The Hunter headclash

[Scollop]

They showed some really good vision on FoxFooty tonight. They slowed down the lead up to Mackay breaking Clark’s jaw and paused it a few times from different angles. What is evident from the side on view is that Clark is about a metre from the footy and Mackay is about 3 metres from the footy.

This is the best indication of how the 2 players would perceive who is most likely to get their hands on the ball first. The side on view from the camera is from a distance so it’s not distorted or compressed* the way you get when they show vision down the ground.

It was a crap discussion because there’s a few things that are omitted from the analysis of the incident. Especially when you see that side on view where there is clear advantage by at least 2 metres or more for the St Kilda player to get hands on the ball.

1: Mackay knew that Hunter was going to get to the ball first. The ball bounced awkwardly for Hunter so he didn’t grab it as firmly as he’d like. This gave the perception when they paused the moment of impact that perhaps Mackay had a chance to get it first. Wrong!! Mackay cannot guess how the footy will bounce. All he sees is that Clark is closer than he is by 2 m or more.

2: Mackey saw that Sloane was right on Clark’s hammer so it wasn’t like Hunter and he were the only players close to the ball. Mackay had an option to try and corral or tackle, but he chose the bump instead.

3 : Hunter Clark did in fact get both hands on the footy first and had eyes only for the football. When your opponent is closer to the footy, you need to decide how you want to approach...once again... Mackay had an option to try and corral or tackle, but he chose the bump instead.

It’s pretty gutless that the commentators can’t call it for what it is. These guys are competitive beasts that play a brutal game. Mackay saw an opportunity to take out an opponent and he executed perfectly.

*It’s like watching the cricket on the t.v and the pitch from down the ground behind the bowlers arm looks like it’s only about 15m long. It’s the same with t.v coverage of footy games when you think that players are a lot closer to each other than they really are...but once again...it’s more about the camera angle and compressing the vision that creates the illusion

[maverick]

Look at the vision where he looks at Clark before bumping.
That’s where it is clear for mine.
He should get weeks.

[Scollop]

Look at the vision where he looks at Clark before bumping.
That’s where it is clear for mine.
He should get weeks.

Good observation maverick

Robbo on 360 also said something similar

He said that Clark had eyes only for the footy, where as Mackay had eyes on both the footy and on Clark.

Following on from my post regarding Clark having a clear 2m advantage over MacKay, that's where MacKay possibly changes his focus, and the guy in front of him becomes his target

[shanegrambeau]

Look at the vision where he looks at Clark before bumping.
That’s where it is clear for mine.
He should get weeks.

Good observation maverick

Robbo on 360 also said something similar

He said that Clark had eyes only for the footy, where as Mackay had eyes on both the footy and on Clark.

Following on from my post regarding Clark having a clear 2m advantage over MacKay, that's where MacKay possibly changes his focus, and the guy in front of him becomes his target

Agree.
Mackey took him out.

For once I agree with Robbo and King.
And Cornes and Garry Lyon sound like hacks spouting stale beer.

[older saint]

IF we could actually hit a target we aren't having this discussion.

Mackay bent to collect the ball hands out and at the last part of a second turned.
Sure he covered ground to get there but to me that's irrelevant - 1/4 second quicker he gets the ball and rushes past Clark and people here are going why didn't Clark attack the ball harder. Can't have it both ways just because we are on the short end of things.

[Scollop]

IF we could actually hit a target we aren't having this discussion.

Mackay bent to collect the ball hands out and at the last part of a second turned.
Sure he covered ground to get there but to me that's irrelevant - 1/4 second quicker he gets the ball and rushes past Clark and people here are going why didn't Clark attack the ball harder. Can't have it both ways just because we are on the short end of things.

Both of the sections in your post that I've underlined, you are discussing hypotheticals

Stick to the facts. The facts from the side on view of the vision is that Mackay is 2-3 metres further away from the pill and he has to decide what action he's going to take

The facts are that Clark is the only one with his head bent down over the footy and Mackay doesn't have his head looking down

Have you seen the vision on afl.com or on Foxfooty? Do people honestly think that Mackay only decided what he was going to do a tenth of a second before the impact?

I didn't realise footballers had the ability to make decisions like a super computer

The AFL has to decide if he deliberately went the bump or if he went the bump at the last second because he saw Clark already had the ball

Either way...it's a bloody bump isn't? If Adelaide start arguing hypotheticals...

