The DMac/HClark case - what is the alternative action?

Was there any reasonable alternative action for Mackay? (Chasing the ball, heading for goal)

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 23.5%
  • No

    Votes: 24 70.6%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Total voters
    34

Remove this Banner Ad

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Suspended
Feb 4, 2008
3,010
8,756
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
In my view, a large part of Mackays intent was to make contact with Clarke. Like a key defender making a body spoil on the forward. MacKay was intent on hitting Clarke, whereas Clarke was 100% footy focused.

Deserves a suspension under current rules protecting the head.
If that is your view, and given you cannot see inside McKay’s head, so you are reading physical cues, what physical cues led you to that belief?
 

the big lebowski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 4, 2006
10,899
19,433
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
If that is your view, and given you cannot see inside McKay’s head, so you are reading physical cues, what physical cues led you to that belief?
The way he crashed into Clarke. He was fully protected and had all the momentum, Clarke had no protection, awareness and little momentum.

It seems obvious to me the approached the contest in a reckless manner. Not saying it was intention to break his face but he was after body contact. In my opinion.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

matthew_s

Club Legend
Aug 19, 2013
1,312
2,726
AFL Club
West Coast
The way he crashed into Clarke. He was fully protected and had all the momentum, Clarke had no protection, awareness and little momentum.

It seems obvious to me the approached the contest in a reckless manner. Not saying it was intention to break his face but he was after body contact. In my opinion.
thats how I see it too. I think it is telling that he didn’t slow down. He was running through Clarke one way or another, which was and turned out to be reckless.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Suspended
Feb 4, 2008
3,010
8,756
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
The way he crashed into Clarke. He was fully protected and had all the momentum, Clarke had no protection, awareness and little momentum.

It seems obvious to me the approached the contest in a reckless manner. Not saying it was intention to break his face but he was after body contact. In my opinion.
Why is the onus on MacKay to slow down though and not also Clarke? If that ball bounces slightly differently on its last bounce then MacKay gets to it first no problems. Why would you slow down approaching a contest when there is a realistic chance if you go flat strap you take possession of the ball? As far as I can tell the only difference in the way that MacKay approached the contest compared to Clark is MacKay was running faster in his desperation to get to the ball first.

Are we now saying players have to decelerate when approaching contests? Is it not true this might create as many collisions as it averts?

By the way, MacKay did not look fully protected to me. He would have needed to turn side on and lead with his hip to achieve that.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
7,409
5,351
AFL Club
Adelaide
The way he crashed into Clarke. He was fully protected and had all the momentum, Clarke had no protection, awareness and little momentum.

It seems obvious to me the approached the contest in a reckless manner. Not saying it was intention to break his face but he was after body contact. In my opinion.
I’ve looked at the footage in detail, and unfortunately you’re wrong:
0058768D-83F9-4F4A-BF10-AB22FA0C825F.jpeg

Mackay was not “fully protected” at all. His right arm was still dangling out at the point of contact. It’s actually amazing how he got out of it without a shoulder dislocation. And if Clark had been half a step faster, it could have been probable that Mackay might be the one ending up with the broken jaw instead.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
7,409
5,351
AFL Club
Adelaide
Why is the onus on MacKay to slow down though and not also Clarke? If that ball bounces slightly differently on its last bounce then MacKay gets to it first no problems. Why would you slow down approaching a contest when there is a realistic chance if you go flat strap you take possession of the ball? As far as I can tell the only difference in the way that MacKay approached the contest compared to Clark is MacKay was running faster in his desperation to get to the ball first.

Are we now saying players have to decelerate when approaching contests? Is it not true this might create as many collisions as it averts?

By the way, MacKay did not look fully protected to me. He would have needed to turn side on and lead with his hip to achieve that.
Really appreciating your comments on this thread. And agree, Mackay doesn’t look fully protected to me either.

I’ve edited the OP with some further info added.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Suspended
Feb 4, 2008
3,010
8,756
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I’ve looked at the footage in detail, and unfortunately you’re wrong:
View attachment 1156276
Mackay was not “fully protected” at all. His right arm was still dangling out at the point of contact. It’s actually amazing how he got out of it without a shoulder dislocation. And if Clark had been half a step faster, it could have been probable that Mackay might be the one ending up with the broken jaw instead.
That still shot is brilliant as it explains it perfectly actually. Had Clark not snatched the ball a millisecond earlier, MacKay would be taking possession right around the time this shot is taken, and he is facing the exact line of where he anticipated the ball would be at his point of arrival. In other words, he is literally doing exactly what Clark is doing, just arrives a fraction of a second later. Certainly it would be near impossible for MacKay to react in time after the last bounce of the ball gave Clark the tiny edge over him. It takes roughly 0.2 of a second for a person’s brain to process and a reaction to something like that, but he’d have needed quite a bit longer in order to react in any way that would have allowed him to avoid the collision.

If I was a lawmaker intent on reducing head injuries(and other injuries) from this type of contest, I would say all 3 players potentially have to modify their technique here.

