Autopsy Round 13, 2021: St.Kilda v Adelaide

[pebblesofsand]

And you cannot suspend him under the current AFL rules for contesting the ball.

Of course they can - that's why the AFL referred it to the Tribunal.

If the Tribunal couldn't suspend him under the existing rules, then AFL wouldn't have referred it and the Tribunal shouldn't have heard the matter.

“The AFL will argue that, regardless of whether Player Mackay was (1) contesting the ball, (2) bumping Player Clark or (3) both, he still contravened the general prohibition on unreasonable conduct (including in contesting the ball),” the statement read.

The AFL plans to contest that the “severe impact” and “high contact” of the incident should equate to a minimum of three weeks suspension.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Except he didnt break any rules per the AFL Tribunal Guidelines.

You can grade something severe and careless but if the action the player performs doesn't fall under one of these classifiable offences, then you can't suspend them.
- Striking
- Kicking
- Kneeing
- Charging
- Rough Conduct
- Forceful Front-On-Contact
- Headbutt or Contact using Head
- Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact to the Eye Region
- Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact to the Face
- Tripping

The AFL tried to argue that MacKay's action fell under Rough Contact. The issue is, the AFL tribunal guidelines say this

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:

• » The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or
• » The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.

The bolded text is what Adelaide argued, that MacKay was contesting the ball in a manner which was reasonable and expected. Therefore, it doesnt matter that there was high contact to Hunter Clark because the original action performed is deemed reasonable under the AFL tribunal guidelines because MacKay was contesting the ball at the time of contact. And you cannot suspend him under the current AFL rules for contesting the ball.

Q:
Was the contact with his Face "Reasonable".

 

[Pardon me]

So obvious if you watch the vision a few seconds before the hit - Mackay knew he was going to be 2nd to the ball all along. Hunter had his hands ready to grasp the ball but Mackay chose to bump not try to grab the ball. What has happened to AFL's mantra of protecting the head in this case? Total injustice where a St Kilda player is involved again with the AFL tribunal. Ben Long in Mackay's shoes - 4 weeks!!!

Enough with the hysterics.
The discrepancy between Clark and McKay was 4 huundreths of a second. If you can make a judgement in that timeframe in that circumstance then good luck to you.

 

[phantom13]

Enough with the hysterics.
The discrepancy between Clark and McKay was 4 huundreths of a second. If you can make a judgement in that timeframe in that circumstance then good luck to you.

The afl has in past cases not just asked players to do so but demanded they do so.

argue that’s unreasonable all you like but that’s been the standard so to then say that we don’t hold this player in this instance to that same standard is idiotic.

 

[St Significant]

Enough with the hysterics.
The discrepancy between Clark and McKay was 4 huundreths of a second. If you can make a judgement in that timeframe in that circumstance then good luck to you.

Mackay made his decision 4 seconds before the hit not 4 hundredth of a second.

 

[Pardon me]

The afl has in past cases not just asked players to do so but demanded they do so.

argue that’s unreasonable all you like but that’s been the standard so to then say that we don’t hold this player in this instance to that same standard is idiotic.

I get it mate. And thats the frustration that people have.
There is no consistency because they dont use precedence. Each case is looked at individually.
Until this changes, people will have zero respect and confidence in the system.
Personally I think its a cop out to protect them from bad decisions prior and getting locked into those previous poor decisions for future rulings. I'd love it to change.

 

[Pardon me]

Mackay made his decision 4 seconds before the hit not 4 hundredth of a second.

You mean when the ball bounced on its end and sped towards him? Hence why both players got to the ball at 4 hundredths of a second apart? Even though in still footage the ball is closer to Clark?

 

[BrutThough]

Q:
Was the contact with his Face "Reasonable".

His decision to go for the ball in that contest and the manner approached the ball i.e. turning his body the way players are told too, was deemed as reasonable. Therefore, the contact Hunter received to his jaw was seen as an unfortunate accident since MacKay had every right to contest the ball in that moment.

The question asked to the tribunal was whether MacKay's action in that moment was reasonable. Not whether the contract or outcome was reasonable. And because the action was seen as one allowed by the rules, you cannot punish him for the contact received.

 

[phantom13]

His decision to go for the ball in that contest and the manner approached the ball i.e. turning his body the way players are told too, was deemed as reasonable. Therefore, the contact Hunter received to his jaw was seen as an unfortunate accident since MacKay had every right to contest the ball in that moment.

The question asked to the tribunal was whether MacKay's action in that moment was reasonable. Not whether the contract or outcome was reasonable. And because the action was seen as one allowed by the rules, you cannot punish him for the contact received.

Are you defending the process or just pointing out that the prosecution was flawed?

 

[BrutThough]

Are you defending the process or just pointing out that the prosecution was flawed?

I'm saying that the outcome of this case was correct under the current AFL rules.

The force or location on the contact is irrelevant in this discussion here because MacKay's action is not a suspendible offence since he was contesting the ball.

 

[BrutThough]

Of course they can - that's why the AFL referred it to the Tribunal.

If the Tribunal couldn't suspend him under the existing rules, then AFL wouldn't have referred it and the Tribunal shouldn't have heard the matter.

