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

[Mr Magic]

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.

I will be honest, if I was Mackay, from that distance, my spacial awareness would tell me that that contact would happen, or was likely, and I would not have propelled into the contest in that way. I would go towards the ball, drawn towards the ball, but not at that pace and look to probably tackle first or even bump after Clark picks it up if he picks it up in a fluid scenario which can change depending on your approach, what Clark is doing and where the ball is.

Part of not propelling yourself into the contest like that from that run up is to protect yourself. If he went slower initially he might even accelerate into the contest to brace himself for the contest as he gets closer but the overall velocity and impact is less with a contest still effected and Clark negated. One has to consider Clark may get the ball but he still has to dispose of it effectively and in time so Mackay could have provided a contest without the pure velocity from the get go to necessitate a winning the ball contest. Is Mackay a quick decison maker? Maybe not, maybe thats not part of his wiring. Can he be coached to think on his feet better, not commit so early?? Possibly but that is what high end footballers do.

The trouble might be Mackay did not distinguish between a contest and winning the ball contest. Mackay chose the later when he should have been competing to stop Clark disposing the ball effectively, because otherwise the possibility of injury increases. Even if Clark was clean, because remember Clark looked oblivious to Mackay, so its not like Clark was aware of Mackay and accelerating into the contest himself or using one hand to beat any contest from a different angle from Mackay, using spins etc.. its hard for Clark to win the ball before Mackay and dispose of it effectively in time. Clark would have to use advanced techniques to dispose of the ball beating Mackay if he was to do so and we know he was oblivious to Mackay. Clark did not indicate he was aware of Mackay let alone trying to evade him as part of winning the ball in the contest. If Clark was aware he could have braced himself or accelerated himself so the ball contest occurs prior to Mackay arriving. Clark, if aware of Mackay, has less ability to accelerate because he has pressure from and Adelaide player on his tail and he still has to win the ball. If Clark was more aware of Mackay he would probably reached for the ball and use spins to avoid the contact from Mackay. Clark if aware could also have reached for the ball and use a don't argue into the chest of Mackay as an option to if capable of doing it but since Mackay lead with the shoulder that would not be possible to use a don't argue in that circumstance in the heat of the moment.

The problem for Mackay, in terms if the AFL want to set precedents and distinguish this situation from others, is the speed at the contest, not the acceleration but the speed at the impact, and the distance covered by Mackay before impact at speed creating the necessary inertia to cause the force to create the injury apart from what Mackay or another player ought to have seen to prevent this scenario result that is the injury. See the trouble for Mackay is Clark was not bounding towards the ball at pace and there where other crows about including a crow next to Clark or close to Clark on his tail so why choose to contest in that way with that impact from afar? Its not like they where two ships in the night passing each other, like on a wing in relative space, and Mackay stopping Clark in that way was the be all and end all of contest options where it was simply between Mackay and Clark at that precise moment to win the ball to compete

I think it would be beneficial if the AFL came out and said the game is not about winning the ball necessarily as an absolute. The game is about competing fairly and winning on the scoreboard and partially using your brain to do so

 

[Art Vandelay_]

What did he say you cardboard muncher?

Pretty sure the general gist was Matera92 is a shitgibbon

 

[Matera92]

Pretty sure the general gist was Matera92 is a shitgibbon

Luv u

 

[Bone71]

I will be honest, if I was Mackay, from that distance, my spacial awareness would tell me that that contact would happen, or was likely, and I would not have propelled into the contest in that way. I would go towards the ball, drawn towards the ball, but not at that pace and look to probably tackle first or even bump after Clark picks it up if he picks it up in a fluid scenario which can change depending on your approach, what Clark is doing and where the ball is.

Part of not propelling yourself into the contest like that from that run up is to protect yourself. If he went slower initially he might even accelerate into the contest to brace himself for the contest as he gets closer but the overall velocity and impact is less with a contest still effected and Clark negated. One has to consider Clark may get the ball but he still has to dispose of it effectively and in time so Mackay could have provided a contest without the pure velocity from the get go to necessitate a winning the ball contest. Is Mackay a quick decison maker? Maybe not, maybe thats not part of his wiring. Can he be coached to think on his feet better, not commit so early?? Possibly but that is what high end footballers do.

