How many weeks for Mackay?

[King Elvis]

"Unreasonable conduct" can be determined however they want it to be determined. It's deliberately written that way.

Nah, I understand the terminology is loose, deliberately - but it isn't just a catch all phrase that will cover anything.

They have to prove it is unreasonable conduct - they won't be able to, because it isn't.

 

[regpies]

Why does Mackay have to miss weeks because Clark had zero awareness.

Suspensions should be about intent, not a punishment based on whatever the end result injury.

His intent was the ball.

If he did the exact same thing but with no broken jaw does he get sent to the tribunal? No

 

[John Who]

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.

Whatever the charge is, I've analysed the incident, and can hopefully show you guys that Mackay:
A. had full intent to go for the ball.
B. there was no wrecklessness or carelessness involved.
C. the impact was unavoidable.

The following is the breakdown of the last few seconds prior to impact:

Pic 1 - the ball was kicked over Clark's head and him and Berry gave chase, with Mackay on the far right, running in a straight line right at the ball.


Pic 2 - the chase is on, all 3 going at the ball!


Pics 3 amd 4 - note Mackay is gaining full steam at the ball, and Clark and Berry are essentially side-by-side.




Pic 5 - both Berry and Clark are running at the ball and jostling for position to gather it.


Pic 6 - Mackay now comes into frame about 2m away, and the other 2 are still essentially side-by-side, with Clark barely edging ahead of Berry.


Pic 7 - Mackay is now 1 metre away, and likely too close to notice Clark emerging from his periphery.


Pic 8 - a literal split millisecond, and no way Mackay could have altered his course or actions, and BAM! Shoulders/heads collide!


Pic 9 - The collision and momentum was such that due to Clark being slightly lower at the ball, he went down and Mackay went up.


-----------------------------------
Mackay:
A. had full intent to go for the ball. Tick (he ran in a straight line right at the ball)
B. there was no wrecklessness or carelessness involved. Tick (he was going full tilt at the ball, this is toughness done fairly, not wreckless/careless)
C. the impact was unavoidable. Tick (1 metre to make a split millisecond decision after noticing Clark, what else could he have done?)

 

[MiguelM]

AFL sh*tscared of lawsuits down the track but will ruin the game before they have to worry.

 

[CrowInFiji]

AFL sh*tscared of lawsuits down the track but will ruin the game before they have to worry.

Wonder how much of this is the AFL wanting to appear to do something rather than actually believing their own story.

 

[MiguelM]

Wonder how much of this is the AFL wanting to appear to do something rather than actually believing their own story.

Smacks of it.

Enter lesser known player to support the narrative.

 

[ams4crows]

AFL sh*tscared of lawsuits down the track but will ruin the game before they have to worry.

It's at the stage where any new player entering the AFL will have to sign a waiver saying there is an understanding that concussions may occur, the AFL is trying it's best to eradicate them but accidents happen and by signing this contract you waive the right to sue the AFL on grounds of neglect and unaccountablity

 

[Sarcoidevo]

3 weeks minimum .... Mackay went the player with a bump and broke his jaw

 

[Engimal v3]

6-7

 

[simmo97]

is this even legal sending a player to the tribunal without charge?

 

[Big Crow]

It all feels very contrived to me.

Agreed. The league itself feels contrived to be honest.

 

[Big Crow]

At the Tribunal, Tribunal Counsel (instructed by the AFL), will allege that player Mackay carelessly engaged in Rough Conduct that was “unreasonable in the circumstances” in contravention of AFL Tribunal Guideline 4.4(E) which proscribes “any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances”.

So the AFL are going to argue that his conduct is unreasonable in the circumstance of a contest?

“Unreasonable conduct” is so beautifully arbitrary it could only come from the AFL hahaha.

So it is unreasonable to run towards the ball in an effort to gain possession and help your team? What a weird sport that would be.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

“Unreasonable conduct” is so beautifully arbitrary it could only come from the AFL hahaha.

So it is unreasonable to run towards the ball in an effort to gain possession and help your team? What a weird sport that would be.

Is it unreasonable to bump a player in the head that got to the ball first and break his jaw in multiple places effectively ending his season?

 

[Monkey King]

There's a difference between choosing to bump a player that already has the ball and a collision where two players are going for the ball. This is the latter and should not be penalised.

The Plowman case showed this isn't how it works anymore.

My interest in AFL is at an all-time low. Haven't watched a game in weeks. The AFL is not a fair and just competition. It's a managed stage performance.

 

[Monkey King]

Is it unreasonable to bump a player in the head that got to the ball first and break his jaw in multiple places effectively ending his season?