Perhaps the only reason Mackay put his hands out was because he also saw at the moment just before impact that the ball bounced up awkwardly and he may have been a chance to contest the footy.

Perhaps Mackay just lined him up and cleaned him out

My argument is that any footballer running at speed has to make his mind up what he was going to do 3 metres before the impact

[older saint]

IF we could actually hit a target we aren't having this discussion.

Mackay bent to collect the ball hands out and at the last part of a second turned.
Sure he covered ground to get there but to me that's irrelevant - 1/4 second quicker he gets the ball and rushes past Clark and people here are going why didn't Clark attack the ball harder. Can't have it both ways just because we are on the short end of things.

Both of the sections in your post that I've underlined, you are discussing hypotheticals

Stick to the facts. The facts from the side on view of the vision is that Mackay is 2-3 metres further away from the pill and he has to decide what action he's going to take

The facts are that Clark is the only one with his head bent down over the footy and Mackay doesn't have his head looking down

Have you seen the vision on afl.com or on Foxfooty? Do people honestly think that Mackay only decided what he was going to do a tenth of a second before the impact?

The AFL has to decide if he deliberately went the bump or if he went the bump at the last second because he saw Clark already had the ball

Either way...it's a bloody bump isn't? If Adelaide start arguing hypotheticals...

Perhaps the only reason Mackay put his hands out was because he also saw at the moment just before impact that the ball bounced up awkwardly and he may have been a chance to contest the footy.

Perhaps Mackay just lined him up and cleaned him out

My argument is that he'd already made his mind up what he was going to do 3 metres before the impact

If he decided 3 mtrs before impact , and that decision was to bump he wouldn't have put his arms out to collect the ball as that leaves yourself open to injury.
I would argue the AFL don't even know if it is a bump or is it a collision. Watching "on the couch" Roo and Healy even made this point.

That explains the position here, even the "experts" can't agree on this let alone mugs in the stands ( watching TV) as there is no clear precedent and even a rule . The AFL admit as much by sending it to the tribunal without charge and then re wording a position the prosecution will use.

As i said 100 people asked about this (unbias) will probably end up some where near 50/50. The AFL have chickened out and passed it to the tribunal as too hard.
Shattered Clark is hurt and season done ( should be regardless if 6 or 8 weeks) but it is a contact sport nd accidents happen when attacking the ball, unlike some this year and last where the ball was run past or other options were there

[Scollop]

There's a lot of people who need experts to help them decide

I usually go with the vision and my own judgment

Your argument is that it was an accident. I'm saying if you put yourself in Mackay's position and you see that your opponent has 3 meters on you...that's when you'll decide what action you'll take

"My argument is that any footballer running at speed has to make his mind up what he was going to do 3 metres before the impact"

[saynta]

Wasn't an accident AFAIC. The guy lined Hunter up and deliberately hit him high with his shoulder. Far more deliberate than the Long hip hit.

[flack]

If your feet are off the ground and the body is moving sideways how is that not a bump? Deliberate attack on the player, should be off for as long as Clark is.

[bigcarl]

Ok, I’ve calmed down a bit now. I think Mackay’s good record in a long career will help him.

If it was Ben Long the tribunal would assume it was intentional and give him eight weeks.

In this case I think the tribunal should give him the benefit of the doubt and give him three for reckless football.

The key point is that Clark had the football when Mackay’s shoulder impacted the point of his chin (leading to him eating through a straw for the next few weeks).

Granted, he he had only a split second to sum it up but he should have realised he wasn’t going to get there in time.

[samoht]

It takes 0.3 of a sec for the brain to start processing what the eyes see.

There is always this 0.3 sec delay before your brain starts "seeing" what your eyes saw - we are always seeing the world around us as it was 0.3 seconds ago, in effect.
This is how it is.

So, if your reflexes/reactions take another 0.3 secs to kick in ... there's 0.6 secs right there before you've reacted to (and prepared yourself for) an impending collision.

Unless you're Long or Baker ...blessed with super processing speeds and lightning reflexes.