1 MacKay to enter side on to bump when he is disputing possession of the ball and not leaning forward to collect the ball,

2 Clark as for MacKay above,

3 The 3rd man, Berry to be very careful not to push one player into the other, this can be very dangerous and IMO should be reportable where a player does that(and plenty do.) However, in this instance I don’t think Berry is culpable as he doesn’t appear to have pushed Clark with any real force, he was more just jostling with him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mr Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 1, 2010
18,905
11,553
AFL Club
Richmond
"The truth is Mackay did not have to bump him with that velocity."

I think the use of the word "bump" here is misguided. Mackay was bracing for contact just prior to impact. This is entirely different to him running and then bumping Clark. The motives and actions are different.
Bump is a seamantic term in this instance I think. A brace after that run up and velocity is effectively a bump. Gerard Whately made a relevant point I thought on AFL360, its not just the velocity at impact its the whole wind up Mackay committed himself right at the outset including the distance he had to cover to before deciding not to adjust his actions
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
7,409
5,351
AFL Club
Adelaide
Bump is a seamantic term in this instance I think. A brace after that run up and velocity is effectively a bump. Gerard Whately made a relevant point I thought on AFL360, its not just the velocity at impact its the whole wind up Mackay committed himself right at the outset including the distance he had to cover to before deciding not to adjust his actions
I refer back to the frame at the point of contact:
I’ve looked at the footage in detail, and unfortunately you’re wrong:
View attachment 1156276
Mackay was not “fully protected” at all. His right arm was still dangling out at the point of contact. It’s actually amazing how he got out of it without a shoulder dislocation. And if Clark had been half a step faster, it could have been probable that Mackay might be the one ending up with the broken jaw instead.
Mackay didn’t even have the time to brace himself prior to the collision. His brace was an instinct after the hit, and not before the hit. He was, in footy speak, “100% committed to the ball”. His eyes, line-run and approach to the ball suggested his mind was simply to “run at ball, get ball”. This has never been an issue of wrongdoing at any stage of the VFL/AFL. You’re allowed to (and often encouraged by coaches and fans) to go hard at the contest.
 

sprockets

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 15, 2004
5,166
8,637
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
I refer back to the frame at the point of contact:

Mackay didn’t even have the time to brace himself prior to the collision. His brace was an instinct after the hit, and not before the hit. He was, in footy speak, “100% committed to the ball”. His eyes, line-run and approach to the ball suggested his mind was simply to “run at ball, get ball”. This has never been an issue of wrongdoing at any stage of the VFL/AFL. You’re allowed to (and often encouraged by coaches and fans) to go hard at the contest.
What you're not allowed to do is collect someone in the head, whether you meant to or not.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,028
18,714
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
I think the issue for Mackay is that the ball was kicked over Clark’s head. So Clark was chasing after the ball and Mackay was running toward a ball that was coming in his direction. It is very difficult to predict with a ball the shape of a football whether it will “kick on” and accelerate toward you or bounce upward more slowing down.

perhaps if the AFL want players to judge who will get to the ball first in this situation we should change to a round ball which will bounce more truly :drunk:
Yes, I think this is a really important aspect of this incident. It’s not like Clark was waiting under the ball and Mackay barrelled into him. The ball was moving away from Clark as Clark was running towards it. The ball was moving towards Mackay as Mackay was running towards it. A slightly different random bounce and it very possibly could have been the ball sitting up for Clark or the ball accelerating towards Mackay.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,028
18,714
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
I’m thinking a right of way system might be what eventuates.

One option might be that whichever team last disposed of the ball by hand or foot has ROW in this situation.

Another option might be dependent on which half the footy is in. I.e if it is closer to your scoring end you get ROW. Could also be if it is closer to the goal you are defending you get ROW.

It’s not necessarily something that the umpires have to adjudicate either. It’s just a rule about duty of care of situations like this.
 

banzai

Premiership Player
Oct 14, 2003
3,557
2,789
AFL Club
Richmond
The bigger issue for the AFL is if they concede that severe head trauma can occur legally whilst playing football.

They're up sh*t creek if that happens.
Isnt is just assumed severe head trauma could happen legally in a game? You could have a severe head clash in most sports that wouldnt necessarily be an illegal play. As long as you have players moving at high speed there will be a risk.

Also you can still legally knee someone in the back of the head while going for a mark. Will they have to remove any contact over the shoulder in a marking contest and get rid of big marks?
 

Matera92

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2009
16,589
29,572
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Bulls, East Freo, Las Vegas Bears
I’m thinking a right of way system might be what eventuates.

One option might be that whichever team last disposed of the ball by hand or foot has ROW in this situation.

Another option might be dependent on which half the footy is in. I.e if it is closer to your scoring end you get ROW. Could also be if it is closer to the goal you are defending you get ROW.

It’s not necessarily something that the umpires have to adjudicate either. It’s just a rule about duty of care of situations like this.
Why don't we just install traffic lights to help clear it up?
 

Remove this Banner Ad