Not when you're going for the ball and you're talking a millisecond difference about who arrived first.

 

[SthMelb Tigers]

It's a tough one. Some argue that he was going for the ball and shouldn't be penalised. Some argue that he hit someone in the head and broke his jaw as he chose to bump and should miss several weeks. My view is that he was going for the ball and chose to bump in the one motion, albeit with a split second to make this decision, but nonetheless should miss 2-3 weeks as a result.

 

[MrBarry]

AFL 360 Robbo was being incrdibly melodromatic about the whole thing.

He went on some rant about how people are 'killing themselves' who have been involved in the game - no doubt linked to concussions. My position on it is this, 'if you decide to play a contact sport you HAVE to accept a level of risk that comes with it.' Should we stop playing the game because people do knee injuries? Should we stop playing the game because guys end up with back problems?

Any player that steps out onto an AFL field is brave, because yes it comes with a level of risk Robbo. We can't try and micro manage every aspect of the game, because someone might be involved in an unfortunate incident which then impacts them later in life..... Boxers get paid so well, because they accept the risk of potentially being killed a ring - that comes with the territory.

What Mackay did was not dirty and it was not 'ballistic'. We should absolutely be trying to risk manage situations in the sport which are reckless and do enganger the playes. But this simply IS NOT one of them. I have grave concerns for the game if this sort of incident is going to be penalised.

 

[AFLOnline]

Are we going to penalize players who's opponents rupture their hamstring trying to run away from them?

It’s not really the same thing at all

and I don’t think Mackay should be suspended but it’s definitely a free kick. Any contact to the head that’s not an accidental head collision should be considered high contact and a free kick imo. Like, how can it not?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's at the stage where any new player entering the AFL will have to sign a waiver saying there is an understanding that concussions may occur, the AFL is trying it's best to eradicate them but accidents happen and by signing this contract you waive the right to sue the AFL on grounds of neglect and unaccountablity

Waivers carry no weight

If you're negligent, you're negligent.

The AFL are trying to show they're not negligent. They can't just write it off as being part of the game. Need to be seen to be doing everything they can to protect players from any head injury.

I don't see a way they can penalise Mackay though or implement rules to outlaw this type of contact without fundamentally changing the game. High marks would need to go for instance

 

[Big Crow]

Is it unreasonable to bump a player in the head that got to the ball first and break his jaw in multiple places effectively ending his season?

This is a weird summary of what happened, but ok.

It’s very unfortunate what happened to Hunter, but Mackay’s action of going for the ball is entirely reasonable. Clark was doing the same thing in fact - If timing was a tenth of a second different then we could easily be having the same discussion but with the names swapped. If that were the case then my opinion would be the same, judge the action not the outcome.

 

[brutus76]

Was purely going for the ball.

No malicious intent.

That's just two dedicated players in pursuit of the ball and an unlucky outcome.

Steve Hocking is a ******. 0 weeks.

 

[Big Crow]

Waivers carry no weight

If you're negligent, you're negligent.

The AFL are trying to show they're not negligent. They can't just write it off as being part of the game. Need to be seen to be doing everything they can to protect players from any head injury.

I don't see a way they can penalise Mackay though or implement rules to outlaw this type of contact without fundamentally changing the game. High marks would need to go for instance

I agree, but they were off the mark for a while and what we’re seeing in recent years is a late adjustment in the scheme of things. Even so, their focus is still a bit off.

1. They penalise for outcomes, not actions. Someone who did something much worse but gets lucky walks away without an issue. This means the message to players is unclear, and the way they play the game is slower to (or doesn’t) change.

2. They’ve needed more stringent protocols around how concussion injuries are managed. For example this year, what started as purely a concussion sub and strangely morphed into an injury sub shows they don’t truly take head injuries as seriously as they should.

Where they should be taking reasonable steps to improve player safety, they’re clearly more focussed on optics, and on limiting future liability.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

three weeks. late and coming in from the side, no reasonable chance of winning the ball. Intent was ok as clearly he was going for the ball....but he failed on duty of care

 

[Bearded Clam]

Why does Mackay have to miss weeks because Clark had zero awareness.

Suspensions should be about intent, not a punishment based on whatever the end result injury.

His intent was the ball.

If he did the exact same thing but with no broken jaw does he get sent to the tribunal? No

If the same thing happened but with no broken jaw...

then the vision would be used for the next decade in all AFL promotional material/videos to showcase the excitement and spectacle of the great game...

 

[From our of nowhere]

The way the AFL is heading teams will have to pad up like NFL players and play an open field nfl game without stopping every play.