The trouble might be Mackay did not distinguish between a contest and winning the ball contest. Mackay chose the later when he should have been competing to stop Clark disposing the ball effectively, because otherwise the possibility of injury increases. Even if Clark was clean, because remember Clark looked oblivious to Mackay, so its not like Clark was aware of Mackay and accelerating into the contest himself or using one hand to beat any contest from a different angle from Mackay, using spins etc.. its hard for Clark to win the ball before Mackay and dispose of it effectively in time. Clark would have to use advanced techniques to dispose of the ball beating Mackay if he was to do so and we know he was oblivious to Mackay. Clark did not indicate he was aware of Mackay let alone trying to evade him as part of winning the ball in the contest. If Clark was aware he could have braced himself or accelerated himself so the ball contest occurs prior to Mackay arriving. Clark, if aware of Mackay, has less ability to accelerate because he has pressure from and Adelaide player on his tail and he still has to win the ball. If Clark was more aware of Mackay he would probably reached for the ball and use spins to avoid the contact from Mackay. Clark if aware could also have reached for the ball and use a don't argue into the chest of Mackay as an option to if capable of doing it but since Mackay lead with the shoulder that would not be possible to use a don't argue in that circumstance in the heat of the moment.

The problem for Mackay, in terms if the AFL want to set precedents and distinguish this situation from others, is the speed at the contest, not the acceleration but the speed at the impact, and the distance covered by Mackay before impact at speed creating the necessary inertia to cause the force to create the injury apart from what Mackay or another player ought to have seen to prevent this scenario result that is the injury. See the trouble for Mackay is Clark was not bounding towards the ball at pace and there where other crows about including a crow next to Clark or close to Clark on his tail so why choose to contest in that way with that impact from afar? Its not like they where two ships in the night passing each other, like on a wing in relative space, and Mackay stopping Clark in that way was the be all and end all of contest options where it was simply between Mackay and Clark at that precise moment to win the ball to compete

I think it would be beneficial if the AFL came out and said the game is not about winning the ball necessarily as an absolute. The game is about competing fairly and winning on the scoreboard and partially using your brain to do so

On its last bounce that ball goes a little more Mackays way and its entirely likely he takes clean possession and is either tackled or passes Clarke with little or no contact and you think he should slow down beforehand?

 

[MickG88]

Mackay had two choices in that situation.

a) Bump

b) Tackle

If Mackay chose to Tackle Clark then I doubt Hunter gets a broken jaw and Mackay doesn't go to the Tribunal.

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

Should have been a free to Clarke. One for holding two for the push and three for the high contact all missed.

Watched the replay a bunch looking for the holding and the push by berry.

 

[ExYarraValley]

Watched the replay a bunch looking for the holding and the push by berry.

First post photo 3.

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

First post photo 3.

I'm not so sure he's even still touching him in that picture if you watch the video and look at his hands in the picture beforehand.

Edit: this comment may be photo 4.

 

[ExYarraValley]

I'm not so sure he's even still touching him in that picture if you watch the video and look at his hands in the picture beforehand.

Edit: this comment may be photo 4.

Umpire seemed to think Howard infringement was worthy of a goal yet this wasnt

 

[Meteoric Rise]

What you're not allowed to do is collect someone in the head, whether you meant to or not.

You better tell Steven Hocking that. Because just drawing on highlighted incidents, it was ok for Dangerfield v Vlastuin to collect someone in the head, Hawking v May and Selwood v Mansell two others where collecting someone in the head wasn’t an issue. Duncan v Hall. Stanley v Grundy. I know there seems to be a theme here, but why is it ok in all those cases to collect someone in the head in recent times, but suddenly it is not ok for MacKay to do so?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Mackay had two choices in that situation.

a) Bump

b) Tackle

If Mackay chose to Tackle Clark then I doubt Hunter gets a broken jaw and Mackay doesn't go to the Tribunal.

