The Hunter headclash

[Jacks Back]

An accidental head clash would be when both players arrive at their destination at the same time. This did not happen here. Clark got to the ball first, therefore Mackay then had a duty of care not to hit Clark in the head (because the head is protected, don't you know). As Mackay then chose to bump, and not to tackle, his duty of care was not to hit Clark in the head. Mackay's shoulder then makes contact with Clark's head. He, therefore, should have been found guilty and got his own right whack.

I think the tribunal gave the AFL a big piss off from trying to determine the outcome of a hearing before it happens rather than the tribunal facing the above facts of the case.

[Gershwin]

An accidental head clash would be when both players arrive at their destination at the same time. This did not happen here. Clark got to the ball first, therefore Mackay then had a duty of care not to hit Clark in the head (because the head is protected, don't you know). As Mackay then chose to bump, and not to tackle, his duty of care was not to hit Clark in the head. Mackay's shoulder then makes contact with Clark's head. He, therefore, should have been found guilty and got his own right whack.

I think the tribunal gave the AFL a big piss off from trying to determine the outcome of a hearing before it happens rather than the tribunal facing the above facts of the case.

It wasn’t a bump. A bump is when a player tucks in his arm and leads with his shoulder. It was a clash of bodies where the shoulder of one player accidentally made contact with the face of the other. Big difference.

[CarlD]

The AFL has everyone on the same page ... again. I'm sure I'll understand the logic when the AFL explain why player X gets 4 weeks for a similar incident.

[Yorkeys]

The Law is an Ass.

The AFL rapidly losing credibility under current regime.

MRO and tribunal system a sad incompetent bizantine joke.

I'd like to see written judgements explaining how Mackay had no culpability. The decision seems to imply all the fault was Hunter's. Even in common law a person is responsible for their decisions if it causes harm, no matter how well intentioned or ignorance based, yes?

Hunter/Saints may take civil action, I hope.

[Yorkeys]

The Law is an Ass.

The AFL rapidly losing credibility under current regime.

MRO and tribunal system a sad incompetent byzantine joke.

I'd like to see written judgements explaining how Mackay had no culpability. The decision seems to imply all the fault was Hunter's. Even in common law a person is responsible for their decisions if it causes harm, no matter how well intentioned or ignorance based, yes?

Hunter/Saints may take civil action, I hope.

[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

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

You’re probably right.

The MRO and the AFL botched this from the start

The excuse is; “as long as you are contesting the footy, it’s ok to turn your body to protect yourself”. Doesn’t matter if you happen to protect yourself with your shoulder hitting someone’s jaw or your hip getting them flush on the scone.

What they are really saying is they don’t want to stop players from getting hit in the head or getting concussion or breaking their jaw if it is going to completely eliminate collisions because they enjoy seeing collisions. CTE is ignored because these dinosaurs want to witness ‘good ol’ fashion footy’ and all the bs about the head is sacrosanct becomes obsolete.

I reckon some of them; if you asked them in private…might tell you they enjoy UFC and bare knuckle fights….or at the very least, they love their boxing. They just don’t care if someone breaks their neck or suffers severe brain trauma as far as this game is concerned.

We’ve seen how inconsistent the AFL have been on the major issue of the bump and incidents of brain trauma and concussions. They’ve flip flopped over the last five years, and meanwhile real evidence is emerging regarding damage caused to players in the short term and the long term. We lost one of our beloved Saints and he suffered for years probably due to his repeated head knocks …ffs everyone…wake up!!!

I think part of the biggest issue with changing the mindset of the general public is first changing the mindset of the power brokers and AFL headquarters.

[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.

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.

He was wearimg Red White and Black.

[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 obviously 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.

That's not what I saw. The crow lined him up from metres away and turned so that his shoulder contacted Hunter's jaw. Hunter actually had the ball in his hands. The club is piss weak for not jumping up and down. Unfortunately they have a history of bending over to Headquarters.

[SaintPav]

Two Words

Useless lawyers

Two other words.

Swimming pool

You know the joke.

There really is an oversupply of lawyers in the west

[SaintPav]

Can we appeal?

Take it to the Privy.

Hang the bastard.

