StKilda again the ones that cop it.

[Scollop]

Webster deserved to be suspended but 7 weeks your taking the piss. Less than 12 months ago DeGoey who ironed out and knocked out cold Elijah Hewitt got 3.

Again the AFL invent a way to use StKilda as its sacrifice to a baying and blood thirsty woke media.

We deserved it this time. What Webster did was appalling and if I was CEO of St Kilda I would ban him for the entire season.

If I could..I would ban you forever

[NickyDal]

Webster deserved to be suspended but 7 weeks your taking the piss. Less than 12 months ago DeGoey who ironed out and knocked out cold Elijah Hewitt got 3.

Again the AFL invent a way to use StKilda as its sacrifice to a baying and blood thirsty woke media.

We deserved it this time. What Webster did was appalling and if I was CEO of St Kilda I would ban him for the entire season.

If I could..I would ban you forever

Why? Is there something wrong with my post?

[Scollop]

Webster deserved to be suspended but 7 weeks your taking the piss. Less than 12 months ago DeGoey who ironed out and knocked out cold Elijah Hewitt got 3.

Again the AFL invent a way to use StKilda as its sacrifice to a baying and blood thirsty woke media.

We deserved it this time. What Webster did was appalling and if I was CEO of St Kilda I would ban him for the entire season.

If I could..I would ban you forever

Why? Is there something wrong with my post?

Jimmy made a mistake on the footy field. It was a bad decision and he' paying the price. Jimmy didn't bring the game into disrepute by posting dickpics of himself or bashing his partner or raping someone or getting caught dealing illegal substances

He has a very good record and he has been a loyal servant and a great team mate. He's also been a bloody good player. He doesn't deserve crap supporters forgetting everything he has done and all his hard work because of a brain fade on the footy field.

What is the role of a CEO? Is it to make subjective decisions that affect the football department?

[SaintPav]

Webster deserved to be suspended but 7 weeks your taking the piss. Less than 12 months ago DeGoey who ironed out and knocked out cold Elijah Hewitt got 3.

Again the AFL invent a way to use StKilda as its sacrifice to a baying and blood thirsty woke media.

We deserved it this time. What Webster did was appalling and if I was CEO of St Kilda I would ban him for the entire season.

If I could..I would ban you forever

Why? Is there something wrong with my post?

Your post reads fine to me if you’re not into hyperbole, sensationalism and attention seeking.

[Scollop]

Pause the video right at the start.

As I said. Clark i2s 2 m from the footy. Mackay is 6-8 m from the footy

Who is more likely to be second to the footy and what would he be thinking at this point? Is he thinking win the ball or is he thinking impact the contest and restrict the guy who is morelikely to have hands on it first?

Bloody hell!!

There's a setting on youtube that allows you to make the playback speed at 0.25 times normal speed. I also wound it back to the very start of the video and guess what? Mackay seems over 10 meters away from the pill. What was he thinking right at that moment when he's 10m away and he sees Clark only 2 metres away from picking it up?

There's also a crab in the frame

[The_Dud]

MacKay on Clark was the one
No case to answer - ran past the ball and shirtfronted Clark
My opinion 4 - 5 weeks

Love how these days ‘facts’ are in the eye of the beholder!

Some say he had no chance of getting to the ball, some say he ran passed the ball!

When the truth it right there in black and white (or full colour?)

What was black and white was the resultant aftermath of Mackay's act.

Hunter Clark was hit high and received multiple fractures to the head. That cannot de disputed

You cannot completely ignore ALL facts. The tribunal and the MRO and people like yourself think that it's ok to send someone to hospital in the pursuit of trying to win the footy, however...what sort of realistic chance did Mackay actually have of getting first hands on the ball? This was never discussed at the tribunal.

The still photos are not representative of the reality of the situation. The slo mo showing only the point of impact also doesn't fully represent the probability for each player approaching the ball.. i.e. Who was more likely to get first hands on it?

The guy running from 1.5m away or the guy running from 5-6m away?

You believed at the time of the incident and in the weeks after when we debated here, that Mackay (who started his run from 8-10 metres away) had an equal chance of winning the footy as Hunter who was only 2 metres from the ball. That was never discussed and our legal team were incompetent and basically negligent by ommotting to argue this point.

The fact that the footy didn't bounce truly (seems to be a St Kilda thing) meant that Hunter didn't immediately gain possession. Mackay approached the contest but he knew he only had a small chance of winning the ball. His first intent was to restrict the guy most likely to win it. Mackay had to make it look like he was attempting to go for the footy.

