The Hunter headclash

[B.M]

A shirtfront is collecting someone down the middle

‘Front of their shirt’

Hunter was wide open and Mackay collected him at full pace whilst Clark was front on, and MacKay was side on,
Feet leaving the ground, overrunning the footy.

He might have motioned to take the ball, fact is, he missed the ball… why?
Do AFL level players normally overrun loose balls? His hands were near the ball… was he taking possession? Why not??

[Scollop]

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.

Your first sentence is totally dismissive of the picture. Some old phones may not show it clearly, but an ipad or tablet or a laptop or desktop works fine. Spin it anyway you want but Clark is 1-2m from the footy and Mackay is 4-5m from the footy.

Your second sentence is factually incorrect. Even if Clark only had the footy for a tenth of a second before the other bloke it is still factually incorrect to claim that Clark had not secured the ball with both hands.

Clark had secured the footy before the contact occurred and the ball was knocked out in the collision. If you don’t have the ability to watch the vision and slow it down, I can understand how you might be mistaken for thinking that Clark didn’t take possession.

I never said Mackay was ‘no chance’. I said he was next to zero chance. You keep twisting words and you keep saying that the ball was in dispute. If you’re 4-5 metres away and the other bloke is closer, you pretty much know that you’ll be second to the footy 95 times out of 100.

The 2 blokes closest to the collision were Billings and Hill. Not the toughest blokes in our team are they? They may be brave at certain times in their careers, but you can add this incident and this game as one of the times that they didn’t show much ticker

[Sainter_Dad]

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.

Actually - I think the St Kilda players failed to 'Fly the Flag' because we have become so spineless since the Murphy incident we second guess ourselves - and wait until the opposition start anything.

[Ghost Like]

B.M., Scollop, Sainter_,Dad, thankyou for the discussion. However we see this completely differently. My St Kilda bias won't even allow me to agree with you.

You have made up your minds, as have I and many others, including a tribunal involving legal minds and ex players who have played the game at the highest level.

If it was a shirtfront, braced, feet off the ground, run past the ball then MacKay would have been suspended for 4 to 6 weeks. I don't know why he's not. There's only two reasons, conspiracy or that it did not happen.

"Zero chance" by definition means no chance doesn't it? You say MacKay had no right to contest, he should not try to make a contest then you finish up by having a crack at Hill & Billings, pretty poor to try to justify the question why no players responded. You are simply making things up, like your still to justify an argument that MacKay had no right to contest.

Sainter_Dad, next function you are at, please ask the players why they are spineless. I doubt the Murphy incident means anything to them, maybe Carlisle but doubt Ryder, Howard, Butler, Higgins, Crouch, Highmore, Wilkie would care. I'm quite confident Steele would fly the flag in any situation he feels a player has been wronged.

[The_Dud]

Well said Ghost Like, I think you summed it up well.

Clark never had possession of the ball, unless you call having it between your elbows for 1 frame possession.

Right before and at the point of impact Mackay had his hands out, not braced for a bump, feet on the ground, 2 inches away from getting the ball. These aren't opinions, they are facts that are right there to see.

Their relevant position before the incident means nothing as the ball was moving away from Clark, so of course he was closer, and they met the ball at the same time anyway.

If players didn't go for things that only had a 5% chance of coming off then Green wouldn't have tried kicking a torp from 60+ out after the siren on the weekend, Rooey would have never tried taking that mark against Sydney in 2009, Shaw would have never tried smothering the ball on the line in the 2010 replay GF, and Lenny would have never tried kicking that goal from outside 50 in the 2010 GF. Absolutely horrible argument.

It's footy, accidents happen.

[samoht]

Charging full-bore at contests when you are going to be second to the ball or to just make it to the contest (even if the ball was your focus, throughout) is reckless.

Take that risk - "charging full-bore" - and suffer the consequences if an opponent gets hurt.

Why should this be viewed any differently to bumping?

The rules as they stand will likely be changed - it would be remiss of the AFL not to change them, put it that way.

Player welfare is paramount.

