How many weeks for Mackay?

[Ron The Bear]

See I reckon he did at least 3/4 of those. Ball was there and he went for it

Fair enough, it’s a valid opinion. It’s a fine line and plenty will agree.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Note to Tribunal:

if you rub him out for 4 weeks you actually need to make it 16.. because he only turns up for 1 in every 4 games...

 

[CrowInFiji]

If he gets weeks then the AFL need to put a lot of work into developing an appropriate technique that, so long as you employ it, automatically saves you from retribution should the other player get hurt.

Its not enough to just start penalising what used to be legal without providing alternatives, it shouldn't be up to clubs to figure it out.

 

[AFLOnline]

So would Hunter get rubbed out if mackay got injured?

what if both players got injured? Do they both get rubbed out?

why isnt david king saying that hunter should have pulled out of the contest,

both players arrived at the ball at the same time. One at greater pace than the other.

umpires called play on because it was... wait for it... play on.

there’s just no case to answer there.

In what world is someone having their jaw broken play on?

 

[OnTheRocks]

See I reckon he did at least 3/4 of those. Ball was there and he went for it

And the only way that he was going to win the ball or to at least spill the ball was by being more forceful than Clark.

 

[freddy mercury]

Zero.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

In what world is someone having their jaw broken play on?

You belong at AFL house. Focusing on the outcome not the circumstance.

Are you suggesting that next time someone gets tackled awkwardly and does an ankle or a knee, that the tackler gets rubbed out. You know, because of the outcome.

It was fair play. Horrible injury and none of us want to see players hurt like that, but it was a footy incident. Play on.

 

[TIGERMANIAC]

Umpire calls play on and not 1 saints player remonstrated with Mackay. That tells a story. It was just a good hard contest for the ball. The sooner S.hocking and his mate leave the better.

 

[cm_perfect]

David King now saying that McKay should have known he was going to make contact from 5 metres away and made the call to pull out of the contest. fu** off you dumb campaigner. Physical contests are part of the game. Besides which, sliding into Craig O'Brien's head in the 96 Grand Final with your knee didn't seem to bother you, you ******* grub.

Same with Nigel Smart in the 98 GF.

King also has a close family member that should have pulled out of the contest.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

A footballing incident. Zero weeks. However, it depends on how hard Gerard and Robbo go on 360. They screamed that Plowman needed weeks for much the same thing. When they are silent, players get off.

 

[master bate]

Genuinely interested. What are we saying Mackay should do in that situation?

Before the slide rule he would've slid in under Clark, because he would've realised he's second to the ball (hence the brace and jump which are both natural evasive/protective reactions).

If the AFL is saying you can't slide then the only other option they've got is to tell him to not sprint so hard at a contest.

That's what David King is saying, and whilst I'd prefer to let him attack it and then slide out of the way they might have to put their foot down and say you just can't attack a contest like this anymore.

 

[master bate]

A footballing incident. Zero weeks. However, it depends on how hard Gerard and Robbo go on 360. They screamed that Plowman needed weeks for much the same thing. When they are silent, players get off.

I'm still shocked that Plowman got suspended. He had every right to attack that ball and being a kick he really couldn't predict exactly where it would land until he got there. And whilst he braced to protect himself he didn't try to make the collision worse. There was also plenty of ways he could've contested that aerial contest fairly when the kick was in the air and circumstance just denied them from happening. It looked like it would be a regulation spoil until it wasn't.

This one is similar but I think there's a higher degree of carelessness here from Mackay. There was a far bigger chance of a nasty collision.

 

[Whiskers]

David King is a full time nuff.
Often he will reel off stats that are not that interesting/surprising Eg top 4 teams beat bottom 8 sides. Oh really?

But the absolute worst was 2 weeks ago on AFL360 he said top 8 vs top 8 was 18-18 like it proved how close the top 8 is.

No s**t the W-L record is exactly even you clown. How shocked will he be to find out top 4 v top 4 is also even or top 12 v top 12?
How does he have a job?

 

[D-N-R]

Barrett made an interesting point on his podcast about this.

