Mega Thread Port Forum 'General AFL Talk' Thread Part 19

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a difference between shirking a contest and being careful not to be sloppy causing injury. Its really not a hard distinction to make.
It's hilarious that you think guys going at speed in a contact sport can all be beacon boys for duty of care in a split second.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It's hilarious that you think he only had a split second to think about what he was doing.
So ease up further from the contest and not even make the vicinity of the ball? perhaps we could organise uniform drills across the league where they all arrive at the contest together at an acceptable clip and giggle.
 
So ease up further from the contest and not even make the vicinity of the ball? perhaps we could organise uniform drills across the league where they all arrive at the contest together at an acceptable clip and giggle.
Why is it impossible for you guys to talk about this without being sarcastic? It's already been pointed out what he could have done instead, what players do 100 times a game.
You hit a guy high with his head over the ball because your technique is clumsy, you get done.
 
It's hilarious that you think guys going at speed in a contact sport can all be beacon boys for duty of care in a split second.
They're professional AFL footballers. Yes, they do need to be able to make the right decision within a split second. If they can't, they wear the consequences.

Nobody's suggesting hanging Mackay or running him out of the league (well, nobody except the Crows supporters who have wanted him delisted for about six years now), nobody's calling him a dirty player, but he made the wrong decision in the circumstances and that decision resulted in a broken jaw, so he might and should wear some consequences for that.
 
It's hilarious that you think he only had a split second to think about what he was doing.
He did.
He'll get off.


Thought this was a great chat with a lawyer who thinks he has nothing to answer for under the rules at the moment and that the AFLs real issue is bringing players back too soon from a concussion rather than deciding to wrap them up in cotton wool on the field.
 
Last edited:
Put every action on the footy field that results in a concussion or head injury through this simple matrix:

Accident (unintentional, consequence of action not reasonably foreseeable) = free kick

Careless (unintentional, consequence of action reasonably foreseeable) = suspension

Intentional (intentional) = suspension

It really isn't that hard to understand.

I don't agree it was careless.
 
Look at the way Mckay goes to grab the footy. Arms outstretched, footy in his fingertips, body parallel to it's path. Is that a normal way to attack the footy? Compare to Clark, player up his rump, bodylining the ball, ready to grab it at chest height full handed.

At some point I think I'm arguing against a made up version of events. Mckay knew contact was coming and prioritised his shape for it. Clark didn't as his field of vision was different, he wasn't coming on the right angle to see a crows player coming at full tilt, and he already had a tagger to deal with.

It was a footy collision, Mckay isn't a thug or sniper, but the current laws of the game mean he had to consider actions other than a shoulder to the face, and be responsible for the damage caused to another players head.
 
Last edited:
I remember when a north broken hill player was suspended for life as they crossed over the AFL threshold for deregistration, so using some connections they got a lawyer from the camry crows down who managed to find some technicality and have half his games missed struck from the record.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

My penny's worth, McKay had designs on contesting the ball throughout the incident, therefore should get off, but it's not a hill I wish to die upon.

However, the action that Tex was fined for, when he ran second to a marking contest with Wilkie, with his gaze firmly fixed on the back of his opponent's melon, and went the double-elbow rabbit punch, IS the type of action that MUST be legislated out of the game. There was no other intent than to clobber an unsuspecting player in the back of the head.
 
The same people hanging Mookay will be cracking the shits in a gameday thread if a Port player sweats off a crucial contest.
Not really, if they did that and gave away a stupid free that resulted in a goal we’d be cursing their lack of skill.

I can’t believe what Mackay did is seen as less than what Lycett did.
 
Croms supporters now thinking it's worth gifting 400 games to Mackay for his ability to turn Port supporters against each other.

I’m willing to run with that charade for them to do it.
Shall we draw straws for which side we’re on?
 
You honestly think McKay's actions were worse than Lycetts? Seriously?
* yeah!
A clumsy tackle against lining someone up and breaking their jaw.
 
Lycett was just a little too enthusiastic with a fierce tackle on a smaller opponent.

Mackay came charging in from a fair way back and just collects a guy - didn't lay a tackle, didn't get the football, just smashed him in the head.

Both are careless. I agree that Mackay's is a worse and more dangerous action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top