[SaintPav]

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 obviously 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.

That's not what I saw. The crow lined him up from metres away and turned so that his shoulder contacted Hunter's jaw. Hunter actually had the ball in his hands. The club is piss weak for not jumping up and down. Unfortunately they have a history of bending over to Headquarters.

Correct.

It’s all about how they want to interpret it.

Not nice.

[SaintPav]

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.

He was wearimg Red White and Black.

Correct.

[takeaway]

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.

You’re probably right.

The MRO and the AFL botched this from the start

The excuse is; “as long as you are contesting the footy, it’s ok to turn your body to protect yourself”. Doesn’t matter if you happen to protect yourself with your shoulder hitting someone’s jaw or your hip getting them flush on the scone.

What they are really saying is they don’t want to stop players from getting hit in the head or getting concussion or breaking their jaw if it is going to completely eliminate collisions because they enjoy seeing collisions. CTE is ignored because these dinosaurs want to witness ‘good ol’ fashion footy’ and all the bs about the head is sacrosanct becomes obsolete.

I reckon some of them; if you asked them in private…might tell you they enjoy UFC and bare knuckle fights….or at the very least, they love their boxing. They just don’t care if someone breaks their neck or suffers severe brain trauma as far as this game is concerned.

We’ve seen how inconsistent the AFL have been on the major issue of the bump and incidents of brain trauma and concussions. They’ve flip flopped over the last five years, and meanwhile real evidence is emerging regarding damage caused to players in the short term and the long term. We lost one of our beloved Saints and he suffered for years probably due to his repeated head knocks …ffs everyone…wake up!!!

I think part of the biggest issue with changing the mindset of the general public is first changing the mindset of the power brokers and AFL headquarters.

I think the opposite. Under existing rules, the tribunal's decision to let Mackay off was correct imo, and the AFL probably knew this.

However, the events that took place which led to the incident ending up at the tribunal indicates to me that the AFL does NOT want these type of incidents where the head is threatened to be able to continue without sanction. He got off, but the AFL by its action has sent a message, and even though it was deemed within the rules I am sure clubs have noted this and will start to educate players accordingly, starting now.

Look out for a rule change in the near future.

[The_Dud]

Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.

[saint64]

AS someone who hasn't been following any of the media comment opinion re this incident, I am genuinely shocked at this result. It flies in the face of all the AFL and medical experts have been saying over the last decade about needing to protect the head. Mackay had a choice and he chose to bump. He has to bear the consequences for that. Like others on here I am wondering whether Hunter has a potential future civil claim against Mackay and the AFL.

[Mr Magic]

AS someone who hasn't been following any of the media comment opinion re this incident, I am genuinely shocked at this result. It flies in the face of all the AFL and medical experts have been saying over the last decade about needing to protect the head. Mackay had a choice and he chose to bump. He has to bear the consequences for that. Like others on here I am wondering whether Hunter has a potential future civil claim against Mackay and the AFL.

Surely the Tribunal has ruled that it was 'legal' according to the AFL rules so I'm not sure how he could possibly even
mount a case?

I'm having a deja vu moment, even though the incidents are not the same, the results seem to be :-
Hunter Clark and David McKay
Kosi and Giansirracusa

Both times our players' heads were cannoned into
Both times the opposition player was not guilty of anything?

[magnifisaint]

About time we just won games and forgot about focusing on the tribunal. It's just a sideshow at the moment.

[bigcarl]

About time we just won games and forgot about focusing on the tribunal. It's just a sideshow at the moment.

Yep, Mackay’s exemplary record over many seasons saved him from a lengthy spell. We move on.

In some better news than what we’ve been getting, Marshall may be right for next week

[Scollop]

Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.

Mackay may not be a thug, but let’s look at the situation in the game…

Adelaide are desperate for some leadership and for their senior players to stop St Kilda’s momentum. They hadn’t scored and we were 5-5 or 5-6 before this incident.

Let’s also look ar his personal situation where he may be one of the senior players that the club tries to delist at years end with the Crows clearly in rebuild mode.

You can argue all sorts of intent and motivation and someone doesn’t have to be a thug to cause injury to an opponent in a contest. It’s been happening for 100 years. One of the best ways to knock someone out, is with a legal shirtfront.

