where your wrong and the AFL should stipulate this.

A player does not have the right to contest for the ball in every contest. They have the right to contest and compete but not necessarily for the ball when it increases the chances of injury significantly.

What happens if Mackay ends up with the injury? He looks like a buffoon for his own self interest. Some are talking as if he is brave, he got to the ball at speed, its nonsense.

The game is won on the scoreboard.

Read it in the paper, if you lose you lose, no matter how many times you compete for a contest for the ball and win the ball