Autopsy Round 13, 2021: St.Kilda v Adelaide

[Diehard Saint]

The 'potential to cause injury' clause isn't for cases where someone contests the football according to the rules and then causes injury. It is so they can worsen the charge in cases where someone performs a non-football action and the player escapes without an injury.

Which in itself is absolute rubbish.
Potential pfft. IF it causes harm then punish, IF it doesn’t then you can’t.
I couldn’t believe it at the time and still can’t. It was a total travesty.

 

[phantom13]

Which in itself is absolute rubbish.
Potential pfft. IF it causes harm then punish, IF it doesn’t then you can’t.
I couldn’t believe it at the time and still can’t. It was a total travesty.

The incidents are not really comparable but it is a staggering outcome.

Long bumps a player high who was both a) going to ground anyway and b) not in possesion of the ball and gets suspended for 4 weeks for "potential to cause injury"

Mackay bumps a player high who was both a) fully upright and needed Mackay to leave his feet to hit him in the jaw and b) in possesion of the ball and gets no suspension in spits of breaking said players jaw.

Now i understand the ONLY defence of the Mackay incident is that he didnt choose to bump but i cant wrap me head around how they define that? I thought it was made pretty clear that your duty of care as a player now goes to beyond just "can i get to the ball" to "can i injure an opponent". Effectively that if you are going to be second to the ball OR being at the same time as the ball could i potentially injure an opponent the duty is on you to avoid doing so and if you do then you will be suspended.

In isolation any event can be argued any way you like but taking precedent and recent decisions into account with this one, its pretty baffling.

For mine in isolation Long goes, Plowman get off and Mackay is 50/50. I still struggle to comprehend how you dont have a duty of care to a player in possesion (even if that possesion was taken 1/1000th before you arrive.

 

[BrutThough]

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)

The ball was barely in Hunter possession when the contact occurred. It was as close to simultaneous contact as you could get.

I expect them to change the rule moving forward for instances like this but as the current guidelines stand, it was just an unfortunate football collision that left Hunter with a horrific injury.

 

[phantom13]

The ball was barely in Hunter possession when the contact occurred. It was as close to simultaneous contact as you could get.

I expect them to change the rule moving forward for instances like this but as the current guidelines stand, it was just an unfortunate football collision that left Hunter with a horrific injury.

Look up the plowman one. He got suspended on the basis he should have bailed on the contest before he got there, O’Meara never had the ball, Clark at least did.

 

[#gosaintas]

The ball was barely in Hunter possession when the contact occurred. It was as close to simultaneous contact as you could get.

I expect them to change the rule moving forward for instances like this but as the current guidelines stand, it was just an unfortunate football collision that left Hunter with a horrific injury.

You're either in posession or you're not. Hunter was. Adelaide bloke collected him late. In the head. Should be clear cut suspension. Only just in possession and not very late is irrelevent.

 

[BrutThough]

Look up the plowman one. He got suspended on the basis he should have bailed on the contest before he got there, O’Meara never had the ball, Clark at least did.

Plowman is unlucky. That's probably stands out as the one that is inconsistent with everything else the MRP has handed out this year.

 

[4THAWN]

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)

in my opinion

the Long v Darcy incident is a clear bump, rather than attempting to win possession of the ball in that split second. Therefore player has chosen to bump = suspension.

In the Mackay v Clark incident I do not see any clear bump, rather it is a genuine collision where both players are trying to gain possession of the ball rather than bump = no suspension

The O'Meara v Plowman incident is probably the hardest to grade in my opinion, because Plowman seemingly simultaneously loads his body up for a clear bump while in the same moment holding his fist out in a spoiling motion. I'm honestly not sure whether I think Plowman should or should not be suspended for that one, I will probably lean towards no suspension because he is making an attempt to go for the football.

Those are the differences I see in each individual incident when you slow them down to 0.25x and watch back.

 

[bergholt]

I can't believe we're still talking about this

 

[#gosaintas]

I can't believe we're still talking about this

true - I'm out.