MacKay has 3 broad choices: bump, tackle or try to take possession of or affect the direction of the ball. He has 100% chosen the latter.

Clarke had the exact same three choices. Bump, tackle or ball. He also chose the latter.

If Clark makes another choice we can also presume he likely doesn’t get a broken jaw.

Why is the onus on MacKay to make another choice but not Clark?

 

[John Who]

I will be honest, if I was Mackay, from that distance, my spacial awareness would tell me that that contact would happen, or was likely, and I would not have propelled into the contest in that way. I would go towards the ball, drawn towards the ball, but not at that pace and look to probably tackle first or even bump after Clark picks it up if he picks it up in a fluid scenario which can change depending on your approach, what Clark is doing and where the ball is.

Part of not propelling yourself into the contest like that from that run up is to protect yourself. If he went slower initially he might even accelerate into the contest to brace himself for the contest as he gets closer but the overall velocity and impact is less with a contest still effected and Clark negated. One has to consider Clark may get the ball but he still has to dispose of it effectively and in time so Mackay could have provided a contest without the pure velocity from the get go to necessitate a winning the ball contest. Is Mackay a quick decison maker? Maybe not, maybe thats not part of his wiring. Can he be coached to think on his feet better, not commit so early?? Possibly but that is what high end footballers do.

The trouble might be Mackay did not distinguish between a contest and winning the ball contest. Mackay chose the later when he should have been competing to stop Clark disposing the ball effectively, because otherwise the possibility of injury increases. Even if Clark was clean, because remember Clark looked oblivious to Mackay, so its not like Clark was aware of Mackay and accelerating into the contest himself or using one hand to beat any contest from a different angle from Mackay, using spins etc.. its hard for Clark to win the ball before Mackay and dispose of it effectively in time. Clark would have to use advanced techniques to dispose of the ball beating Mackay if he was to do so and we know he was oblivious to Mackay. Clark did not indicate he was aware of Mackay let alone trying to evade him as part of winning the ball in the contest. If Clark was aware he could have braced himself or accelerated himself so the ball contest occurs prior to Mackay arriving. Clark, if aware of Mackay, has less ability to accelerate because he has pressure from and Adelaide player on his tail and he still has to win the ball. If Clark was more aware of Mackay he would probably reached for the ball and use spins to avoid the contact from Mackay. Clark if aware could also have reached for the ball and use a don't argue into the chest of Mackay as an option to if capable of doing it but since Mackay lead with the shoulder that would not be possible to use a don't argue in that circumstance in the heat of the moment.

The problem for Mackay, in terms if the AFL want to set precedents and distinguish this situation from others, is the speed at the contest, not the acceleration but the speed at the impact, and the distance covered by Mackay before impact at speed creating the necessary inertia to cause the force to create the injury apart from what Mackay or another player ought to have seen to prevent this scenario result that is the injury. See the trouble for Mackay is Clark was not bounding towards the ball at pace and there where other crows about including a crow next to Clark or close to Clark on his tail so why choose to contest in that way with that impact from afar? Its not like they where two ships in the night passing each other, like on a wing in relative space, and Mackay stopping Clark in that way was the be all and end all of contest options where it was simply between Mackay and Clark at that precise moment to win the ball to compete

I think it would be beneficial if the AFL came out and said the game is not about winning the ball necessarily as an absolute. The game is about competing fairly and winning on the scoreboard and partially using your brain to do so

If both Mackay and Clark were at the drop of the ball in near identical time, then we can say both had the right to contest the ball. It then doesn’t matter what pace or how far away either player were from the ball when it was up for grabs.

Otherwise we’re effectively saying if you’re closest to the ball, then you can go at maximum pace, and anyone further away has to go at a pace that is slower than the pace-setter. Also it means not only are you needing to have eyes on the ball, but somehow look around and see if others are running at the ball, meanwhile perform a physics calculation of what angle and velocity they’re travelling at..

Which is as confusing as much as it is nonsensical!