“The AFL will argue that, regardless of whether Player Mackay was (1) contesting the ball, (2) bumping Player Clark or (3) both, he still contravened the general prohibition on unreasonable conduct (including in contesting the ball),” the statement read.

The AFL plans to contest that the “severe impact” and “high contact” of the incident should equate to a minimum of three weeks suspension.

And the tribunal determined that it wasn't unreasonable contact because MacKay was contesting the ball at the time, and the AFL rules state that the rough contact charge cannot be applied if the player was contesting the ball in a reasonable manner.

 

[kernelT]

The Long suspension may have been different as he arrived to the contest late and elected to bump, but you can guarantee he would and will be suspended for 'contesting the ball' if he arrives at a contest at the same time as his opponent, yet knocks the player into next week.

It will be labelled reckless, dangerous attack, no regard for the players welfare.

Mackay has form for reckless conduct, clearly trying to take out De Boer in this "contest", but it's all good because ricciuto says he's not a dirty player… despite having two of these incidents within a year. He was very lucky that De Boer pulled his head back when he saw Mackay steaming in, could have copped a spinal injury from that.

Match Review: Veteran Crow banned for Giant hit

Match Review Officer releases findings from Tuesday night's matches

www.afl.com.au

------------------------------------------------------------


Representing the AFL, Jeff Gleeson QC argued the severity of Macrae’ injury was irrelevant when deciphering the incident’s “impact”.

“(Long) came off the line, had gathered speed, and the force at which he hit Macrae was considerable. What happens as a consequence of the force is in the lap of the Gods,” Gleeson said,

“The player may or may not suffer a concussion. He may or may not suffer a broken jaw. He may get up and run off. That’s really not the point.

“When a player comes at speed and executes a forceful bump, and makes forceful impact with the head, the potential for serious injury is pronounced.”

 

[#gosaintas]

I'm saying that the outcome of this case was correct under the current AFL rules.

The force or location on the contact is irrelevant in this discussion here because MacKay's action is not a suspendible offence since he was contesting the ball.

He was late, arrived at full speed, didn't touch the ball and hit Clark in the head with his shoulder. Play on.

 

[BrutThough]

He was late, arrived at full speed, didn't touch the ball and hit Clark in the head with his shoulder. Play on.

The evidence presented by Adelaide disputed this claim.

 

[PoppedCorn]

The Long suspension may have been different as he arrived to the contest late and elected to bump, but you can guarantee he would and will be suspended for 'contesting the ball' if he arrives at a contest at the same time as his opponent, yet knocks the player into next week.

It will be labelled reckless, dangerous attack, no regard for the players welfare.

Mackay has form for reckless conduct, clearly trying to take out De Boer in this "contest", but it's all good because ricciuto says he's not a dirty player… despite having two of these incidents within a year. He was very lucky that De Boer pulled his head back when he saw Mackay steaming in, could have copped a spinal injury from that.

Match Review: Veteran Crow banned for Giant hit

Match Review Officer releases findings from Tuesday night's matches

www.afl.com.au

------------------------------------------------------------


Representing the AFL, Jeff Gleeson QC argued the severity of Macrae’ injury was irrelevant when deciphering the incident’s “impact”.

“(Long) came off the line, had gathered speed, and the force at which he hit Macrae was considerable. What happens as a consequence of the force is in the lap of the Gods,” Gleeson said,

“The player may or may not suffer a concussion. He may or may not suffer a broken jaw. He may get up and run off. That’s really not the point.

“When a player comes at speed and executes a forceful bump, and makes forceful impact with the head, the potential for serious injury is pronounced.”

Execpt if it happens to a saints player
* this game

* this team too
Who flew the flag after that???

Mcline_em_up should've been watching over his shoulder from then on in
Absolute soft utensils in our jumper.
Idve lined him striaght back up
Turn abouts fair play

 

[kernelT]

The evidence presented by Adelaide disputed this claim.

Their evidence from the biomechanics or whatever said both players ran 10 metres to the ball, I would love to see the acceleration data of both players…

Some of the evidence they supplied was a complete crock of s**t.

Mackay's lawyer Andrew Culshaw has his turn.

"You have two incredibly brave players going full tilt at a loose ball and they get there four one hundredths of a second apart.

Clark wasn't going full tilt, he'd spun around 180 as the ball went over his head, had nearly slowed to a standstill when he reached down for the ball.

If both players were going at full tilt then Clark wouldn't have rocketed off the impact with Mackay following through with his acceleration.

If two objects the same weight, travelling at the same pace collide, one of them doesn't catapult off the other.

Clark is clearly a pedestrian in this collision.

 

[phantom13]

And the tribunal determined that it wasn't unreasonable contact because MacKay was contesting the ball at the time, and the AFL rules state that the rough contact charge cannot be applied if the player was contesting the ball in a reasonable manner.

