The Hunter headclash

[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.

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

I froze it at the point Clark first touches the ball, and at that same time Mackay’s arms are centimetres from, if not already touching, Clark’s arms. His feet are also still on the ground.

[Scollop]

You still don't get it

There was an awkward bounce where Hunter didn't immediately get both hands on footy which creates the perception (half a second later when you're pausing it) that Mackay is a chance to contest

Half a second before the impact, Clark has head over the ball and it's less than a metre in front of him. MacKay is 2.5m further away (at least) from the footy.

[takeaway]

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.

I haven't listened to any journos or clubs, just expressing my view, which was confirmed by the tribunal. I think anyway the AFL got what it wanted - clubs are now fully aware of the AFL view on those type of incidents, and need to educate players accordingly. Be interested to see if there are any similar incidents in the next few weeks.

[The_Dud]

You still don't get it

There was an awkward bounce where Hunter didn't immediately get both hands on footy which creates the perception (half a second later when you're pausing it) that Mackay is a chance to contest

Half a second before the impact, Clark has head over the ball and it's less than a metre in front of him. MacKay is 2.5m further away (at least) from the footy.

I don’t get what the significance of their relative distances to the ball is at an arbitrary point in time?

They both get to the ball at the same time, maybe Clark a tenth of a second earlier, he’s just unlucky Mackay was slightly more upright than him.

Kind of like how Harry Taylor was unlucky when Michael Gardiner elbowed him in the head back in 09, are we going to get to a point where that’s illegal?

[Devilhead]

Going for the ball or not where is the duty of care of not hitting someone in the head and breaking their jaw ending their season?

[saint6709]

The head is meant to be protected by rules -a broken jaw deserves to have weeks of suspension - I’m sure I’m slightly biased as a Saints fan but I can’t help but think that If Ben Long had been the guy who made that bump he would have got somewhere between 2-6 weeks suspension - footy fans I think support rules to protect the ball player - but at the end of the day fans just want to feel like there is consistency with how these kind of issues are dealt with

[bangaulegend]

The head is meant to be protected by rules -a broken jaw deserves to have weeks of suspension - I’m sure I’m slightly biased as a Saints fan but I can’t help but think that If Ben Long had been the guy who made that bump he would have got somewhere between 2-6 weeks suspension - footy fans I think support rules to protect the ball player - but at the end of the day fans just want to feel like there is consistency with how these kind of issues are dealt with

Could not have said it better myself

[Josh Battle]

You still don't get it

There was an awkward bounce where Hunter didn't immediately get both hands on footy which creates the perception (half a second later when you're pausing it) that Mackay is a chance to contest

Half a second before the impact, Clark has head over the ball and it's less than a metre in front of him. MacKay is 2.5m further away (at least) from the footy.

I don’t get what the significance of their relative distances to the ball is at an arbitrary point in time?

They both get to the ball at the same time, maybe Clark a tenth of a second earlier, he’s just unlucky Mackay was slightly more upright than him.

Kind of like how Harry Taylor was unlucky when Michael Gardiner elbowed him in the head back in 09, are we going to get to a point where that’s illegal?

The significance of their relative distances to the ball (half a second before impact) is because this is the exact point in time that Mackay had to decide what his actions were going to be. The awkward bounce created the illusion that they were an equal chance to get hands on ball half a second before impact. Half a second before impact Mackay is probably 4 m away from the pill and Clark is 1.5 m from the pill. No reasonable person would say that Mackay is going to get hands on the ball first.

You are saying they both get to the ball at basically the same time, and I concede that this is correct, however…How does the brain operate for a sportsman moving at speed? What I’m trying to say is that it is physically impossible and scientifically not possible for Mackay to have decided his actions at the point of contact. His brain had sent the signal 0.3 seconds earlier.

As stated countless times in earlier posts, Mackay can see what’s coming 0.3 seconds before the collision and he was more than 2 m further away from than pill (than Clark was) at that point.

As far as Taylor/Gardiner is concerned, you’re describing 2 totally different incidents. In the Clark/Mackay collision, I think most people would understand that Mackay has control of his actions. Mackay can reasonably predict with a high degree of probability what is coming up and in the other incident it is totally unpredictable for both players.

What does ‘duty of care’ actually mean? It shouldn’t be an empty phrase or a fluffy notion without any practical sense! Mackay was in control of the situation. He is approaching a player who he knows will get hands on footy first. At the speed Mackay was travelling he had a duty of care to ensure that he did not get his head or his arms or the tip of his shoulder anywhere near Clark’s head.

