Mitch Duncan on Aaron Hall

Remove this Banner Ad

Devington

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2013
10,150
20,390
AFL Club
North Melbourne
So how long before the knees up in a marking contest is stopped?

Been saying it for years that the AFL is playing lip service to head injuries and concussion while they still encourage players to run, jump and knee someone to the back of the head.and we all cheer.

This action occurs multiple times in every game. Jumping and using the knee in a marking contest.

So just how far is the AFL going to take this issue?
Speccies look great in marketing material and get the crowd up and about, so we can't start punishing those :drunk:

Coming at it from a player welfare perspective there's no good faith argument to allow men verging on 100kg to put their knee into the back of another bloke's head.

It's the same type of hypocritical nonsense as clubs and the AFL branding themselves as community and family friendly and then raking in untold millions from pokies and gambling advertising.
 

Linda Lovelace

Club Legend
Apr 24, 2013
1,919
5,320
AFL Club
Collingwood
Not really like for like though. Ziebell was looking where he was going and what was coming the other way. Jumped off the ground to punch the ball and knocked him out with a side on hip and shoulder with high contact.

Saying that Ziebell's action looked reckless where as Duncan's could only be classed as careless at a stretch.

Still could get weeks but not 4. 1 or 2 at the most.
I don't think it's the fact Duncan 'wasn't looking' that somehow mitigates the contact. Duncan hits him with his back precisely because he knows impact is coming and turns to protect himself. What made Ziebell's worse was that he followed through on a hit while Duncan pulled himself up and hit with significantly less force.

But on the other hand, at least Ziebell's was also in general, neutral play where the ball was in dispute, while Duncan hit a guy disposing of the ball.

Ziebell actually had a right to make a legal hit on Joseph, whereas Duncan had no right to hit Hall. A late hit is a free kick regardless of contact to the head, whereas if Ziebell avoided head contact, that's just play on. So in that important respect, Duncan's was actually worse.
 

Linda Lovelace

Club Legend
Apr 24, 2013
1,919
5,320
AFL Club
Collingwood
Bloody hell, if that reminds you of what happened on Sunday you have a vivid imagination. The Ziebel one is more like Dangerfield. Looks like he lined the Carlton guy for a decent bump
Yes, but at least Ziebell was legally allowed to bump Joseph whereas Duncan wasn't allowed to hit Hall.

Ziebell's was a legal hit turned illegal through head contact, Duncan's was an illegal hit turned very illegal through head contact.

Pretty silly to clutch your pearls over a situation where a bump was a legal option, and then go Iraqi Defence Minister over an illegal hit that resulted in the same outcome.

Both players were liable, but Duncan actually had a greater duty of care to Hall than Ziebell had to Joseph. You can't lay late hits on guys disposing of the ball even if you don't mean to, mate.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
7,615
17,779
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
So how long before the knees up in a marking contest is stopped?

Been saying it for years that the AFL is playing lip service to head injuries and concussion while they still encourage players to run, jump and knee someone to the back of the head.and we all cheer.

This action occurs multiple times in every game. Jumping and using the knee in a marking contest.

So just how far is the AFL going to take this issue?
That’s up to the AFL how far they take it. The speccie is a contest with the ball essentially in dispute, but Duncan’s was a late hit on a player just having disposed of the ball. I think there’s more duty of care required from Duncan than for two players with a ball in dispute.
 

Generalissimo

His Excellency
Jul 14, 2002
5,192
4,436
Somewhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
The Mighty Cats
Interesting one.

I have no idea what Duncan was trying to do, but all of his motion was up and down. If he hadn't jumped, remained stationary, and Hall ran into him would there be an issue, head clash or not?

Duncan being airborne makes it kind of a weird one to evaluate. I don't know how a good MRO would see it, let alone what Michael Christian might decide.

That said, it's true that Geelong haven't generally been treated charitably by the MRP/MRO, but also true that North Melbourne heads seem to be somewhat less sacrosanct than others.
 

CrowInFiji

Club Legend
Sep 29, 2018
1,281
1,601
AFL Club
Adelaide
No charges laid. Action not considered unreasonable.


Interesting test case if nothing else. Am sure this will be referenced as a defence for a future incident where someone leaves the ground to contest the footy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Micksy

Premiership Player
Feb 16, 2006
3,688
3,097
Ballarat
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Cowwarr, Fish Creek
No charges laid. Action not considered unreasonable.