The still photos and some of the slow mo replays ONLY show the point of impact. They didn't focus on where each player was for the fractions of seconds prior to the impact. They also failed to discuss who had first hands on the ball. Fact: Clark had both hands around the ball BEFORE Mackay tried to rip it out of Hunter's grasp.

It is NOT ok for a player to run at full steam towards another player who is bending over to pick up a footy) and has eyes down looking only at the footy. Especially when head high contact is going to occur. The AFL told players the head is sacrosanct.

There is no difference between smashing into someone who has the ball in their hands (and it dislodges) and you make zero attempt to get your hands on the footy AND... what that pr!ck did to Hunter. Mackay's act was reckless and had horrific consequences. So what if he 'tried' to get the ball? He didn't win it because he had an unrealisic chance from the get go! It is NOT ok to risk causing severe head injuries to an opposition player in this situation. Are we going to say it's ok for players left right and centre in every lower league getting away with an act like that?

You and the MRO and all the dinasaurs pretend that what Mackay did was legal within the rules of the game, while ignoring everything we know and everything we knew at the time on CTE and concussion. Everything you reply with will be generalisations and you won't address each specific point. You'll blurt out the repeated crap about two players going for the ball. You'll say that Mackay's intent was the ball...as he did at the tribunal.

But don’t you find it interesting that so many can come up with so many different ‘facts’ from the same vision?

You’re very persistent with their exact distances from the ball, but you keep failing to mention that Hunter is running ‘with’ the bounce of the ball and McKay ‘against’ it. Their distance from the ball is meaningless without that info.

And don’t forget this is a football, it bobbles and bounces at weird angles.

Do you also think players shouldn’t try win the ball if they’re not ‘odds on’ favourites to win it? Does that not sound like the worst mentality to go into a game of football with? I would imagine the coach would say that if you have a 1% chance of winning the ball you try your bloody hardest to do so.

After all the measurement and velocities and bobbling balls, McKay gets to the footy a fraction of a second after Hunter. It was so close that Hunter never actually takes possession. They were both reaching out for the ball, a slightly different bounce and McKay gets there a fraction of a second before Hunter.

They’re both slightly crouched over, both reaching out, both trying to win the ball. Hunter is unlucky to get the bad end of the hit due to a slight misalignment with their bodies.

So, the questions are; Should an accidental high hit while trying to win the footy be punished? And should the outcome of an action be what determines the punishment, or is it the action itself?

Turn you mind back to round 14, 2009. A big bloke named Gardener comes from nowhere (bad odds) to win the ball and take a hanger and win the game. In doing this he absolutely obliterates Harry Taylor with his elbow, knocking him out cold before he hits the ground, sending him off on a cart straight to hospital.

By the same logic you’re using above, how many weeks should Gardener get?

[NickyDal]

Webster deserved to be suspended but 7 weeks your taking the piss. Less than 12 months ago DeGoey who ironed out and knocked out cold Elijah Hewitt got 3.

Again the AFL invent a way to use StKilda as its sacrifice to a baying and blood thirsty woke media.

We deserved it this time. What Webster did was appalling and if I was CEO of St Kilda I would ban him for the entire season.

If I could..I would ban you forever

Why? Is there something wrong with my post?

Your post reads fine to me if you’re not into hyperbole, sensationalism and attention seeking.

Thank you.

[Scollop]

MacKay on Clark was the one
No case to answer - ran past the ball and shirtfronted Clark
My opinion 4 - 5 weeks

Love how these days ‘facts’ are in the eye of the beholder!

Some say he had no chance of getting to the ball, some say he ran passed the ball!

When the truth it right there in black and white (or full colour?)

What was black and white was the resultant aftermath of Mackay's act.

Hunter Clark was hit high and received multiple fractures to the head. That cannot de disputed

You cannot completely ignore ALL facts. The tribunal and the MRO and people like yourself think that it's ok to send someone to hospital in the pursuit of trying to win the footy, however...what sort of realistic chance did Mackay actually have of getting first hands on the ball? This was never discussed at the tribunal.

The still photos are not representative of the reality of the situation. The slo mo showing only the point of impact also doesn't fully represent the probability for each player approaching the ball.. i.e. Who was more likely to get first hands on it?

The guy running from 1.5m away or the guy running from 5-6m away?

