The Hunter headclash

[Ghost Like]

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 that is and remains allowable).

I cannot agree samoht, if a contest was obvious then why should one player pull out. The protection, rightfully, should be when the contest is not obvious.

By all means recruit your 120kg rugby players, they will never make it to an AFL contest, they will be late & reported.

I think people should stop feeling so hard done by in relation to Long. He should not have been suspended but because he was does not mean McKay should have been.

[minneapolis]

I would think that is Hunter's worst football injury.

I am concerned that he may just stop playing. A broken jaw is one of the most rotten injuries. The pain and inconvenience lasts weeks.

And to always know that it could happen again whenever you put your head down.

Here's hoping he can get over it mentally.

[minneapolis]

Happy Father's Day every Dad on here. (You can have another one in September.)

[Ghost Like]

I would think that is Hunter's worst football injury.

I am concerned that he may just stop playing. A broken jaw is one of the most rotten injuries. The pain and inconvenience lasts weeks.

And to always know that it could happen again whenever you put your head down.

Here's hoping he can get over it mentally.

I've a lot of faith in Hunter. He's made of the right stuff and I suspect the Club will have a hard time stopping him from trying to come back too early.

[minneapolis]

I would think that is Hunter's worst football injury.

I am concerned that he may just stop playing. A broken jaw is one of the most rotten injuries. The pain and inconvenience lasts weeks.

And to always know that it could happen again whenever you put your head down.

Here's hoping he can get over it mentally.

I've a lot of faith in Hunter. He's made of the right stuff and I suspect the Club will have a hard time stopping him from trying to come back too early.

I really hope so because he is a great footballer.

[The_Dud]

The hat-eaters certainly went quiet!

[Sainter_Dad]

The hat-eaters certainly went quiet!

I don't actually care what happened to MacKay - my issue was that Hunter now has his season destroyed - and there was:

- no free paid for high contact when a player is lying on the ground clearly bleeding from the head
- no rallying of the troops for our fallen soldier
- no repercussions for Adelaide in the game - this was clearly a turning point in the game - and we should have stood up.

I saw the image I posted and read it as my interpretation - but the bottom line Dud - are you happy with the outcome for Hunter or St Kilda????

If you are, and you need validation - please advise where I can send my 1,000 internet points to.

[Gershwin]

The hat-eaters certainly went quiet!

I don't actually care what happened to MacKay - my issue was that Hunter now has his season destroyed - and there was:

- no free paid for high contact when a player is lying on the ground clearly bleeding from the head
- no rallying of the troops for our fallen soldier
- no repercussions for Adelaide in the game - this was clearly a turning point in the game - and we should have stood up.

I saw the image I posted and read it as my interpretation - but the bottom line Dud - are you happy with the outcome for Hunter or St Kilda????

If you are, and you need validation - please advise where I can send my 1,000 internet points to.

The answer to every point you make is that it was an accident and nobody’s fault.

[Ghost Like]

The hat-eaters certainly went quiet!

I don't actually care what happened to MacKay - my issue was that Hunter now has his season destroyed - and there was:

- no free paid for high contact when a player is lying on the ground clearly bleeding from the head
- no rallying of the troops for our fallen soldier
- no repercussions for Adelaide in the game - this was clearly a turning point in the game - and we should have stood up.

I saw the image I posted and read it as my interpretation - but the bottom line Dud - are you happy with the outcome for Hunter or St Kilda????

If you are, and you need validation - please advise where I can send my 1,000 internet points to.

The answer to every point you make is that it was an accident and nobody’s fault.

This is true. A free is not paid for every head high contact, they are missed.

S_D is correct in that the response of our players was poor in they failed to respond to Adelaide's rally. However, it also shows that the players on the ground, like the tribunal, saw it as a fair contest. They would not have known at the time Hunter's jaw was busted & once they did they would have acknowledged it as an unfortunate accident from a contested ball.

[Sainter_Dad]

I don't care if it was an accident / on purpose - our players went into their shells and acted 'scared'. That is what p!ssed me off - we had that game in the bag - it was not 100 - 64 - it was f@rking 36 - 0

Adelaide grew after the impact - we shrank

[The_Dud]

The hat-eaters certainly went quiet!

I don't actually care what happened to MacKay - my issue was that Hunter now has his season destroyed - and there was:

- no free paid for high contact when a player is lying on the ground clearly bleeding from the head
- no rallying of the troops for our fallen soldier
- no repercussions for Adelaide in the game - this was clearly a turning point in the game - and we should have stood up.

I saw the image I posted and read it as my interpretation - but the bottom line Dud - are you happy with the outcome for Hunter or St Kilda????

If you are, and you need validation - please advise where I can send my 1,000 internet points to.

- Yes there should have been a free paid.

- By 'rallying' do you mean a punch on? Not sure we need to do that every time a player gets hurt in a contest. Should a bunch of players jumped Roughie after he broke Paton's leg at training?