Interesting test case if nothing else. Am sure this will be referenced as a defence for a future incident where someone leaves the ground to contest the footy.
If I was trying to take a player out of the game I'd:
a) Take out a superstar.
b) use a strategy which doesn't put myself at equal, or higher, risk than the target. (contact below the knees perhaps)
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
24,809
26,555
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Surprised not to see any Dockers fans here comparing this to the free kick against Andrew Brayshaw that led to Jack Newnes goal after the siren win for Carlton last year. Only minor differences between that and this
Duncan was much later with his "spoil".
 

Munro_Mick

All Australian
Mar 15, 2007
742
51
Mill Park
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Danish Vikings
The comparison with the Ziebell one is somewhat apt.

For the reason that both Duncan and Ziebell are definitely allowed to jump for the ball.....in a marking contest....pretty well without constraint.

In this case perhaps there's an arguement either way..........however with the focus on head injuries then THIS incident really needs to be tested out - - argued for/against at the tribunal.

You can't give an open licence to players to jump into the path of the player with the ball; turn their back to protect themselves and let them off because they weren't trying to hurt the guy...........despite the fact they've effectively put a barrier directly in the players path.

However - - this scenario with Duncan as per the calculator fits as Careless, High impact and high contact. 3 weeks down to 2 with early plea - - or - - allow Geelong to contest at the tribunal. That would've been the right thing for Christian (MRO) to do - - in the interests of the protection of the ball player and the image of the game - be SEEN to be protecting the players.

Between the umpires in charge (100% late contact, downfield free every day of the week) who have failed abysmally; and Michael Christian - - the AFL system in this case has totally failed. And that's seriously not good enough.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
20,523
18,226
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
The comparison with the Ziebell one is somewhat apt.

For the reason that both Duncan and Ziebell are definitely allowed to jump for the ball.....in a marking contest....pretty well without constraint.

In this case perhaps there's an arguement either way..........however with the focus on head injuries then THIS incident really needs to be tested out - - argued for/against at the tribunal.

You can't give an open licence to players to jump into the path of the player with the ball; turn their back to protect themselves and let them off because they weren't trying to hurt the guy...........despite the fact they've effectively put a barrier directly in the players path.

However - - this scenario with Duncan as per the calculator fits as Careless, High impact and high contact. 3 weeks down to 2 with early plea - - or - - allow Geelong to contest at the tribunal. That would've been the right thing for Christian (MRO) to do - - in the interests of the protection of the ball player and the image of the game - be SEEN to be protecting the players.

Between the umpires in charge (100% late contact, downfield free every day of the week) who have failed abysmally; and Michael Christian - - the AFL system in this case has totally failed. And that's seriously not good enough.
Let it go. Christian has stopped reading posts for this week.
 

Munro_Mick

All Australian
Mar 15, 2007
742
51
Mill Park
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Danish Vikings
Bloody hell, if that reminds you of what happened on Sunday you have a vivid imagination. The Ziebel one is more like Dangerfield. Looks like he lined the Carlton guy for a decent bump
The Ziebell one was ideally a valid attempt for the ball; he's allowed to jump up and take it even if it's a handball. It's a contested ball situation.

It just so happened that Joseph stretch out an arm and got hands to the ball first.

It was just one of those things. Should've been left as an on field free kick (if that) and move on.

The Duncan/Hall.......we know if absolutely had to be a free downfield so fail#1.

I'd love to see a longer shot of it....the footage we see is pretty limited.

The question to ask is this..........

WHY DID DUNCAN TURN HIS BACK??

The answer is pretty simple - - he knew that impact was likely.
 

HongKongRoo

Club Legend
Jul 6, 2006
1,885
971
Hong Kong
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It's sad but kind of predictable. Imagine if Duncan did the same thing to Pendlebury. Would it be the same outcome?

At the very least it is careless and high contact.
Well done AFL, the hypocrisy is astounding.
Let's see if media street is all onboard with this or if someone dares to make some noise.
 

Linda Lovelace

Club Legend
Apr 24, 2013
1,919
5,320
AFL Club
Collingwood
Let it go. Christian has stopped reading posts for this week.
It is true that the arbiter of truth, the infallible Michael Christian has spoken on this.

But the almighty will turn around and make a decision that goes against you and you will be left only to ponder his divine plan, which will remain incomprehensible to mere mortals.

Just as he giveth, he will taketh away.
 

Remove this Banner Ad