[older saint]

There's a lot of people who need experts to help them decide

I usually go with the vision and my own judgment

Your argument is that it was an accident. I'm saying if you put yourself in Mackay's position and you see that your opponent has 3 meters on you...that's when you'll decide what action you'll take

"My argument is that any footballer running at speed has to make his mind up what he was going to do 3 metres before the impact"

3 metres yet they get to the ball almost together. a loty can chnage in 3 metres and 3 metres away is too far IMO to read someones mind as to their intention as not raised arm or anything like that.
That said Agree to disagree.
My other question is ( yes Hypothetical ) - Reverse it and Hunter hits Mackay and breaks his jaw I bet perhaps not you but many here would be crying his innocence like they did when Long ran past the ball last year, just because of the jumper that is worn.
We all love the club but the rose coloured glasses

[perfectionist]

Like it or not, the bump is going to have to go. Too many concussions and fractures happen this way. Too many will simply not play the game if it continues unabated.

[IluvHarvey]

A few years ago I would be up in arms if he was suspended.
The world has changed and head injuries in sport is a major focus worldwide and for this he has to go.

[Scollop]

A few years ago who would have thought you'd be sinbinned for minor head high hits in 'rugbah' league

[SaintDippa]

If he gets off is the precedent now set that you can attack the contest at speed and are not responsible for any injuries so long as your near the footy? This is exactly what the AFL have been looking to remove with "no duty of care" outcomes for many previous incidents that have resulted in weeks.
Bottom line. Player attacked the contest, last second turned into his opponent and broke his jaw. 3 weeks min. Complain all you want, can't be anything else in today's sanitised game.

[Yorkeys]

I find it hard to understand all the commentator angst designed to help Mackay. His shoulder hit Clark in the head and his feet were off the ground. Why are these people trying to read minds and make suppositions about MacKay's good intentions. 6 weeks.

[silverhalo]

If he gets off is the precedent now set that you can attack the contest at speed and are not responsible for any injuries so long as your near the footy? This is exactly what the AFL have been looking to remove with "no duty of care" outcomes for many previous incidents that have resulted in weeks.
Bottom line. Player attacked the contest, last second turned into his opponent and broke his jaw. 3 weeks min. Complain all you want, can't be anything else in today's sanitised game.

Post of the day, absolutely spot on........there needs to be a lengthy sanction or it will basically be undoing all of the work that the AFL has put in trying to minimise head injuries. Need to send the message that if you are prepared to cannon into your opponent with that sort of ferocity, you're taking a huge gamble. If he walks away from it, you may be lucky, but if he ends up like poor Hunter Clark, you're in trouble.

Some may not like the way the game is being sanitised but it has to be that way with the knowledge we now have around TBI/CTE

[one point]

I find it hard to understand all the commentator angst designed to help Mackay. His shoulder hit Clark in the head and his feet were off the ground. Why are these people trying to read minds and make suppositions about MacKay's good intentions. 6 weeks.

Seems to fit the definition of a ‘charge’.

[saintsRrising]

I find it hard to understand all the commentator angst designed to help Mackay. His shoulder hit Clark in the head and his feet were off the ground. Why are these people trying to read minds and make suppositions about MacKay's good intentions. 6 weeks.

If MacKay was actually intending go for the ball he would not have jumped off the ground nor turned sideways.

He went for the man and in doing so he chose not all to tackle.

[Ape_Man]

I am gutted for Clark, but I don't think this incident should end in suspension.

I think the vision shows Mackay didn't jump off the ground. Looks like the impact lifted him off his feet. He was above Clark at impact and that is what brought his feet off the ground.

There are many little moments in the half a second that can be analysed, but I think it was purely incidental. Both players were attacking the ball.

Anyway, I reckon this particular incident could happen in nearly any ball sport. Soccer, basketball, netball, lacross, etc..

[Scollop]

There's a few people trying to simplify things and the problem here is that it's not a simple issue

It has ramifications for the future of the game.

A player decides his action when he is approaching a contest. The AFL is trying to change player behaviour and ensure that there is a duty of care for the bloke who is second to a contest

If you have not viewed the side on vision and if you cannot clearly see that Clark has a 2 m advantage on Mackay then you shouldn't be commenting...imo

[ace]

One thing that WILL come out of this is that a future identical incident will receive a substantial suspension.
The AFL's prosecution case is telling the tribunal you either find him guilty under existing rules or the rules will be changed so that it becomes guilty in future.
The tribunal may excuse Mackay's late decision to bump this time under the excuse of contesting the ball but this will be the last time.
Mothers see incidents like this and say, "I don't want my son playing that dangerous sport".
There is nothing "manly" or tough in breaking someone else's jaw.

[bigcarl]

The AFL is trying to change player behaviour and ensure that there is a duty of care for the bloke who is second to a contest

The key point.