- The repercussion in the game should have been a free for us. But either way we should have won that game whether Clark was playing or not. You just don't lose from being 36-0 up in any situation.

Why would I be happy with any injury to a Saints player? But what happens to Mackay at the tribunal doesn't affect Clark's or St Kilda's situation one iota.

[Ghost Like]

I don't care if it was an accident / on purpose - our players went into their shells and acted 'scared'. That is what p!ssed me off - we had that game in the bag - it was not 100 - 64 - it was f@rking 36 - 0

Adelaide grew after the impact - we shrank

That's on the players & the coach, they own their capitulation. Shrinkage suits them after that loss.

[Sainter_Dad]

The hat-eaters certainly went quiet!

I don't actually care what happened to MacKay - my issue was that Hunter now has his season destroyed - and there was:

- no free paid for high contact when a player is lying on the ground clearly bleeding from the head
- no rallying of the troops for our fallen soldier
- no repercussions for Adelaide in the game - this was clearly a turning point in the game - and we should have stood up.

I saw the image I posted and read it as my interpretation - but the bottom line Dud - are you happy with the outcome for Hunter or St Kilda????

If you are, and you need validation - please advise where I can send my 1,000 internet points to.

- Yes there should have been a free paid.

- By 'rallying' do you mean a punch on? Not sure we need to do that every time a player gets hurt in a contest. Should a bunch of players jumped Roughie after he broke Paton's leg at training?

- The repercussion in the game should have been a free for us. But either way we should have won that game whether Clark was playing or not. You just don't lose from being 36-0 up in any situation.

Why would I be happy with any injury to a Saints player? But what happens to Mackay at the tribunal doesn't affect Clark's or St Kilda's situation one iota.

No - I do not mean a punch on - I mean that they should have had a 'hurt them on the scoreboard' attitude - I have never called for wanton violence - but seriously - we have a puppy at home that is a rescue - if we chastise him he shrinks and tries to hide - he shows more 'b@lls' than St Kilda did after that clash - and he is neutered.

For some reason St Kilda started jumping at shadows - and that reflects where we are going as a club.

[Scollop]

And with my new found ability, right before point of impact.

Clearly .... not lining Clark up for an intentional shirtfront.

Not sure how people are so confused.

A picture does not tell us what his intentions were. I see Clark's hands already on the footy and he's pulling it into his body (you don't do that to a ball in dispute).

Why was the advocate questioning Mackay about his intent at the tribunal if this picture (in your opinion) 'clearly shows his intent'

I see Mackay second to the footy and his hands are virtually trying to wrap around Clark's hands. It's a good ploy when you are lining someone up for a shirtfront. How can anyone be...CLEAR... that they KNEW of his intentions?

Professional athletes don't accidently flush someone on the jaw with their shoulder.

Clark was virtually head over ball when Mackay was 4 metres away. Mackay was travelling 4 x faster than Clark was travelling. Mackay was lining up a bloke who only had eyes for the ball...Mackay knew that he was 'close to zero' chance of getting that ball first.

Sometimes you get lucky and the fact that the footy didn't sit firmly in both of Clark's hands because of an awkward bounce meant that Mackay had an out.

I think as Sainter_Dad has pointed out, the most disappointing thing for us is that Clark got hurt (and will be out for the remainder of the year) and his mates didn't respond in the manner that they should have...both in terms of an immediate retaliation and in terms of a result on the scoreboard

That is a good lesson. Don't trust the MRO or the tribunal or the AFL to do the right thing. It's a physical brutal game. We need to play that way and be ruthless in pursuit of wins if we want to be a good team

[Ghost Like]

How can anyone be...CLEAR... that they KNEW of his intentions?

Professional athletes don't accidently flush someone on the jaw with their shoulder.

They can't. I can't, The_Dud can't, sainter_dad can't & neither can you. In the absence of an admission you need evidence. No better evidence than cameras, all 3 angles of them. So to your next statement, it appears...

They do.

I totally agree our response was poor but not to the incident but to being challenged.

I do have a hard time believing that all our players saw the incident and not one thought there was anything untoward.

That to me says volumes about the incident. 17 players on the ground and 5 more on the bench saw nothing illegal in McKay's actions.

[saynta]

And with my new found ability, right before point of impact.

Clearly .... not lining Clark up for an intentional shirtfront.

Not sure how people are so confused.

A picture does not tell us what his intentions were. I see Clark's hands already on the footy and he's pulling it into his body (you don't do that to a ball in dispute).

Why was the advocate questioning Mackay about his intent at the tribunal if this picture (in your opinion) 'clearly shows his intent'

I see Mackay second to the footy and his hands are virtually trying to wrap around Clark's hands. It's a good ploy when you are lining someone up for a shirtfront. How can anyone be...CLEAR... that they KNEW of his intentions?

Professional athletes don't accidently flush someone on the jaw with their shoulder.

Clark was virtually head over ball when Mackay was 4 metres away. Mackay was travelling 4 x faster than Clark was travelling. Mackay was lining up a bloke who only had eyes for the ball...Mackay knew that he was 'close to zero' chance of getting that ball first.