Adelaide are going into the tribunal not knowing what charge they face or how to prepare a defence. What are they defending? MRP have just handballed this to someone else to work out.

I didn't think Plowman should have been suspended, but there may have been some doubt to his intention. He says he was going for a spoil but he didn't have his arm outstretched in a spoiling action which probably worked against him.

In this case, I think it's obvious Mackay is trying to pick up the ball. He has both arms outstretched and never tucks his arm in to bump.

Despite what others say, I don't think he jumped into the contest. He's running full tilt and half way through a stride when he collides, giving the appearance of him jumping.

Even at full speed I think his intent for the ball is clear and his collision just one of those things.

MRP have bottled it.

 

[Chaisa]

Yeah this just seems an unfortunate head clash. Sucks for Clark but you can't realistically suspend Mackay for that, especially when O'Meara wasn't cited for his hit on Hayward which was very similar.

 

[Mister B]

Same with Nigel Smart in the 98 GF.

King also has a close family member that should have pulled out of the contest.

His dad prior to the point of conception?

 

[pjcrows]

If Mackay is suspended what the AFL are essentially saying is "don't go too hard at a 50:50 ground ball". There's two issues with this:

1. It directly effects the fabric of football. It's not behind play, and it's not only one player going for the ball. It's two players contesting a ball. That IS football.

2. The AFL need to provide coaches and players with an alternative action to teach and learn. For example, the sliding/below the knees rule - they explained it, provided alternatives etc. The AFL can't just say "Mackay should have taken due care for Clark's safety" and leave it at that.

 

[CrowInFiji]

A footballing incident. Zero weeks. However, it depends on how hard Gerard and Robbo go on 360. They screamed that Plowman needed weeks for much the same thing. When they are silent, players get off.

This more than anything else. It only gets looked at when the establishment demands it. Startlingly they generally always abide by their outrage too.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Same with Nigel Smart in the 98 GF.

King also has a close family member that should have pulled out of the contest.

His mum ?

 

[spenze]

Plowman got 2 weeks for what you’ve just described, soooo....?

Don't even get me started on that decision FMD

 

[Romeoh1]

Ok I think I have come round to accepting it was just an accident- maybe a bit careless. So if he gets off - so be it. Happy with that.
If he got a week- that’s sort of understandable too. Nobody should be getting a broken jaw that takes them out for the season.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Barrett made an interesting point on his podcast about this.

Adelaide are going into the tribunal not knowing what charge they face or how to prepare a defence. What are they defending? MRP have just handballed this to someone else to work out.

I didn't think Plowman should have been suspended, but there may have been some doubt to his intention. He says he was going for a spoil but he didn't have his arm outstretched in a spoiling action which probably worked against him.

In this case, I think it's obvious Mackay is trying to pick up the ball. He has both arms outstretched and never tucks his arm in to bump.

Despite what others say, I don't think he jumped into the contest. He's running full tilt and half way through a stride when he collides, giving the appearance of him jumping.

Even at full speed I think his intent for the ball is clear and his collision just one of those things.

MRP have bottled it.

Yep.. what a complete and utter joke.

you cant send someone to front a tribunal and not actually tell them what the hell they are being charged for!.

this is what happens when you have an organisation that employs clueless people to postions they clearly arent experienced enough to fill..

 

[PsychoG]

He was mid-stride (Thus not properly grounded) when the collision occurs and Clark's centre of gravity was lower, that's what propels him over the top. He didn't "jump into" him.

 

[Get_The_Gaff]

- keep his eyes on the ball
- try to pick up the ball
- try to knock the ball on
- not leave his feet and become a human cannonball

Nothing against Mackay, he’s a solid AFL citizen in the twilight of his career. I just want consistency from the AFL. They’re either consequences-based or they aren’t.

The only time mackay left his feet was after the collision. And that was just his momentum and the fact hunter was slightly lower than him .

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The only time mackay left his feet was after the collision. And that was just his momentum and the fact hunter was slightly lower than him .

This. People still don't realise that impact lifts you off your feet. Same happened with Plowman.