You believed at the time of the incident and in the weeks after when we debated here, that Mackay (who started his run from 8-10 metres away) had an equal chance of winning the footy as Hunter who was only 2 metres from the ball. That was never discussed and our legal team were incompetent and basically negligent by ommotting to argue this point.

The fact that the footy didn't bounce truly (seems to be a St Kilda thing) meant that Hunter didn't immediately gain possession. Mackay approached the contest but he knew he only had a small chance of winning the ball. His first intent was to restrict the guy most likely to win it. Mackay had to make it look like he was attempting to go for the footy.

The still photos and some of the slow mo replays ONLY show the point of impact. They didn't focus on where each player was for the fractions of seconds prior to the impact. They also failed to discuss who had first hands on the ball. Fact: Clark had both hands around the ball BEFORE Mackay tried to rip it out of Hunter's grasp.

It is NOT ok for a player to run at full steam towards another player who is bending over to pick up a footy) and has eyes down looking only at the footy. Especially when head high contact is going to occur. The AFL told players the head is sacrosanct.

There is no difference between smashing into someone who has the ball in their hands (and it dislodges) and you make zero attempt to get your hands on the footy AND... what that pr!ck did to Hunter. Mackay's act was reckless and had horrific consequences. So what if he 'tried' to get the ball? He didn't win it because he had an unrealisic chance from the get go! It is NOT ok to risk causing severe head injuries to an opposition player in this situation. Are we going to say it's ok for players left right and centre in every lower league getting away with an act like that?

You and the MRO and all the dinasaurs pretend that what Mackay did was legal within the rules of the game, while ignoring everything we know and everything we knew at the time on CTE and concussion. Everything you reply with will be generalisations and you won't address each specific point. You'll blurt out the repeated crap about two players going for the ball. You'll say that Mackay's intent was the ball...as he did at the tribunal.

But don’t you find it interesting that so many can come up with so many different ‘facts’ from the same vision?

You’re very persistent with their exact distances from the ball, but you keep failing to mention that Hunter is running ‘with’ the bounce of the ball and McKay ‘against’ it. Their distance from the ball is meaningless without that info.

And don’t forget this is a football, it bobbles and bounces at weird angles.

Do you also think players shouldn’t try win the ball if they’re not ‘odds on’ favourites to win it? Does that not sound like the worst mentality to go into a game of football with? I would imagine the coach would say that if you have a 1% chance of winning the ball you try your bloody hardest to do so.

After all the measurement and velocities and bobbling balls, McKay gets to the footy a fraction of a second after Hunter. It was so close that Hunter never actually takes possession. They were both reaching out for the ball, a slightly different bounce and McKay gets there a fraction of a second before Hunter.

They’re both slightly crouched over, both reaching out, both trying to win the ball. Hunter is unlucky to get the bad end of the hit due to a slight misalignment with their bodies.

So, the questions are; Should an accidental high hit while trying to win the footy be punished? And should the outcome of an action be what determines the punishment, or is it the action itself?

Turn you mind back to round 14, 2009. A big bloke named Gardener comes from nowhere (bad odds) to win the ball and take a hanger and win the game. In doing this he absolutely obliterates Harry Taylor with his elbow, knocking him out cold before he hits the ground, sending him off on a cart straight to hospital.

By the same logic you’re using above, how many weeks should Gardener get?

You are justifying an incorrect call by the MRO and the tribunal and you want me to believe that Mackay had a chance of winning the ball.

Three things and I'll let you get back to believing whatever YOU want to believe in.

1. I am persistent because the distance between football and both players is crucial in determining Mackay's intent. The football is travelling yes...but at what velocity? Intent wasn't contemplated at the moment of impact. It was contemplated when Mackay saw a loose footy that was a meaningful distance closer to Clark than it was to himself. Comprende?

2. Gardener had a very good chance of marking the footy....i.e ....a high probability of winning the ball. He actually executed because he was first to get both hands wrapped around the footy... and no one else did!!

3. Hunter Clark momentarily took possession of the ball. SO YOU ARE WRONG about him not taking possession. In real time it is near impossible to see, but that's what the technology is for. Slow down the Youtube video and you will see this. Again...the legal team trying to prosecute failed to get this point across.

Both of Hunter's hands are on that football. David Mackay did not get both his hands on the ball!! He attempted to. He reached out, but Hunter was the only player with both hands on the ball before a steam train crashed right into him!!