[ace]

I am going protest by refusing to go to football this weekend, even though I am certain the Saints will not lose.
Take that AFL.

[Ghost Like]

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.

I doubt it. Not Guilty verdicts do not act as priors, nor should they.

[Ghost Like]

The head is meant to be protected by rules -a broken jaw deserves to have weeks of suspension - I’m sure I’m slightly biased as a Saints fan but I can’t help but think that If Ben Long had been the guy who made that bump he would have got somewhere between 2-6 weeks suspension - footy fans I think support rules to protect the ball player - but at the end of the day fans just want to feel like there is consistency with how these kind of issues are dealt with

Injuries from contests need to be viewed in their own context. The injury should not dictate the rule. For example, a player running with the flight v players preparing to mark the ball as it comes towards them. Players should not be expected to pull out of a contest because someone is running the wrong way.

Also players are given cars for kneeing players in the head as they take mark of the year.

Each incident on its merit. Jumper punches should be a one week ban as the starting point of that offence. Other punches can then be graded on intent and damage done.

[Scollop]

Just on a different tact here…someone mentioned very early in this thread that the title/subject was totally wrong

It wasn’t a headclash was it?

Has anyone thought why many people initially perceived it to be a headclash?

Just watching Foxfooty and they are showing the incident again for the 100th time.

I think the acting and the laying on the ground by Mackay for a few seconds after he hit Clark was very cunning from him. He even grabs at his head and grimaces to pretend that he’d been impacted or hit on his head.

That’s the oldest trick in the book. Line someone up and go through them and then lie on the turf and make it out that you are equally as hurt as your target. Good luck to him. I hope the karma-bus doesn’t miss him before his playing days are over

Why wouldn’t most people think it was a headclash? That’s what Mackay wanted us to think

It’s great for the broadcasters because who doesn’t love the big collisions in contact sport. They’re not going to show what happened before the collision or where Mackay was 4 metres before the impact. They’re not going to point out information that is relevant to the actual tribunal case.

It’s not the broadcasters job to adjudicate or assess guilt, but they have shown the point of impact so many times that I believe it possibly influences public opinion and paints a different story to the snapshot of the distance between Mackay and the footy, half a second before impact...versus where Clark is, half a second before impact.

[saynta]

Just on a different tact here…someone mentioned very early in this thread that the title/subject was totally wrong

It wasn’t a headclash was it?

Has anyone thought why many people initially perceived it to be a headclash?

Just watching Foxfooty and they are showing the incident again for the 100th time.

I think the acting and the laying on the ground by Mackay for a few seconds after he hit Clark was very cunning from him. He even grabs at his head and grimaces to pretend that he’d been impacted or hit on his head.

That’s the oldest trick in the book. Line someone up and go through them and then lie on the turf and make it out that you are equally as hurt as your target. Good luck to him. I hope the karma-bus doesn’t miss him before his playing days are over

Why wouldn’t most people think it was a headclash? That’s what Mackay wanted us to think

It’s great for the broadcasters because who doesn’t love the big collisions in contact sport. They’re not going to show what happened before the collision or where Mackay was 4 metres before the impact. They’re not going to point out information that is relevant to the actual tribunal case.

It’s not the broadcasters job to adjudicate or assess guilt, but they have shown the point of impact so many times that I believe it possibly influences public opinion and paints a different story to the snapshot of the distance between Mackay and the footy, half a second before impact...versus where Clark is, half a second before impact.

Good post and fair comments.

[Scollop]

Thanks saynta

[The_Dud]

Still not sure why you’re so hung up on the distances before the impact. They reached the ball at the same time, that’s the only distance that matters.

Plus the ball was travelling away from Clark, so again making their relevant distances a few seconds before the incident irrelevant.

[Scollop]

The MRO would have crucified Ben Long and the tribunal would have gone to extraordinary lengths to highlight a fair few things like what I’m trying to point out…Anyhow

The AFL business is based on appealing to the masses. The masses like simple explanations and in this case, the masses have spoken, the simpletons win, everything is irrelevant and we move on

[B.M]

Long would have got 5

They would have said he turned his body, left the ground and chose to bump. Even though he was contesting the ball, he still collected him high!