 

[phantom13]

in my opinion

the Long v Darcy incident is a clear bump, rather than attempting to win possession of the ball in that split second. Therefore player has chosen to bump = suspension.

In the Mackay v Clark incident I do not see any clear bump, rather it is a genuine collision where both players are trying to gain possession of the ball rather than bump = no suspension

The O'Meara v Plowman incident is probably the hardest to grade in my opinion, because Plowman seemingly simultaneously loads his body up for a clear bump while in the same moment holding his fist out in a spoiling motion. I'm honestly not sure whether I think Plowman should or should not be suspended for that one, I will probably lean towards no suspension because he is making an attempt to go for the football.

Those are the differences I see in each individual incident when you slow them down to 0.25x and watch back.

Yeh i think my main point with the Long one is that Darcy didnt have the ball, so you can absolutely argue that his bump was in contesting the ball. As i said i have no issue with him being suspended but that ball is in disupte, the Clark.Mackay one isnt, Clark has possesion.

To me the Plowman one is very very similar, theyve just both competed for the ball. The MRP assessed that Plowman should have made a decision before arriving, Mackay should have been judged the same way.

 

[bird_man]

Look up the plowman one. He got suspended on the basis he should have bailed on the contest before he got there, O’Meara never had the ball, Clark at least did.

Plowman is a veey tough one to judge but you are missing one important of the part of the reason for suspension which is that Plowman was found guilty because he didn't make an attempt at a contest e.g. marking or spoiling.

“The jury found Plowman effected a bump, and that there was no reasonable contest engaged in to contest the ball,” Jeff Gleeson said.

“The only conclusion you can derive from those two matters is that this was an undue bump. Hence not permitted contact



Mckay was clearly contesting the footy which is the big difference between the two, both players had their hands out to touch the footy and were only 0.04 seconds away from each other.

 

[phantom13]

You are missing one important of the part of thr trial which is that Plowman was found guilty because he didn't make an attempt at a contest e.g. marking or spoiling.

“The jury found Plowman effected a bump, and that there was no reasonable contest engaged in to contest the ball,” Jeff Gleeson said.

“The only conclusion you can derive from those two matters is that this was an undue bump. Hence not permitted contact



Mckay was clearly contesting the footy which is the big difference between the two, both players had their hands out to touch the footy and were only 0.04 seconds away from each other.

No im not, i actually just had this discussion with my brother in law.

DId Jaeger mark the ball? So Plowman absolutely did make a contest. Again, thats subjective, which is the issue with the system, its meant to remove subjectivity.

How did Mackay not elect to bump if thats the criteria?

 

[bird_man]

No im not, i actually just had this discussion with my brother in law.

DId Jaeger mark the ball? So Plowman absolutely did make a contest. Again, thats subjective, which is the issue with the system, its meant to remove subjectivity.

How did Mackay not elect to bump if thats the criteria?

Well you did with the comment I quoted because you said he got suspended because he didn't bail on the contest which was not the ruling.

He didnt make any attempt to mark or spoil the contest which is why the tribunal found him guilty.

Mckay didn't elect to bump because he had his hands outreached for the footy. That's pretty simple.

At no time did Plowman make a play at the ball.

As I said the Plowman one is a tough one to judge but they are the clear two differences between the two.

I think anyone that can't see that is just choosing not to see it.

 

[phantom13]

Well you did with the comment I quoted because you said he got suspended because he didn't bail on the contest which was not the ruling.

He didnt make any attempt to mark or spoil the contest which is why the tribunal found him guilty.

Mckay didn't elect to bump because he had his hands outreached for the footy. That's pretty simple.

At no time did Plowman make a play at the ball.

As I said the Plowman one is a tough one to judge but they are the clear two differences between the two.

I think anyone that can't see that is just choosing not to see it.

That is entirely subjective, as is the Mackay one.

Which AGAIN is my entire point.

Plowman spoiled O'Meara so i could (and would) argue he did make a play on the ball, if he didnt O'Meara would have marked it.