The AFL and St Kilda were incompetent in prosecuting Mackay and you stubbornly persist in parroting the logic of the biased dinosaurs (the channel 7 commentators on that night who set the agenda from the word go AS THEY DID WITH THE MAYNARD HIT).

The MRO and the tribunal and those in charge at AFL house failed to make a statement and send a message at that time. 3 years later they are trying to make up for lost time.

By your logic and the people who were supporting Maynard and Mackay, it could be argued that it was Hunter's fault for veering his face into Mackay's shoulder bone.

[Scollop]

Strip it all back and you have player A (Clark) in possession of the footy - albeit for a microsecond*...and player B (Mackay) executing a late head high hit.

*It's in the footage. Look at it Dud

Seeing though you are bringing up other incidents into this debate, I'd like to ask people what they think Maynard would have done if he'd gotten decent contact on the ball in his attempt to smother.

Obviously his attention turned to Brayshaw once he failed to stop the footy...but consider this;

Would he have still tried to take out his opponent... or would his focus have been the footy if he executed a smother and the loose ball was in close proximity?

If he managed to fully smother the ball would he be looking to twist his body in mid flight to cause a collision which would most likely cause himself to NOT land on his feet?

The AFL acknowledges that the Maynard decision was incorrect. They've changed the rules to try and catch out any player who attempts to use the Maynard incident as an excuse but...

What they failed to do was acknowledge that they were hoodwinked by the Collingwood barrister and they were negligent in their duties to protect a player who only had the footy as his focus and he was hit AFTER he disposed of the ball.

Jimmy got 7. I'd say Maynard deserved 4 and 2 extra for being a fugly caaant

Queue the dinosaurs: Another shred has been torn from the fabric of the game.

[SaintWiki]

Thanks CURLY, you historically post the an opinion I generally agree with, albeit with a colorful flair.

It was my view that the AFL 'penalty model' suggests this incident is worth 3 weeks .. high contact, careless .. force .. etc .. the De Goey penalty a reflection of this policy.

But Webster gets 7 weeks .. that's the 3 weeks (penalty model) + 4 weeks. I've got no issue with the 'standard' 3 week penalty, but like CURLY would like to question where the 4 weeks came from.

Has the AFL introduced a new policy this year in line with community and media standards? If so has this been announced? And the bigger question, is this actually a new policy, will this be the new precedent?

Or is this the AFL and Media just making up new rules?

Like CURLY, I reckon St Kilda has been shafted for 20-30 years by the tribunal. But to be fair, I reckon a few others also get shafted. James Scissly and Toby Greene also cop unfair treatment.

Yep, and if the AFL has a new policy, is climbing the ladder for a high mark and other actions potentially very dangerous to other players considered or is the AFL waiting for a St Kilda player to climb for a mark to magically introduce it.

[B.M]

Paddy Ryder copped weeks because a player ran into him?!

[Scollop]

Paddy Ryder copped weeks because a player ran into him?!

Another reminder of St Kilda bending over and accepting whatever pole the AFL wants to insert

That was so wrong. Paddy stood his ground. He didn’t charge or attempt to bump at all.

The injury to the Hawthorn player’s neck was all self inflicted and our incompetent legal team just let the AFL do what it wanted.

He didn’t even make high contact. The Hawks player got jolted when his shoulder hit Paddy’s chest

The head is sacrosanct…except if you’re Hunter Clark or Angus Brayshaw

[The_Dud]

You are justifying an incorrect call by the MRO and the tribunal and you want me to believe that Mackay had a chance of winning the ball.

Three things and I'll let you get back to believing whatever YOU want to believe in.

1. I am persistent because the distance between football and both players is crucial in determining Mackay's intent. The football is travelling yes...but at what velocity? Intent wasn't contemplated at the moment of impact. It was contemplated when Mackay saw a loose footy that was a meaningful distance closer to Clark than it was to himself. Comprende?

2. Gardener had a very good chance of marking the footy....i.e ....a high probability of winning the ball. He actually executed because he was first to get both hands wrapped around the footy... and no one else did!!

3. Hunter Clark momentarily took possession of the ball. SO YOU ARE WRONG about him not taking possession. In real time it is near impossible to see, but that's what the technology is for. Slow down the Youtube video and you will see this. Again...the legal team trying to prosecute failed to get this point across.

Both of Hunter's hands are on that football. David Mackay did not get both his hands on the ball!! He attempted to. He reached out, but Hunter was the only player with both hands on the ball before a steam train crashed right into him!!