In the hearing they asked him what his intent was. I mean seriously, how fuckn pointless! Mackay wasn’t going to say I tried to shirtfront Hunter Clark. They didn’t need to start getting into that. All they had to do was look at the side on vision of 2 players approaching the footy. Clark is 1 m from the ball and Mackay is approx 3.5 from the ball.

When you have a footy in dispute and player A has the advantage by 2 metres or more, then the probability of player B winning that footy are very, very, very low. That is all they needed to highlight. Not asking him directly if he was ‘going for the ball’

All the other close in shots and all the other angles of the 2 players before the collision are useless. The only relevant picture is the one where player A is looking straight down at the ball, while player B is approaching more than 2 m away and his eyes are fixed on player A. Player A was always going to get the footy first.

The only reason player A didn’t have a firm grip on ball at least half a second before player B arrived was because of the awkward bounce. Player B had to make a decision prior to the collision. He needed to decide how to dislodge the ball from player A and like any good footballer he also has an eye on the ball in case player A fumbles or taps the footy on instead of grabbing it.

Whether he was initially looking to tackle and he changed his mind or whether he was always just interested in a shirtfront is also irrelevant. He was never going to win the footy

All they had to do was show a side on picture to Mackay where he is 2.5 metres further away from the pill than Clark. Ask him to look at it. Ask him who he thought more likely to get the ball first. Ask him htf he thought he was going to contest the footy when he was no where near it

[Scollop]

I think the opposite. Under existing rules, the tribunal's decision to let Mackay off was correct imo, and the AFL probably knew this.

Too simplistic. You’re listening to what the journos and the clubs are telling you. I just don’t think the advocate approached the hearing with enough ammunition or the correct strategy to nail the prick

I agree with everything else you said about rule changes going forward. The major stuff up was that Michael Christian is incompetent and the AFL didn’t handle this properly from the start. I’m devastated for Clark. I hope the karma bus gets Mackay in the end…at some stage.

[Moods]

Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.

Completely agree with everything here. It's nice to agree sometimes don't you think Dud?

[The_Dud]

Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.

Mackay may not be a thug, but let’s look at the situation in the game…

Adelaide are desperate for some leadership and for their senior players to stop St Kilda’s momentum. They hadn’t scored and we were 5-5 or 5-6 before this incident.

Let’s also look ar his personal situation where he may be one of the senior players that the club tries to delist at years end with the Crows clearly in rebuild mode.

You can argue all sorts of intent and motivation and someone doesn’t have to be a thug to cause injury to an opponent in a contest. It’s been happening for 100 years. One of the best ways to knock someone out, is with a legal shirtfront.

In the hearing they asked him what his intent was. I mean seriously, how fuckn pointless! Mackay wasn’t going to say I tried to shirtfront Hunter Clark. They didn’t need to start getting into that. All they had to do was look at the side on vision of 2 players approaching the footy. Clark is 1 m from the ball and Mackay is approx 3.5 from the ball.

When you have a footy in dispute and player A has the advantage by 2 metres or more, then the probability of player B winning that footy are very, very, very low. That is all they needed to highlight. Not asking him directly if he was ‘going for the ball’

All the other close in shots and all the other angles of the 2 players before the collision are useless. The only relevant picture is the one where player A is looking straight down at the ball, while player B is approaching more than 2 m away and his eyes are fixed on player A. Player A was always going to get the footy first.

The only reason player A didn’t have a firm grip on ball at least half a second before player B arrived was because of the awkward bounce. Player B had to make a decision prior to the collision. He needed to decide how to dislodge the ball from player A and like any good footballer he also has an eye on the ball in case player A fumbles or taps the footy on instead of grabbing it.

Whether he was initially looking to tackle and he changed his mind or whether he was always just interested in a shirtfront is also irrelevant. He was never going to win the footy

All they had to do was show a side on picture to Mackay where he is 2.5 metres further away from the pill than Clark. Ask him to look at it. Ask him who he thought more likely to get the ball first. Ask him htf he thought he was going to contest the footy when he was no where near it

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about your measurements. When Clark first touches the ball Mackay is literally about to touch it himself.