Mackay absolutely did have his arms outstretched riiiight until the point Clark took the ball and he left the ground and turned his body. Explain to me how he made a play on the ball? He didnt get his hands on the ball, id argue Plowman got much much closer to the ball.

No two incidents are going to be identical but Plowman has more "outs" for me, Plowmans was an aerial contest where we know there is more leeway on contact, Plowman arrives at the exact same time as the ball (Mackay was second) and Plowman doesnt brace for the impact indicating he actually didnt have any idea there would even be contact.

In terms of similarities there are enough to warrant it being in the discussion, in terms of differences id argue more are in Plowmans favour.

FWIW i think both are footballing incidents but lets not pretend all of that isnt utterly subjective and discretionary.

 

[PoppedCorn]

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

And is bending lower to get the ball while the other bloke is on tiptoe with one foot off the ground rising up at full steam
Tilting his head so he gets him with hia shoulder

What a crock of shite

 

[ScrappyDo]

It will be the first time Hill has got within 1.5 meters of anyone or anything for a while

Sources say the dog went harder at the ball..

 

[kernelT]

The Plowman one is closer to everyones fear of brave marking contests being ruled out of the game…

APPEAL FAILED: Plowman's two-week suspension upheld at Appeals Board

Carlton has failed to overturn Lachie Plowman's two-game suspension

www.afl.com.au

"But the AFL's legal counsel Jeff Gleeson argued even if the tribunal jury had been poorly directed, Plowman had executed a bump, not a spoil, in the contest."

If Plowman has 'executed' a bump, then Mackay has also 'executed' a bump… even if both players are focusing on the ball.

 

[SaintBilly]

Execpt if it happens to a saints player
fu** this game

fu** 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

This is a fairly pertinent point I feel. Why on earth didn’t anyone else in our team try to fly the flag? Where are our leaders?? This is the sort of thing we’ve been crying about all year. Then something like this happens and nobody seems to care. In fact the opposite. We went into our shells and let them back into the contest. 36-0 into 66-60.

I don’t care if the season is wasted or whatever but there is no excuse to go into our shells like that. Meek, pathetic, inexcusable. Love this club but I’d like to think we stand for more than that.

 

[Diehard Saint]

The incidents are not really comparable but it is a staggering outcome.

Long bumps a player high who was both a) going to ground anyway and b) not in possesion of the ball and gets suspended for 4 weeks for "potential to cause injury"

Mackay bumps a player high who was both a) fully upright and needed Mackay to leave his feet to hit him in the jaw and b) in possesion of the ball and gets no suspension in spits of breaking said players jaw.

Now i understand the ONLY defence of the Mackay incident is that he didnt choose to bump but i cant wrap me head around how they define that? I thought it was made pretty clear that your duty of care as a player now goes to beyond just "can i get to the ball" to "can i injure an opponent". Effectively that if you are going to be second to the ball OR being at the same time as the ball could i potentially injure an opponent the duty is on you to avoid doing so and if you do then you will be suspended.

In isolation any event can be argued any way you like but taking precedent and recent decisions into account with this one, its pretty baffling.

For mine in isolation Long goes, Plowman get off and Mackay is 50/50. I still struggle to comprehend how you dont have a duty of care to a player in possesion (even if that possesion was taken 1/1000th before you arrive.

I wasn’t actually comparing the two incidents.
Just took part of a post I quoted to talk about the ridiculousness of having a finding involving the “potential” to do something.

 

[bird_man]

That is entirely subjective, as is the Mackay one.

Which AGAIN is my entire point.

Plowman spoiled O'Meara so i could (and would) argue he did make a play on the ball, if he didnt O'Meara would have marked it.

Mackay absolutely did have his arms outstretched riiiight until the point Clark took the ball and he left the ground and turned his body. Explain to me how he made a play on the ball? He didnt get his hands on the ball, id argue Plowman got much much closer to the ball.