[Ghost Like]

Charging full-bore at contests when you are going to be second to the ball or to just make it to the contest (even if the ball was your focus, throughout) is reckless.

Take that risk - "charging full-bore" - and suffer the consequences if an opponent gets hurt.

Why should this be viewed any differently to bumping?

The rules as they stand will likely be changed - it would be remiss of the AFL not to change them, put it that way.

Player welfare is paramount.

Cannot agree samoht. People on here whinge and complain at Hill and Billings about not going hard enough. Now you want players tip toeing to the ball because there's a chance they may not get there first. Defies logic.

Tell me, for every player who has been concussed this year has a player been reported? Should a player have been suspended for each concussion? Or are there times we accept it is a contact sport and accidents will happen in the contest?

Do we suspend players who take a mark when their knees hit the back of a players head? Do we pay a free and give that player the car for having his head contacted with for Mark of the Year?

[samoht]

Some things can or should be deemed reckless and or plain dangerous ... this was one of them.

Getting an incidental knee in the back ...or sometimes the head during a mark is different. It is how you take a speccy.

You and your opponent are already there or thereabouts.

Hill is an outside player with pace ... you need them too. All part of the team balance and it doesnt mean he lacks courage.

[Ghost Like]

Some things can or should be deemed reckless and or plain dangerous ... this was one of them.

Getting an incidental knee in the back ...or sometimes the head during a mark is different. It is how you take a speccy.

You and your opponent are already there or thereabouts.

Hill is an outside player with pace ... you need them too. All part of the team balance and it doesnt mean he lacks courage.

That's interesting samoht how something can be deemed incidental as opposed to reckless or plain dangerous. I guess we pick and choose examples to suit the narrative.

Launching at a ball when there's a player either stationary or backing back, putting a knee up into that players spine or the back of his head to gain leverage is incidental.

Two players chasing a bumbling oval football, that neither has secured, has one player's actions as reckless. I'm sorry, I cannot reconcile the difference. Personally, I think the example of a mark is more reckless. However, I accept both are part of the game, both incidental, without malice nor intent to severely injure a player. One is less accidental than the other, that is the mark.

I totally agree with you in regards to Hill, however others don't, those now want to claim he and Billings lack courage to a point that they will not stand up for a team mate fallen by an illegal action. I do not believe that, nor do I believe those other 22 players were spineless, they just saw it for what it was, an accidental collision between two ball players.

[bigcarl]

Accident or reckless? Who can say, but the tribunal has spoken on what is allowable under the rules THIS SEASON (pretty sure that will be classed as reckless next year).


Personally I’d love to see the AFL squirm on this should a St Kilda player injure a Tiger in identical circumstances Friday night. Would the presumption of innocence and of no malicious intent be the same regardless of the player involved? Hmmmm

[samoht]

Accident or reckless? Who can say, but the tribunal has spoken on what is allowable under the rules THIS SEASON (pretty sure that will be classed as reckless next year).

This is what I was getting at.
Next year, the rules will need to change.

Call it "sanitising" - I call it sanity.

It would be reckless of the AFL not to change the rules in view of what happened to Hunter Clark - put it that way.
Player welfare comes first.

Accidentally collecting the head during a shoulder-to-chest bump is also incidental (technically speaking) ... but there are consequences if you get it wrong and you seriously injure an opponent.
You can always elect to tackle - you don't need to bump or charge in.
Bumping or charging in - there is always a decision made, either way - and the onus should equally be on the "charger" or "bumper" to get it right.

[B.M]

It would’ve been absolutely fine, if he didn’t get him high

He can go as hard as he likes for the ball, as long as the point of his shoulder doesn’t break someone’s jaw in two places

MacKay almost had perfect technique when pick up a ball

But he wasn’t low enough and collected his opponent high

In old terms
He ran through him

Question - if his aim was the ball and NOT to collect Clark

When picking up a loose ball with no opposition player there, do both feet leave the ground at anytime?

Another question
Did he collect him high?

