The Hunter headclash

[bigcarl]

We ought to give Ben Long carte blanche to do similar next week.

[Banger9798]

Only against SKFC

[saynta]

Unfucking believably.

If Long broke Dusty Martin's jam in identical circumstances, he would have got 10 weeks.

Stop being a sook. Fair decision.

Why do you feel the need to be offensive?
Your view is obviosly not mine and I sat on.similar tribunals for years , so I can claim some expertise.

[Saintly66]

Haha Jesus, waiting for the day one of our boys does this and gets slaughtered at the tribunal.

[saint64]

Disgusting outcome. Players will have to take matters into their own hands in the future because they can expect no protection from the tribunal.

[Banger9798]

Haha Jesus, waiting for the day one of our boys does this and gets slaughtered at the tribunal.

Guaranteed it will happen next round we play

And there will be some minuscule difference that will convict him

[saynta]

Haha Jesus, waiting for the day one of our boys does this and gets slaughtered at the tribunal.

Guaranteed it will happen next round we play

And there will be some minuscule difference that will convict him

I agree. Look what happened to Ben and that was a f****** accident...a travesty of justice. But we are St Kilda so it's what we have come to expect Doen't mean acceptance though.

[saynta]

I.was also upset,annoyed, disappointed and throughly pissed off that no saints player.remonstrated with.the crow lice after the incident and in.fact never gave a yelp for the rest.of the match

[bigcarl]

It’s only St Kilda

[bangaulegend]

Well lets hope they fly the flag for Hunter in our next game better than they did in the actual game. I hope the players can at least see that Hunter paid the ultimate price for his commitment so lets see a response from the group as a whole to show we do stand for something

[Ghost Like]

Well lets hope they fly the flag for Hunter in our next game better than they did in the actual game. I hope the players can at least see that Hunter paid the ultimate price for his commitment so lets see a response from the group as a whole to show we do stand for something

Not quite sure it was the ultimate price. Sadly any response the players may display next week will not be about Clark it will be more about self preservation and their own (future) reputations.

[Scollop]

Two Words

Useless lawyers

[Banger9798]

Haha Jesus, waiting for the day one of our boys does this and gets slaughtered at the tribunal.

Guaranteed it will happen next round we play

And there will be some minuscule difference that will convict him

I agree. Look what happened to Ben and that was a f****** accident...a travesty of justice. But we are St Kilda so it's what we have come to expect Doen't mean acceptance though.

I still don't understand how Long got weeks for that incident when he had his hands on the footy and turned his hip and the opposition player ran into it.

[Scollop]

The AFL legal team are a bunch of hacks

They were told that a conviction was the AFL preferred option and they couldn't deliver

Waste of time, good for nothing hacks who should seriously look to change professions

[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

Why couldn't the useless hack lawyers see what was in front of them?

What is so difficult to understand that the human brain makes a decision 2-3 metres before the actual point of impact

The only reason that some nuffies believe Mackay had a chance to win the footy was because of the awkward bounce

[bangaulegend]

Well lets hope they fly the flag for Hunter in our next game better than they did in the actual game. I hope the players can at least see that Hunter paid the ultimate price for his commitment so lets see a response from the group as a whole to show we do stand for something

Not quite sure it was the ultimate price. Sadly any response the players may display next week will not be about Clark it will be more about self preservation and their own (future) reputations.

n
Well the ultimate price was getting his jaw smashed & I would hope as I said the club as a whole might grow some balls & actually show we stand for something not just a f---ing wall flower accepting that's our lot & we don't deserve any better, well IMO we f--ing do & they need to show not just to our supporters but for their own self esteem a lot more passion for the rest of the year & give us & them a reason to believe we have a future

[suss]

The AFL legal team are a bunch of hacks

They were told that a conviction was the AFL preferred option and they couldn't deliver

Waste of time, good for nothing hacks who should seriously look to change professions

Jeff Gleeson is the best in the business. If he couldn't get it done then no-one could.

[WellardSaint]

Is that thug Lynch injured or is he able to play for the Tigers?
Last year, he belted Paton, in 10 days he will seriously injure Coff, Long, Wilkie, anyone who gets in front of him.