 

[John Who]

MacKay has 3 broad choices: bump, tackle or try to take possession of or affect the direction of the ball. He has 100% chosen the latter.

Clarke had the exact same three choices. Bump, tackle or ball. He also chose the latter.

If Clark makes another choice we can also presume he likely doesn’t get a broken jaw.

Why is the onus on MacKay to make another choice but not Clark?

It seems there wasn’t even a choice, because both were fixated on winning the ball. At the point of impact, both were still trying to grab at the ball, and the bump or tackle by either players wasn’t even an option at this stage.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Jason Dunstall is a deadset legend for being so articulate here:

Whateley here asks of Dunstall the question does MacKay owe Clark a duty of care?

He omits to say what the precise duty of care is and how it should be applied. If you were going to apply duty of care principles you would be drawing your bow something like this:

1. MacKay has an obligation to Clark who he could reasonably foresee might be injured by MacKay’s actions, AND
2. MacKay did not meet the reasonable standard of care that is prevalent in the industry, taking into account his experience, practicalities of the situation, the rules under which he is operating, and prevailing values and attitudes amongst other things.
3. MacKay therefore breached his duty of care resulting in Clarke’s injury.

Well, for a start, MacKay was not obviously breaching the rules of football. His actions were well within what could be defined as standard at this time in the industry. The practicalities of the situation called for him to make an instant decision to do the most appropriate football act he could think to do, and this is what he did. So his actions clearly fall within what is a normally accepted standard of care within the industry. So the nonsense about duty of care from Whateley is way wide of the mark.

Later Whateley said words to the effect Mackay is culpable simply because he is moving faster than Clark. My initial thoughts on this particular statement are that it is nonsensical. It is like saying there is a speed limit on players who are contesting the ball. It brings to mind all sorts of crazy ideas of fitting players with speedometers etc. You are allowed to enter a contest no faster than 8 miles per hour and you must enter the contest in a calm and orderly manner. Whateley, fmd. It isn’t a board game.

 

[John Who]

Whateley here asks of Dunstall the question does MacKay owe Clark a duty of care?

He omits to say what the precise duty of care is and how it should be applied. If you were going to apply duty of care principles you would be drawing your bow something like this:

1. MacKay has an obligation to Clark who he could reasonably foresee might be injured by MacKay’s actions, AND
2. MacKay did not meet the reasonable standard of care that is prevalent in the industry, taking into account his experience, practicalities of the situation, the rules under which he is operating, and prevailing values and attitudes amongst other things.
3. MacKay therefore breached his duty of care resulting in Clarke’s injury.

Well, for a start, MacKay was not obviously breaching the rules of football. His actions were well within what could be defined as standard at this time in the industry. The practicalities of the situation called for him to make an instant decision to do the most appropriate football act he could think to do, and this is what he did. So he his actions clearly fall within what is a normally accepted standard of care within the industry. So the nonsense about duty of care from Whateley is way wide of the mark.

Later Whateley said words to the effect Mackay is culpable simply because he is moving faster than Clark. My initial thoughts on this particular statement are that it is nonsensical. It is like saying there is a speed limit on players who are contesting the ball. It brings to mind all sorts of crazy ideas of fitting players with speedometers etc. You are allowed to enter a contest no faster than 8 miles per hour and you must enter the contest in a calm and orderly manner. Whateley, fmd. It isn’t a board game.

Not to mention the fact how would Mackay know what speed Clark was going at? And this is assuming he noticed him at all, which I doubt as he didn’t even brace himself for contact at the instant moment of collision!

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Predictable outcome of not gulity. I think that is the only sensible outcome.

I cannot see how or why Hocking has suddenly plucked this accidental injury case out of his backside to send to the Tribunal. There have been loads of them this year alone. He dismissed all of those.

David King, FMD. Reckoned he was comfortable with MacKay getting weeks, but his case for that just has never made sense in the context of the sport of football.

 

[Bald]

Predictable outcome of not gulity. I think that is the only sensible outcome.