The AFL and St Kilda were incompetent in prosecuting Mackay and you stubbornly persist in parroting the logic of the biased dinosaurs (the channel 7 commentators on that night who set the agenda from the word go AS THEY DID WITH THE MAYNARD HIT).

The MRO and the tribunal and those in charge at AFL house failed to make a statement and send a message at that time. 3 years later they are trying to make up for lost time.

By your logic and the people who were supporting Maynard and Mackay, it could be argued that it was Hunter's fault for veering his face into Mackay's shoulder bone.

1. The distances are irrelevant. He is obviously trying to win the ball as he is clearly reaching out for it right up to the moment he and Clark collide.

2. Did he have a "very good chance"? Or maybe half a chance? Or maybe he took a chance? He was 30-40m away from the drop of the ball when it was kicked, Harry Taylor was much closer. You can't have it both ways...

3. Hunter never took possession as he never had control of it. The best he got was it seemed to wedge between his forearms for a fraction of a second before MacKay got there. I'd love you to show where he had both hands around the footy.

You're whole argument is based around the fact that players shouldn't try win the ball if there is another player with a better chance. This is an absolutely ridiculous stance, and would be the end of all sport if players went into games with that mindset.

Thinking everybody down at the Club and all the high priced lawyers who do this kind of thing for a living are incompetent because they don't share your theory is some very shaky ground to stand on. Maybe it's a sign to reflect on your position a bit?

I actually am not fussed either way if Mackay or Manard got rubbed out for their hits, I could see both arguments, its just those being disingenuous about it that gets me. If your stance is that accidental hits while playing the ball should be punished, then that's fine. If it's the opposite, then that's fine also. The AFL have adjusted the rules since both those hits so in 2024 they would be punished.

BUT by your logic if Mackay goes then Gardner goes also. Both had eyes on the ball. Both were playing the ball. Both hit and injure a player high (one with shoulder, one with elbow) at the ensuing contest. You can't have it both ways.

[Life Long Saint]

The issue with the Webster hit for me is the grading by the AFL MRO.
Webster's hit was graded as careless.
I find it hard to accept that any careless act on a footy field is worthy of a seven match suspension.

If they'd graded Webster's bump as intentional, then I'd have no problem with the length of the ban. And it was an intentional act. He lined him up, left the ground, and knocked him into next week.

Intentional conduct, high contact, and severe impact. Seven weeks for sure...BUT
Careless conduct, high contact, and severe impact. Four weeks at best...Four weeks on top of the standard 3 is outrageous...And we should have appealed it.

[Scollop]

You're whole argument is based around the fact that players shouldn't try win the ball

I never said that.

This is where you get stuck continually because you've been hoodwinked by the narrative that 'Mackay was going for the footy'

I have never doubted for one moment what his primary objective was....and that's where I obviously differ from you.

The commentators on the night told us that 'it was 2 players going for the ball'. Sure it was. Thanks Luke Darcy and Matthew Richardson for aiding Christianson with his job. He agreed with the both of those clowns of course...but Steve Hocking and the AFL didn't. Bad luck that our legal team were incompetent.

You talk about going for the footy as if it's open slather to do whatever you want. You can't. The sliding rule and below the knees rule was introduced to change player behaviour... wasn't it!?!

You can't inflict high contact trying to retain possession (like a high fend off) and you can't shoulder bump someone in the head bending over to win a loose ground ball. There's a big difference between winning a loose ball on the ground versus a ball in flight that is available to be marked.

I'll simplify it for you. Mackay's attempt at winning the ground ball was illegal because he made high contact at the same time. Happy!?!

The game in 2024 moves on and the game will continue to change whether the dinosaurs like it or not.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-20 ... c9ada6facc



This wasn't an accident." Gerard Whateley weighs in on David Mackay's collision with Hunter Clark.

[The_Dud]

You're whole argument is based around the fact that players shouldn't try win the ball

I never said that.

This is where you get stuck continually because you've been hoodwinked by the narrative that 'Mackay was going for the footy'

I have never doubted for one moment what his primary objective was....and that's where I obviously differ from you.

The commentators on the night told us that 'it was 2 players going for the ball'. Sure it was. Thanks Luke Darcy and Matthew Richardson for aiding Christianson with his job. He agreed with the both of those clowns of course...but Steve Hocking and the AFL didn't. Bad luck that our legal team were incompetent.

