The Hunter headclash

[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?

Yes. See my edited post above

A ball in flight sometimes has a predictable path and sometimes not.

So are you saying a player has duty of care for the opposition when the ball is at ground level but not when it’s in the air?

You make it sound like if a player doesn’t think they’ll definitely get to the ball first then they shouldn’t even try (that does sound like a few Saints players). The distances from the ball is irrelevant because they got to the ball at the same time!

That’s football! The ball doesn’t always bounce the way it should, players go for things with low percentage outcomes, that’s how we get spectacular plays and memorable moments.

Mackay got to the ball at the same time as Clark, had his arms out to try get the ball, didn’t tuck his elbow for a bump, and didn’t leave the ground (until after the collision).

It’s just an unfortunate accident in a high paced contact sport.

[Scollop]

“It’s just an unfortunate accident in a high paced contact sport”

Mackay deliberaltely causes serious injury to an opponent ( sorry…is the naughty boy at the scenen of the ‘accident’ ) and he writhes on the ground and pretends he’s injured in the ‘accident’.

Mackay even wears a stupid confused look on his face as if to say; ‘gee what happened there? That was unexpected!’. The naughty boy gets up immediately and is unimpeded with no visible scar or injury

It’s odd how luck comes into many incidents in sport.

Mackay was lucky on many fronts. Clark was unlucky on many fronts.

Mackay made a decision to shirtfront his opponent before that awkward bounce (which is impossible for him to predict). The shirtfront may have been different and it may have turned into a tackle, but at the pace he was travelling he was always heading directly at Clark. He always knew he was close to zero chance to get the footy first.

Mackay was super lucky the ball bounced upward and his hands went downwards just before impact. He could not have predicted that he was going to win the ball, but he makes an attempt because he knows he has to contest the footy to play within the rules. There’s his lucky break so he he can say the footy was always his intent.

Mackay was also lucky that AFL followers (including the nuffies on the MRP) are lovers of “spectacular plays and memorable moments”

[stevie]

At least McKay( I had to Google him after the incident - had no idea who he was) didn’t eye gouge Hunter The sooner selwood is out of the game the better f****** grub up there with Judd

[samoht]

It was reckless at the very least - running full pelt at the contest (even if it was imminent, it was obvious that there was going to be one) - anything can happen.

So at least 3 weeks given the broken jaw.

Nothing else makes sense - and this decision sets up a dangerous precedent.

The Hunter (=ball player, pun intended) becomes the hunted/collateral damage - is this what we want?

[The_Dud]

“It’s just an unfortunate accident in a high paced contact sport”

Mackay deliberaltely causes serious injury to an opponent ( sorry…is the naughty boy at the scenen of the ‘accident’ ) and he writhes on the ground and pretends he’s injured in the ‘accident’.

Mackay even wears a stupid confused look on his face as if to say; ‘gee what happened there? That was unexpected!’. The naughty boy gets up immediately and is unimpeded with no visible scar or injury

It’s odd how luck comes into many incidents in sport.

Mackay was lucky on many fronts. Clark was unlucky on many fronts.

Mackay made a decision to shirtfront his opponent before that awkward bounce (which is impossible for him to predict). The shirtfront may have been different and it may have turned into a tackle, but at the pace he was travelling he was always heading directly at Clark. He always knew he was close to zero chance to get the footy first.

Mackay was super lucky the ball bounced upward and his hands went downwards just before impact. He could not have predicted that he was going to win the ball, but he makes an attempt because he knows he has to contest the footy to play within the rules. There’s his lucky break so he he can say the footy was always his intent.

Mackay was also lucky that AFL followers (including the nuffies on the MRP) are lovers of “spectacular plays and memorable moments”

I don’t think we’re going to agree.

You think Mackay was deliberately trying to ‘shirtfront’ him (with his arms out stretched and his feet on the ground) while most others think he was going for the ball hard and they collided.

I’d like my team full of blokes trying their hardest even if there’s only a 1% they’ll win the ball / get the tackle / make a smother / get on the end of a play.

I don’t want blokes thinking “I probably won’t make it, so I’m not going to even try”.