It is - but the fact that it took between 3 and 4 hours suggests this particular situation isn't going to be found not guilty in the future. Whether it's next year or in 5 years. There will be a time.

 

[John Who]

It is - but the fact that it took between 3 and 4 hours suggests this particular situation isn't going to be found not guilty in the future. Whether it's next year or in 5 years. There will be a time.

Whenever that time comes, I hope they decide to make an official rule about it, instead of penalising someone randomly for not breaking any current rules...and then to send him to a tribunal to test whether any rules are broken? FMD

 

[Bald]

Whenever that time comes, I hope they decide to make an official rule about it, instead of penalising someone randomly for not breaking any current rules...and then to send him to a tribunal to test whether any rules are broken? FMD

Oh absolutely man.

 

[Engimal v3]

Mackay had two choices in that situation.

a) Bump

b) Tackle

If Mackay chose to Tackle Clark then I doubt Hunter gets a broken jaw and Mackay doesn't go to the Tribunal.

You act as if Mackay has the convenience of freeze frame like we do. The ball was in play only milliseconds before the bump.
Like others have pointed out, had the ball bounced a different way then we'd be discussing Mackay's broken jaw.

To paint this like Mackay had the choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing is an incorrect simplification of the situation.

 

[John Who]

You act as if Mackay has the convenience of freeze frame like we do. The ball was in play only milliseconds before the bump.
Like others have pointed out, had the ball bounced a different way then we'd be discussing Mackay's broken jaw.

To paint this like Mackay had the choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing is an incorrect simplification of the situation.

Hence the point of this thread. Once Mackay decided to go full-paced at the contest (and every right to), there wasn’t much of a choice thereafter, and the footy Gods had made their call of what was to eventuate with the collision.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Whenever that time comes, I hope they decide to make an official rule about it, instead of penalising someone randomly for not breaking any current rules...and then to send him to a tribunal to test whether any rules are broken? FMD

The sport does need to be played to a set of constructive rules, best combined with clearly layed out principles.

I think it is right for the AFL to seek ways to legislate to protect against potential head, neck and spinal injuries. But you are not going to tell motorists not to proceed at highish speeds on open roads because if they crash they risk serious injuries, nobody would ever get anywhere. Similarly in football the sport will lose a lot of its appeal if played at the motoring equivalent of 30 kilometres her hour.

 

[MickG88]

MacKay has 3 broad choices: bump, tackle or try to take possession of or affect the direction of the ball. He has 100% chosen the latter.

Clarke had the exact same three choices. Bump, tackle or ball. He also chose the latter.

If Clark makes another choice we can also presume he likely doesn’t get a broken jaw.

Why is the onus on MacKay to make another choice but not Clark?

Clark was running after the ball on a straight line, looking at the ball. Mackay from the side of Clark runs in to the contest and chooses to bump Clark.
How is Clark going to bump/tackle Mackay when Mackay was second to the ball?
Plus Berry pushed Clark off balance (according to Mackay lawyer)

 

[MickG88]

You act as if Mackay has the convenience of freeze frame like we do. The ball was in play only milliseconds before the bump.
Like others have pointed out, had the ball bounced a different way then we'd be discussing Mackay's broken jaw.

To paint this like Mackay had the choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing is an incorrect simplification of the situation.

Although ever other footballer does it and doesn't break a kid jaw.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Clark was running after the ball on a straight line, looking at the ball. Mackay from the side of Clark runs in to the contest and chooses to bump Clark.
How is Clark going to bump/tackle Mackay when Mackay was second to the ball?
Plus Berry pushed Clark off balance (according to Mackay lawyer)

Would it be fairer to say both Clark and MacKay were running in a direct line to the ball at a tangent with each other?

Your saying MacKay elected to bump is just not right. I don’t think it is right, the Tribunal didn’t think it was right and I haven’t heard any commentator say he elected to bump, even the ones who were in favour of him being sent to the Tribunal and the ONE who thought he should be suspended.

It was awful for Clark copping that injury and sad for the Saints and their supporters such as yourself, but MacKay was not at fault.