[The_Dud]

The MRO would have crucified Ben Long and the tribunal would have gone to extraordinary lengths to highlight a fair few things like what I’m trying to point out…Anyhow

The AFL business is based on appealing to the masses. The masses like simple explanations and in this case, the masses have spoken, the simpletons win, everything is irrelevant and we move on

The AFL wanted him rubbed out for it, the MRP jury members were the ones who disagreed.

[Scollop]

The AFL don’t want to upset their customers too much or too quickly. They’ll slowly ease the rule changes into the laws of the game and hopefully someone like Clark who has eyes only for the footy, will be protected and his opponent will have a duty of care so as not to clean him up and take him out of the game. After all is said and done, Mackay did what was required to help his team win

[Scollop]

The MRO would have crucified Ben Long and the tribunal would have gone to extraordinary lengths to highlight a fair few things like what I’m trying to point out…Anyhow

The AFL business is based on appealing to the masses. The masses like simple explanations and in this case, the masses have spoken, the simpletons win, everything is irrelevant and we move on

The AFL wanted him rubbed out for it, the MRP jury members were the ones who disagreed.

You know who they are don’t you? Simpletons

I wouldn’t be calling them Rhodes scholars anyway

[The_Dud]

Would you rub Harbrow out for this in 2021?

[Scollop]

Ball is in flight.

How is it the same as the Hunter incident?

When a ball is in flight there is only 1 predictable point that that footy will land and if both players arrive at that point at the same time then they both had an equal chance to contest.

Watching the Gold Coast vs Port you are seeing that players are approaching their opponent a little more cautiously today when there is a loose ground ball up for grabs

Hunter Clark was chasing a loose ground ball. He was much closer to it? You concede that don’t you?

Hunter had head over the footy and is only 1 metre away from it when it bounces awkwardly and it causes a delay in him getting both hands on it. In that split second (perhaps 0.2 or 0.3 of second) how far do you think that a professional athlete like Mackay can travel?

When does a footballer decide what action he will take and how long does the body take to perform the motor skill that the mind and brain have instructed?

I know simpletons will find it hard to follow here, but this is at the fundamental core of my argument.

[The_Dud]

Ball is in flight.

How is it the same as the Hunter incident?

Hunter Clark is chasing a loose ground ball

Didn’t say it was the same, just trying to clarify your position.

They’ll slowly ease the rule changes into the laws of the game and hopefully someone like Clark who has eyes only for the footy, will be protected and his opponent will have a duty of care so as not to clean him up and take him out of the game.

So you see a difference with a ‘loose ball’ in the air and on the ground?

[Scollop]

Ball is in flight.

How is it the same as the Hunter incident?

Hunter Clark is chasing a loose ground ball

Didn’t say it was the same, just trying to clarify your position.

They’ll slowly ease the rule changes into the laws of the game and hopefully someone like Clark who has eyes only for the footy, will be protected and his opponent will have a duty of care so as not to clean him up and take him out of the game.

So you see a difference with a ‘loose ball’ in the air and on the ground?

Yes. See my edited post above

[sunsaint]

Ball is in flight.

How is it the same as the Hunter incident?

When a ball is in flight there is only 1 predictable point that that footy will land and if both players arrive at that point at the same time then they both had an equal chance to contest.

Watching the Gold Coast vs Port you are seeing that players are approaching their opponent a little more cautiously today when there is a loose ground ball up for grabs

Hunter Clark was chasing a loose ground ball. He was much closer to it? You concede that don’t you?

Hunter had head over the footy and is only 1 metre away from it when it bounces awkwardly and it causes a delay in him getting both hands on it. In that split second (perhaps 0.2 or 0.3 of second) how far do you think that a professional athlete like Mackay can travel?

When does a footballer decide what action he will take and how long does the body take to perform the motor skill that the mind and brain have instructed?

I know simpletons will find it hard to follow here, but this is at the fundamental core of my argument.

well then call me simpleton - thanks for that
you keep crapping on about meters as if youve got the ability to precisely measure distances and speeds off a televised TV replay
not once have you acknowledged the speed that Mackay closed in on the contest
Not once have you acknowledged the fact that Mackay was also bent over to gather the ball
& have also noticed that you have not mentioned the reported timing during the hearing that when the ball bounced into Clarkes hand was in the .100s of a second before contact

& seriously if you did actually watch the Port vs GC game you would also have to acknowledge that GC gave up 290 uncontested possessions & it was mentioned during the telecast the Suns gave up way too many uncontested possessions the week before against Freo
it was a non contact bruise free game up on the sunny Gold Coast they dont know how to play tiight