You’d have to acknowledge that the application of what is “reasonable” versus what isn’t (Long, Plowman et all) is wildly inconsistent though, which really strikes at the heart of the issue

 

[austinnn]

Yes this was not lost on me as I wrote it...funnily enough, I couldn't think of any names that would be intent on backing up a team mate. Still...I can dream (knowing full well that it is only that)

Carlisle & Hanneberry maybe if they were around. Maybe Doogs or Battle. No one else springs to mind.

 

[pebblesofsand]

And the tribunal determined that it wasn't unreasonable contact because MacKay was contesting the ball at the time, and the AFL rules state that the rough contact charge cannot be applied if the player was contesting the ball in a reasonable manner.

Sorry but that wasn't what you said - you said they can't suspend him if he was contesting the ball. Clearly they can if they consider the action "unreasonable" which is exactly what the AFL was arguing.

Irrespective of what the Tribunal has said, the AFL rightly believes this sort of contact no longer has a place in the modern game will do all it can to outlaw it.

The only thing I'm actually surprised about now is the fact that the AFL has yet to appeal the decision. Clearly they must have decided to wait until the end of the season and tighten the guidelines even further.

I'm sure that next years guidelines will include more specific references to force of impact, relative speed of players etc etc when considering what constitutes "unreasonable conduct" in contesting the ball.

 

[phantom13]

The evidence presented by Adelaide disputed this claim.

Late might be too ambiguous.

second to the ball though...

 

[BrutThough]

Their evidence from the biomechanics or whatever said both players ran 10 metres to the ball, I would love to see the acceleration data of both players…

Some of the evidence they supplied was a complete crock of sh*t.

Mackay's lawyer Andrew Culshaw has his turn.

"You have two incredibly brave players going full tilt at a loose ball and they get there four one hundredths of a second apart.

Clark wasn't going full tilt, he'd spun around 180 as the ball went over his head, had nearly slowed to a standstill when he reached down for the ball.

If both players were going at full tilt then Clark wouldn't have rocketed off the impact with Mackay following through with his acceleration.

If two objects the same weight, travelling at the same pace collide, one of them doesn't catapult off the other.

Clark is clearly a pedestrian in this collision.

View attachment 1157773View attachment 1157774View attachment 1157775View attachment 1157776View attachment 1157777

Thats all true, but not what the argument was.

It was determined that Mackay was going for the ball and had every right to go for the ball in those circumstances, so his action is not a suspendible offence.

The AFL is likely going to change the rules moving forward off the back of this because they don't want incidents like this happening. But right now, you cant punish Mackay over it.

 

[gringo2011]

Ironically i just went and looked at the Long suspension and the Plowman suspension.

They both get closer to the ball (Plowman actually looks like he gets a hand on it) than Mackay did. So why werent they considered to be "contesting" the ball.

The answer is the AFL determined that they both could have reasonably foreseen that their contest could cause damage and thus needed to exercise a duty of care.

Why was Mackay not held to the same standard... because the MRP has no consistency... which is literally my only point.

By all means defend the outcome, i think Mackay being cleared is fine, but dont defend the process because its a mess with absolutely no objectivity at all

You just have to assume it's lottery system with a lot of it a trail by media. If a few commentators set the public opinion they AFL go with the more popular opinion.

 

[BrutThough]

You’d have to acknowledge that the application of what is “reasonable” versus what isn’t (Long, Plowman et all) is wildly inconsistent though, which really strikes at the heart of the issue

Long wasnt going for the ball. He chose to bump.

I dont know enough about the Plowman incident to comment on how it measures against this one.

Mackay was judged the same way O'Meara's incident on Friday night was, with two players going for the ball and it being seen as an unfortunate accident.

 

[phantom13]

You just have to assume it's lottery system with a lot of it a trail by media. If a few commentators set the public opinion they AFL go with the more popular opinion.

In hindsight (and with this one in the book now) im suprised the plowman one didnt get more press.

If were essentially now saying "its fair game if youre contesting the ball" its actually staggering you can argue that hes not contesting the ball.

I suspect that it was more because the Holman case dominated the headlines that week but its a pretty flawed system if "whats the media saying" is how we determine the suspension

 

[phantom13]

Long wasnt going for the ball. He chose to bump.

I dont know enough about the Plowman incident to comment on how it measures against this one.

Mackay was judged the same way O'Meara's incident on Friday night was, with two players going for the ball and it being seen as an unfortunate accident.

How do we define going for the ball? He put himself between the ball and Darcy (i think).

Darcy didnt gather the ball. Its not really a comparable incident to be fair but it goes to the point that ultimately whether something is a reportable incident or not is totally subjective.

I have no issue with Long getting suspended but how you can defend Mackays (when he did it to a player in possesion of the ball) whilst suspending Long (who did it to a player not in possesion of the ball, hence a contest) is pretty odd. Put it this way, how can Mackay contest a football in someone elses possesion? Versus could Long have been contesting the ball when it was still in dispute?

Plowmans was worse as neither player was ever in possesion of the ball, it was an aerial contest with both arriving at the exact same time (O'Meara never took the ball) but the MRP determined that Plowman was obligated to realise he could cause injury and thus needed to take an alternative action, yet somehow Mackay wasnt (even though that ball is not in dispute, its in Clarks possesion)