Sometimes you get lucky and the fact that the footy didn't sit firmly in both of Clark's hands because of an awkward bounce meant that Mackay had an out.

I think as Sainter_Dad has pointed out, the most disappointing thing for us is that Clark got hurt (and will be out for the remainder of the year) and his mates didn't respond in the manner that they should have...both in terms of an immediate retaliation and in terms of a result on the scoreboard

That is a good lesson. Don't trust the MRO or the tribunal or the AFL to do the right thing. It's a physical brutal game. We need to play that way and be ruthless in pursuit of wins if we want to be a good team

Good post. I have maintained since day one that Clark already had his hands on the ball when the arsehole crow player barrelled into him with his shoulder.

Blind freddy could see that but evidently many so called experts can't.

I am also pissed with the Saints players non action.Piss weak IMHO.

[Scollop]

How can anyone be...CLEAR... that they KNEW of his intentions?

Professional athletes don't accidently flush someone on the jaw with their shoulder.

They can't. I can't, The_Dud can't, sainter_dad can't & neither can you. In the absence of an admission you need evidence.

Which one of these blokes is more likely to be second to the footy?

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ ... &crop=fill

...stranger things have happened in footy and you never know with an oval ball but I'd say the evidence in this photo tells me Mackay is close to zero chance of getting the ball first

[Scollop]

I have maintained since day one that Clark already had his hands on the ball when the arsehole crow player barrelled into him with his shoulder.

Blind freddy could see that but evidently many so called experts can't.

The experts also tell us that both players had an equal chance of contesting.

Have a look at this photo and tell me what you think Mackay was thinking saynta? Was he thinking I'm a good chance to win the footy?

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go ... rop%3Dfill

PIGS ARSE!! What a fuckn joke!!

As I said earlier in some of my posts, the actual photos of the impact and the split second before impact only tell half the story. They also help Mackay's case. If it wasn't for an awkward bounce, Mackay wouldn't have bothered with his hands pointing down (you can still shoulder or elbow someone while your wrists and hands are doing something else). I believe Mackay would still have cannoned into Hunter because that was always his intent

[Scollop]

Did I post the links ok? Are the photos working?

[B.M]

It was a clear shirtfront

Both feet left the ground and he went straight through the line of the player in front of him

I suppose you don’t think he collected him high either??
Was a free kick paid??

If his feet didn’t leave the ground I’ll eat two hats!!!

[Ghost Like]

How can anyone be...CLEAR... that they KNEW of his intentions?

Professional athletes don't accidently flush someone on the jaw with their shoulder.

They can't. I can't, The_Dud can't, sainter_dad can't & neither can you. In the absence of an admission you need evidence.

Which one of these blokes is more likely to be second to the footy?

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ ... &crop=fill

...stranger things have happened in footy and you never know with an oval ball but I'd say the evidence in this photo tells me Mackay is close to zero chance of getting the ball first

That's the worst of the still images to be produced in this whole thread. For a bloke who had ZERO chance he got bloody close as neither had secured the ball at the time of collision.

So your whole argument is you believe MacKay had no chance so should not have contested. You've said yourself that the oval ball caused an irregular bounce meaning Clark had not secured it, so in essence the ball was still in dispute and MacKay was right in the contest.

It was an accident within a contest. No St Kilda player saw anything wrong with the contest. I believe our players failed to fly the flag for Hunter simply because they saw nothing wrong not because they didn't have the ticker.

The result of the match was a weak response to having a 36 to zip lead eroded.

[Ghost Like]

It was a clear shirtfront

Both feet left the ground and he went straight through the line of the player in front of him

I suppose you don’t think he collected him high either??
Was a free kick paid??

If his feet didn’t leave the ground I’ll eat two hats!!!

I've answered this B.M.. You must have a hunger for hats, you keep saying you want to eat them. Yes, his feet left the ground immediately on point of collision. They did not leave the ground prior to collision, nor had MacKay braced for a shirtfront. His arms, hands were outstretched, he was bent forward to collect the ball not to shirtfront.

Cracked pepper with either of those hats?

[B.M]

Are you sure you know what a shirtfront is?

[Ghost Like]

Yes, that wasn't one.

That was a collision involving two players going for the ball. A shirt front involves one player intent on getting the ball & another player braced to protect himself, forgetting the ball, making the ball player his object.

Is that correct or am I missing something or is your interpretation different?

[B.M]

If you think MacKays intent wasn’t a collision, you are mistaken

If his intent was only the ball, two things would have happen

He would have decelerated to pick it up, and he would have got lower and not overrun the ball.
He didn’t win possession because he ran over the top of it and collected Hunter, he also accelerated through the ball and both feet left the ground

Why? He knew he was going to take the body.

He also turned ready for impact

Hunter had eyes for the ball, and didn’t see him coming and was wide open, MacKay knew there was going to be a collision and braced for impact.

Get him 15cm lower - perfect shirtfront