[bigcarl]

It was reckless at the very least - running full pelt at the contest (even if it was imminent, it was obvious that there was going to be one) - anything can happen.

So at least 3 weeks given the broken jaw.

Nothing else makes sense - and this decision sets up a dangerous precedent.

The Hunter (=ball player, pun intended) becomes the hunted/collateral damage - is this what we want?

The club just has to file this one away for future reference.

Our best young player out for the season with multiple breaks to the jaw. Yet the rest of footy sees Mackay, not Clark, as the victim of Mackay’s careless and reckless play.

And Clark’s teammates didn’t give a whimper on the night and nor did many of the club’s supporters afterwards.

I’m not sure we have the cattle with so many injured, but I’d love to see us get on a roll and at least claim some scalps in the run home.

[Scollop]

Mackay ... always knew he was close to zero chance to get the footy first.

I don’t want blokes thinking “I probably won’t make it, so I’m not going to even try”.

There's a massive difference between 'close to zero chance' and 'probably won’t make it'

If I had to put a mathematical figure on it, I'd say 'probably won't make it ' equals 10-20 % chance of winning the ball - versus the other scenario where he was under 5% chance of winning the footy.

A lot of people have difficulty with scientific evidence, but hey...guess what?! Adeliade Crows successfully used a data analyst and a biomechanics expert in their evidence

Adelaide brought evidence via a data analyst that showed Mackay and Clark were both approximately 10 metres from the ball’s eventual end-point when they started running into the contest. Ha...what a fuckn joke!! You've got Clark with a standing start and tracking a sideways footy and also pausing to collect an awkward bounce, while Mackay sees the footy and is running at full speeed without pausing and without any deceleration

Why didn't the AFL legal eagles trying to prosecute the case counter the evidence with showing where each player was at other moments before the collision? E.g. When Clark was between 1-2 m from the footy, where was Mackay?

I'll tell you where he was!! He was 4-5m from the ball and he was accelerating to put body contact/or tackle the St Kilda player

Maybe everyone thinks Gleeson is very good, but in this particular instance the AFL and their legal counsel were not the best advocates for the case.

[samoht]

I had a five-year-old once run full pelt and land on my lap when I least expected it.
His head came within a mm from hitting me square on my nose.
I shudder every time I think of it.

This is a kid who didn't know any better and a stern warning might have been lost on him, but he still received one - even though his head didn't connect.

There has to be lessons learned and consequences.

[Sainter_Dad]

As far as I can tell - IMHO - McKay's feet remain on the ground - Shoulder to Shoulder - nothing to see here

[B.M]

Shoulder to shoulder???

How the hell did his jaw break in two places then???

And he was clearly off the ground when he made contact, and he was turned brace for impact.

Great shirtfront if he was 15cm lower

[Ghost Like]

I think his feet lifted from the ground after contact. I thought it was all in play, was not incensed at the time nor a week and several hundred replays later. Very unfortunate but proud of how tough Clark is.

[takeaway]

Mackay ... always knew he was close to zero chance to get the footy first.

I don’t want blokes thinking “I probably won’t make it, so I’m not going to even try”.

There's a massive difference between 'close to zero chance' and 'probably won’t make it'

If I had to put a mathematical figure on it, I'd say 'probably won't make it ' equals 10-20 % chance of winning the ball - versus the other scenario where he was under 5% chance of winning the footy.

A lot of people have difficulty with scientific evidence, but hey...guess what?! Adeliade Crows successfully used a data analyst and a biomechanics expert in their evidence

Adelaide brought evidence via a data analyst that showed Mackay and Clark were both approximately 10 metres from the ball’s eventual end-point when they started running into the contest. Ha...what a fuckn joke!! You've got Clark with a standing start and tracking a sideways footy and also pausing to collect an awkward bounce, while Mackay sees the footy and is running at full speeed without pausing and without any deceleration

Why didn't the AFL legal eagles trying to prosecute the case counter the evidence with showing where each player was at other moments before the collision? E.g. When Clark was between 1-2 m from the footy, where was Mackay?