No two incidents are going to be identical but Plowman has more "outs" for me, Plowmans was an aerial contest where we know there is more leeway on contact, Plowman arrives at the exact same time as the ball (Mackay was second) and Plowman doesnt brace for the impact indicating he actually didnt have any idea there would even be contact.

In terms of similarities there are enough to warrant it being in the discussion, in terms of differences id argue more are in Plowmans favour.

FWIW i think both are footballing incidents but lets not pretend all of that isnt utterly subjective and discretionary.

AFL rules will always be subjective but I think arguing that Plowman was contesting the ball because O'Meara didn't mark it us just wrong.

O'Meara didn't mark the footy because Plowman ran into him.

That is clearly not what they are talking about when they say he did not attempt the spoil as the rule specifically talks about contesting the ball

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.

If Plowman puts a genuine fist toward the ball and we still get the collison then he doesn't get suspended.

 

[pebblesofsand]

The incidents are not really comparable but it is a staggering outcome.

Long bumps a player high who was both a) going to ground anyway and b) not in possesion of the ball and gets suspended for 4 weeks for "potential to cause injury"

Mackay bumps a player high who was both a) fully upright and needed Mackay to leave his feet to hit him in the jaw and b) in possesion of the ball and gets no suspension in spits of breaking said players jaw.

Now i understand the ONLY defence of the Mackay incident is that he didnt choose to bump but i cant wrap me head around how they define that? I thought it was made pretty clear that your duty of care as a player now goes to beyond just "can i get to the ball" to "can i injure an opponent". Effectively that if you are going to be second to the ball OR being at the same time as the ball could i potentially injure an opponent the duty is on you to avoid doing so and if you do then you will be suspended.

In isolation any event can be argued any way you like but taking precedent and recent decisions into account with this one, its pretty baffling.

For mine in isolation Long goes, Plowman get off and Mackay is 50/50. I still struggle to comprehend how you dont have a duty of care to a player in possesion (even if that possesion was taken 1/1000th before you arrive.

De Goey got a week for clipping Oliver. If he'd hit him flush and broken his jaw he'd have got off. Ball was there to be "contested".

 

[phantom13]

AFL rules will always be subjective but I think arguing that Plowman was contesting the ball because O'Meara didn't mark it us just wrong.

O'Meara didn't mark the footy because Plowman ran into him.

That is clearly not what they are talking about when they say he did not attempt the spoil as the rule specifically talks about contesting the ball

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.

If Plowman puts a genuine fist toward the ball and we still get the collison then he doesn't get suspended.

No way to know that now is there. I think he actually didnt even see O'Meara until the last minute and was going to take a chest mark so he wouldnt have his arms out. Is attempting a chest mark not contesting the ball?

Plowman shouldnt have been suspended and certainly if he was then Mackay should have been also.

Plowman got to the ball, Mackay didnt.

The other bolded bit is interesting... Whether reaosnably or unreasonably, two sentences later "unless: it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball.

Long story short if Plowman "bumped" at the point he did i dont see how you can argue Mackay didnt "bump"

Dont suspend them, suspend them but dont try to claim this system works, just go back to assessing each incident on its own.

 

[malevu]

Purely hypothetical I know but the cynic in me can't help picturing the exact same incident only Ben Long colliding with say Rory Sloane and breaking Sloane's jaw. Would Long have got the same level of media support and the same result. Me thinks not.

 

[EWarren2017]

I think we are all missing the point that it wasn't accidental at all. Yeah sure it wasn't intentional while he ran at the ball but halfway he was going to smash Clark no matter what.

As Leigh Matthews said
'contact with Hunter Clark wasn't a "complete accident". And everyone gets to play on, except Clark.'

Mackay should have got a minimum of 4.
It is just crazy

 

[EWarren2017]

Purely hypothetical I know but the cynic in me can't help picturing the exact same incident only Ben Long colliding with say Rory Sloane and breaking Sloane's jaw. Would Long have got the same level of media support and the same result. Me thinks not.

or

Toby Green
Shane Mumford

would have been pitchforks