Mackay has his hands out reaching for the ball, if you're trying to shirtfront (or just bump) someone you would have your arm tucked bracing for the impact.

It looks like Clark was just unlucky he was crouched down slightly further than Mackay which caused the top of his shoulder to hit him in the jaw.

[samoht]

Clark was unlucky that Mackay could afford to go flat out and be a wrecking-ball with impunity, banking on the fact that he had a clean record.

I wonder if his "clean record" has had a reset now, at least.

[Scollop]

Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.

Mackay may not be a thug, but let’s look at the situation in the game…

Adelaide are desperate for some leadership and for their senior players to stop St Kilda’s momentum. They hadn’t scored and we were 5-5 or 5-6 before this incident.

Let’s also look ar his personal situation where he may be one of the senior players that the club tries to delist at years end with the Crows clearly in rebuild mode.

You can argue all sorts of intent and motivation and someone doesn’t have to be a thug to cause injury to an opponent in a contest. It’s been happening for 100 years. One of the best ways to knock someone out, is with a legal shirtfront.

In the hearing they asked him what his intent was. I mean seriously, how fuckn pointless! Mackay wasn’t going to say I tried to shirtfront Hunter Clark. They didn’t need to start getting into that. All they had to do was look at the side on vision of 2 players approaching the footy. Clark is 1 m from the ball and Mackay is approx 3.5 from the ball.

When you have a footy in dispute and player A has the advantage by 2 metres or more, then the probability of player B winning that footy are very, very, very low. That is all they needed to highlight. Not asking him directly if he was ‘going for the ball’

All the other close in shots and all the other angles of the 2 players before the collision are useless. The only relevant picture is the one where player A is looking straight down at the ball, while player B is approaching more than 2 m away and his eyes are fixed on player A. Player A was always going to get the footy first.

The only reason player A didn’t have a firm grip on ball at least half a second before player B arrived was because of the awkward bounce. Player B had to make a decision prior to the collision. He needed to decide how to dislodge the ball from player A and like any good footballer he also has an eye on the ball in case player A fumbles or taps the footy on instead of grabbing it.

Whether he was initially looking to tackle and he changed his mind or whether he was always just interested in a shirtfront is also irrelevant. He was never going to win the footy

All they had to do was show a side on picture to Mackay where he is 2.5 metres further away from the pill than Clark. Ask him to look at it. Ask him who he thought more likely to get the ball first. Ask him htf he thought he was going to contest the footy when he was no where near it

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about your measurements. When Clark first touches the ball Mackay is literally about to touch it himself.

Mackay has his hands out reaching for the ball, if you're trying to shirtfront (or just bump) someone you would have your arm tucked bracing for the impact.

It looks like Clark was just unlucky he was crouched down slightly further than Mackay which caused the top of his shoulder to hit him in the jaw.

Most people have not bothered to pause the video and look at the important side on shot that is not distorted or compressed.

How far do you think athletes like footballers travel in half a second? The team representing the AFL needed to explain this and explain how long it takes for the brain to decide what to do and the reaction time for Mackay's muscles to act on the brain's instructions

Maybe most people don't have the ability to freeze frame the action and create a snapshot photo.

People seem to think that MacKay decided what to do AT the point of impact. That is absurd and scientifically not possible

[B.M]

I think he should have gone, but it was trial by media

And all the pundits saw him as innocent so it went his way

He clearly got him high, if he was playing the ball, he would have been a lot lower…. Check the vision, the reason he didn’t possession is because he wasn’t low enough, and he turned his body to brace for contact (in other words bump)

Hunter was wide open, because he was chasing the ball which was moving in the same direction as he was running so he couldn’t turn his body to protect himself, he was in a very vulnerable position and was taken out…. If it wasn’t high, it would have been the perfect shirtfront… but he got him high… therefore he should have got weeks

Yes he was contesting the ball, but doing so by bracing and taking the contact (bumping) and didn’t get low enough.

The ball was knee high, why was McKay off the ground when trying to possess it?
Because he was trying to make physical contact, which is fine… as long as you don’t get them in the head!!!