I'll tell you where he was!! He was 4-5m from the ball and he was accelerating to put body contact/or tackle the St Kilda player

Maybe everyone thinks Gleeson is very good, but in this particular instance the AFL and their legal counsel were not the best advocates for the case.

Obviously you have in your possession a full transcript of the case, including full detail of the arguments presented by the AFL. Can you post some detail of the AFL case? That may indicate the standard of the AFL presentation.

Otherwise, I assume Gleeson and co. presented a reasonable case, and the simple fact is the incident was regarded by the tribunal as not breaching the CURRENT rules. The AFL has achieved it's goal anyway, publicity of an incident which will shortly be deemed worthy of sanction under revised rules.

[Sainter_Dad]

Shoulder to shoulder???

How the hell did his jaw break in two places then???

And he was clearly off the ground when he made contact, and he was turned brace for impact.

Great shirtfront if he was 15cm lower

Sorry - I meant "As far as I can tell - IMHO - if McKay's feet remain on the ground - Shoulder to Shoulder [would have occurred] - nothing to see here"

[The_Dud]

Shoulder to shoulder???

How the hell did his jaw break in two places then???

And he was clearly off the ground when he made contact, and he was turned brace for impact.

Great shirtfront if he was 15cm lower

Sorry - I meant "As far as I can tell - IMHO - if McKay's feet remain on the ground - Shoulder to Shoulder - nothing to see here

His feet (foot as he was mid stride) were clearly on the ground at the point of impact, the fact people would say otherwise discredits everything they say after that regarding the incident.

[B.M]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... w&usqp=CAU

Not sure how to put an image into the conversation, but in the image I just looked at, if his feet are on the ground, I’ll eat my hat!!!!

[B.M]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... w&usqp=CAU

Not sure how to put an image into the conversation, but in the image I just looked at, if his feet are on the ground, I’ll eat my hat!!!!

[Ghost Like]

No need to eat your hat but that looks like it is after contact. McKay did not jump to make contact, his feet lifted after contact as with most collisions.

[Sainter_Dad]

No need to eat your hat but that looks like it is after contact. McKay did not jump to make contact, his feet lifted after contact as with most collisions.

Point of Impact - both feet off the ground - Hunter low to pick the ball up - Mackay crouched to take out the head - see red circle - both feet off the ground in a jumping motion - left hand clearly not reaching for the ball - right tucked for impact

Hat is safe

[Ghost Like]

Nice try SD but you have missed the point of impact fractionally. Stills are not the answer to this unless you want to put 20 together.

Believe it or not, in most collisions one of the parties, sometimes both, lifts from the ground. It's a form of succumbing to force. Inertia perhaps? Just guessing on that word. It happens in car accidents as well, at impact one or both of the vehicles rise before coming to a stop.

McKay did not line up Clark and jump off the ground to deliberately break his jaw.

[Ghost Like]

Besides, who jumps like that with their arms stretched forward and bent forward at the hips. Seems like the action of someone believing they had a chance to get a bouncing football.

[The_Dud]

Yeah, posting images clearly after the point of impact to prove your point doesn’t help.

Maybe have some sauce with that hat to help it go down easier

[The_Dud]

Foot clearly on the ground, and this is still after the point of impact.

[Ghost Like]

"AFL: David Mackay-Hunter Clark clash sent directly to Tribunal by Match Review Officer" https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/david-mack ... e849fe7296

The images they supply in this article plus the video clearly show McKay's feet lifted at / on impact. He did not jump to execute a bump, it was a collision, a clash of bodies. Could happen in netball, an innocent contest with an unfortunate result for Hunter.

[The_Dud]

And with my new found ability, right before point of impact. Clearly reaching out for the ball and not lining Clark up for an intentional shirtfront.

Not sure how people are so confused.

[samoht]

It was obvious that there was going to be a contest and a collision ... and Mckay charged full speed at it.
It was a dangerous and reckless thing to do.

The AFL rules need reviewing.

Duty of care and occupational health and safety come into it.

It might have been deemed okay within the current rules, but we still need to move with the times.
And he could have chosen to tackle instead.

(we might as well recruit a couple of burly 120 kg rugby players to charge full bore and fairly at contests ... if current rules remain).