[Ghost Like]

It would’ve been absolutely fine, if he didn’t get him high

He can go as hard as he likes for the ball, as long as the point of his shoulder doesn’t break someone’s jaw in two places

MacKay almost had perfect technique when pick up a ball

But he wasn’t low enough and collected his opponent high

In old terms
He ran through him

Question - if his aim was the ball and NOT to collect Clark

When picking up a loose ball with no opposition player there, do both feet leave the ground at anytime?

Another question
Did he collect him high?

B.M., do you actually not read people's responses. I explained that to you in regards to what happens at point of collision. I called it inertia, still not sure if it's the right word but seems to fit when two forces collide.

I've said he did collect him high, that is obvious by his injury. It should have been a free kick, was it?

You ask the same questions B.M., I've been good enough to respond but you consistently fail to acknowledge anything I've written. Why is that? Do you think my answers will change?

[The_Dud]

So what happens with head clashes then, both players get rubbed out?

[bangaulegend]

So what happens with head clashes then, both players get rubbed out?

Now that is just silly & that didn't happen accidental or not McKays shoulder hit Hunters jaw breaking it in several places I think it was accidental but you are accountable for your own actions not just on the foooty field but in life in general I'm a plumber & if I do a gas job & that IMO is to code but by accident I missed something & the house blows up do you think the authorities would say oh well it's only an accident I don't think so

[Ghost Like]

Hold on bl, there would be an investigation wouldn't there? If you missed something you shouldn't have, that's negligence but if you missed something you had no right to know of, that's an accident. I do not even know how your example relates to MacKay?

MacKay was playing a sport where everything happens in the moment, split second decisions, contact, collisions with a ball & opponents that are unpredictable. How does that equate to a job you rock up to, have time to assess, quote, plan, consult, advise??? If you fvck up from there you should be held to account.

[bangaulegend]

Hold on bl, there would be an investigation wouldn't there? If you missed something you shouldn't have, that's negligence but if you missed something you had no right to know of, that's an accident. I do not even know how your example relates to MacKay?

MacKay was playing a sport where everything happens in the moment, split second decisions, contact, collisions with a ball & opponents that are unpredictable. How does that equate to a job you rock up to, have time to assess, quote, plan, consult, advise??? If you fvck up from there you should be held to account.

Yeah I had a car accident it was 100% my fault I was extremely lucky no one was seriously hurt but I didn't see the car it was in my blind spot but still lost 4 demerits & fined $500.00 dollars & deservedly so but same same split second misjudgement an accident for sure but I'm accountable for my actions

[Ghost Like]

Hold on bl, there would be an investigation wouldn't there? If you missed something you shouldn't have, that's negligence but if you missed something you had no right to know of, that's an accident. I do not even know how your example relates to MacKay?

MacKay was playing a sport where everything happens in the moment, split second decisions, contact, collisions with a ball & opponents that are unpredictable. How does that equate to a job you rock up to, have time to assess, quote, plan, consult, advise??? If you fvck up from there you should be held to account.

Yeah I had a car accident it was 100% my fault I was extremely lucky no one was seriously hurt but I didn't see the car it was in my blind spot but still lost 4 demerits & fined $500.00 dollars & deservedly so but same same split second misjudgement an accident for sure but I'm accountable for my actions

Seriously, can you find another example or scenario that does not relate to or make sense of this topic? Do you realise it is not an accident if fault can be attributed? You were lucky you only lost points & $500. Sounds to me like you could have or should have been charged with careless driving.

Explain how your plumbing and driving issues have any relevance to Clark v MacKay, please.

[bangaulegend]

You are right I was very lucky not to be charged with dangerous driving & probably should have because I was reckless in my choice to pull out in front of a car I didn't see similar in my opinion to McKay not seeing Clarke but the outcome is a bloke with a broken jaw as I said an accident but to have no liability what so ever I find puzzling . I'm not going to go on with tit for tat quotes obviously we don't agree on the issue I can live with that it's your prerogative to have an opinion I just don't agree with it

[Josh Battle]

There’s too many old fashion people in positions of power in clubland and the media (including a few imbeciles like Michael Christian at AFL headquarters) who have taken the side of traditionalists and have ignored ‘duty of care’ and the ‘head is sacrosanct’. Those 2 phrases have become empty and hollow mantras that we’ve heard blurted out over the last 5 years, and it’s an uphill battle fighting the traditionalists.