Hardwick the Adulterer won't tell his guys to smash us (explicitly) but he will imply it.
He'll tell em if they're second to the ball, go the man with ferocity as it's been given the tick of approval.

And if a Tiger is tackled, just whack the Sainter with 100% intent, AFL said the jaw is fair game

[SaintDippa]

My take.
Prior to Saturday night players had a "duty of care" when tackling or bumping to not make head contact. I'd suggest that majority of players understood and did show "care".
Now after tonight players can amp up aggression at 50:50 contests without regard to the opponent's safety. Tonight will be replayed at many a hearing to come. Dangerous precedent has been set.

[Gershwin]

Unfucking believably.

If Long broke Dusty Martin's jam in identical circumstances, he would have got 10 weeks.

Stop being a sook. Fair decision.

Why do you feel the need to be offensive?
Your view is obviosly not mine and I sat on.similar tribunals for years , so I can claim some expertise.

Then may I humbly say the AFL tribunal got it right IMO. He didn’t line Hunter up, he was going for the ball and at the last split second prepared for the collision better than Hunter. It was nobody’s fault so we accept that it was bad luck and move on without behaving like the sooks that we have become. ‘They pick on us’, ‘it only happens to St Kilda’ etc. etc. No it doesn’t. The club isn’t complaining.

[1965 Saint]

Unfucking believably.

If Long broke Dusty Martin's jam in identical circumstances, he would have got 10 weeks.

Stop being a sook. Fair decision.

Why do you feel the need to be offensive?
Your view is obviosly not mine and I sat on.similar tribunals for years , so I can claim some expertise.

Then may I humbly say the AFL tribunal got it right IMO. He didn’t line Hunter up, he was going for the ball and at the last split second prepared for the collision better than Hunter. It was nobody’s fault so we accept that it was bad luck and move on without behaving like the sooks that we have become. ‘They pick on us’, ‘it only happens to St Kilda’ etc. etc. No it doesn’t. The club isn’t complaining.

The club isn’t complaining because it’s run by AFL plants. If Bassett doesn’t do something they will oversee our demise.

[Jacks Back]

Let's just bend over one more time SAINTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bigcarl]

My take.
Prior to Saturday night players had a "duty of care" when tackling or bumping to not make head contact. I'd suggest that majority of players understood and did show "care".
Now after tonight players can amp up aggression at 50:50 contests without regard to the opponent's safety. Tonight will be replayed at many a hearing to come. Dangerous precedent has been set.

Couldn’t agree more. Heads and jaws will not be protected.

[WellardSaint]

It's funny how the narrative around tackling has shifted in the last few years.
A really vigorous tackle that hurt an opponent, in the past, 'used' to be celebrated as 'heroic' and other superlatives.
Then there was a tackle by Koby Stevens in 2017 or 2018, on a Giant, which earned a free for Koby but got referred to the MRO or tribunal and he got pinged.

So tacklers have to show duty of care.
This bump is different to a tackle, but why is duty of care missing?
A guy having arms pinned in a tackle, cannot protect hinself.
Clark gathering the ball- he's at a disadvantage regarding self-protection as he's open, his arms are busy, while the guy bracing for impact is able to hold his own arms tight to protect his own ribs etc.

[Ape_Man]

I think it is the right decision. It all happened so fast and vision shows that Mackay turned at the last second and only left the ground at impact.

It could happen in nearly every field sport.

Mackay was what, about 5 metres away when he may have realised he might not get the ball.

A Olympic marathon runner averages 20.1 kms/hour and covers 5 metres in 1 second.

Mackay was probably going faster than that.

But if we assume he was running at marathon speed and he has normal human reaction time of .25 seconds then he was 3 metres away when anything he decided to do would start happening.

Probably still doing 20 kms/hour, and covering 5 metres a second, he has 0.6 of a second to impact.

Now he was probably going faster that 20 kms/hour and Clark was moving towards him, so all these times would be reduced. Significantly.

I just don't see how it can be expected for Mackay to not hit the contest hard unless he doesn't attack the ball in the first place.

If he did slow down, then Clark could be the one at terminal velocity and be the one that causes damage.