What I really get annoyed about is that there’s a few Saints supporters who don’t look at all the evidence and they too have joined the bandwagon and just come out with rubbish generalisations and rubbish cliches instead of properly assessing the incident for what it was. Maybe the only reason that Mackay got off was because the MRO was incompetent with his initial ruling and the AFL was foolish in trusting the MRO to do a good job in the first place.

AND…don’t discount the pull that the Channel 7 commentators have on the night. If Luke Darcy and Matthew Richardson crucified Mackay the way they used to crucify Stevie Baker or the same as Ben Long copped, I’m certain that most people (the sheeple that hang on their every word) would have agreed that he was guilty. Instead, Luke and Matt defended Mackay and thought there was nothing in it.

Can you imagine if Luke Darcy and Matthew Richardson had commented negatively immediately after the incident and if channel 7 showed more angles of the lead up to the collision rather showing the actual collision about a dozen times…maybe Darcy and Richardson would have changed their tune.

Anyhow…There’s too many so called experts and quite a few privileged people in the media who definitely swung popular opinion in favour of Mackay right from the outset.

[B.M]

No, I just think you are wrong and you’re peddling lines.

I’m arguing the point

In my opinion he cleaned him up, and did a pretty good job of it… shown by the fact Hunter will miss 8-10

Accidental contact

Most times there is head high contact, it is normally accidental
People still get suspended

This was trial by media, as most cases are… there is always an agenda

Ask Steven Baker

He stopped in front of Jeff Farmer, Farmer ran into the back of his head and broke his nose, Baker wasn’t even facing Farmer
There was no conclusive footage
Farmer went into bat for Bakes

Guess what the outcome was?!

[ace]

So what happens with head clashes then, both players get rubbed out?

Now that is just silly & that didn't happen accidental or not McKays shoulder hit Hunters jaw breaking it in several places I think it was accidental but you are accountable for your own actions not just on the foooty field but in life in general I'm a plumber & if I do a gas job & that IMO is to code but by accident I missed something & the house blows up do you think the authorities would say oh well it's only an accident I don't think so

I let a lot of gas go by accident, I hope I don't get charged when it blows up.

[Yorkeys]

Do/did the Tribunal say whether it was a unanimous verdict and how much presumption of innocence plus media pressure played on those guys taking the easy way out.

If you ignore Hunter had his head over the ball and got his jaw badly broken I can see how you could just wave it through, collect your fee and go home to a warm bed.

If pressed at a dinner party just imply you were in favour of weeks but the other two were adamant it was just one of those things. Solidarity comrade.

Anyway MacKay expressed contrition, even though he didn't give the stricken Clark and assistance and you don't want to traumatise the poor guy with a penalty, goodness knows what psychological damage that could do. Its not all about the victim you know - Dave had to endure days of uncertainty while the media lobbied furiously for him.

[bangaulegend]

So what happens with head clashes then, both players get rubbed out?

Now that is just silly & that didn't happen accidental or not McKays shoulder hit Hunters jaw breaking it in several places I think it was accidental but you are accountable for your own actions not just on the foooty field but in life in general I'm a plumber & if I do a gas job & that IMO is to code but by accident I missed something & the house blows up do you think the authorities would say oh well it's only an accident I don't think so

I let a lot of gas go by accident, I hope I don't get charged when it blows up.

[Ghost Like]

Can you imagine if Luke Darcy and Matthew Richardson had commented negatively immediately after the incident and if channel 7 showed more angles of the lead up to the collision rather showing the actual collision about a dozen times…maybe Darcy and Richardson would have changed their tune.

If people in this world hang on the opinions of Darcy & Richardson waiting for them to drive their logic, forget the game of AFL, the world is in serious trouble.