There's a big difference between winning a loose ball on the ground versus a ball in flight that is available to be marked. You talk about winning the footy as if it's open slather to do whatever you want. You can't. The sliding rule and below the knees rule was introduced to change player behaviour... wasn't it!?!

The game in 2024 moves on and the game will continue to change whether the dinosaurs like it or not.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-20 ... c9ada6facc



This wasn't an accident." Gerard Whateley weighs in on David Mackay's collision with Hunter Clark.

Are you not saying that he wasn't trying to win the ball, or shouldn't have been trying to win the ball, because he started further away from it than Hunter?

Yes I think it's clear where we differ, and that's ok.

No one needs to tell me he's playing the ball, I worked that out on my own, mainly due to the fact he was literally reaching out for it (a slightly different bounce and he would have got to it first) right up until the point he and Hunter collide. If his objective was to line Hunter up he would have tucked his arm in, braced for impact and probably left the ground before the hit, just like Webster did.

I also think your judgement is being skewed by the colour of jumpers being worn.

[Scollop]

Forget about the sledging and stick to the issue Dud

I'll simplify it for you. Mackay's attempt at winning the ground ball was illegal because he made high contact at the same time. Happy!?!

[Scollop]

You are the one who introduced a totally different scenario with Gardener

You talk about going for the footy as if it's open slather to do whatever you want. You can't. The sliding rule and below the knees rule was introduced to change player behaviour... wasn't it!?!

You can't inflict high contact trying to retain possession (like a high fend off) and you can't shoulder bump someone in the head bending over to win a loose ground ball. There's a big difference between winning a loose ball on the ground versus a ball in flight that is available to be marked.

[The_Dud]

Sledging? Now I'm genuinely confused.

Illegal as in free kick, definitely. Illegal as in suspended, that's obviously the debate.

I'm also interested why in your opinion it's ok to accidently knock someone out going for the ball in the air but not ok when on the ground. Why are they different?

On a side note, the 'below the knees' rule is one of the worst in footy due to it rarely being used correctly. Its changed from protecting a player from another who is sliding in dangerously (like Goodes did), to rewarding players who aren't actually trying to win the ball and instead choose to 'run over' the player who's going lower knowing they'll get a free. No different from ducking to get a high tackle or diving to get a push in the back. But that's another debate

[Scollop]

Saying my judgement is 'skewed' implies I'm biased. That's an incorrect assumption.

I have been consistent on head high bumps/shirtfronts/and any collision which involves a contest for the ball since the AFL made it clear that the head is sacrosanct

I believe Dangerfield should have been suspended in the 2020 Grand Final for taking out Vlastuin. I think Willie Rioli should have been suspended for his attempt to win the ball when he crashed into Matt Rowells head.

I'm also interested why in your opinion it's ok to accidently knock someone out going for the ball in the air but not ok when on the ground. Why are they different?

It's easier to take out an opponent while contesting a ground ball. It used to be done regularly each week and even a few times per game. Ben Long was an expert at it. The AFL clamped down on it and you can't do it anymore.

I have seen at junior level some horrible incidents and the more that is 'seen' to be done to prevent collisions the better it is for all concerned. Especially the welfare of players.

There is a big difference between a genuine fair contest for a loose ground ball, and an incident where 1 player has eyes down and the other is charging full steam with no regard for the head and face of his opponent.

Would it have been ok if Hunter Clark had caught Mackay in the corner of his eye and (in order to win the footy) and protect himself at the same time) he lifted his elbow and smashed Mackay's teeth in while at the same time gathering the ball with one hand?

That's how Mackay's attempt should be seen. It was reckless it was severe impact and it was high

Last thing I'll say is that Hunter WAS NOT awarded a free kick. This was the first of many mistakes in the whole saga.

I don't want to continue this in public. If you want PM me.

[samoht]

Mackay rushed in from 5 plus metres away ... he was not realistically "in the contest."
Even if he was a chance to lay a finger or fingernail on the ball is not the point ... he had no right to rush in like that and endanger someone who only had eyes for the bal

It only takes 5 metres from a standing start to reach top speed or close to top speed.
And he turned his back and protected himself in the end ... the aggressor protected himself and placed Clark in danger.
Mackay had time to do that - never mind what happened to Clark.

Clark had every right to raise his arm to reflexively fend him off and collect him as he charged in, if he got his arm positioning wrong ... but his eyes remained on the ball.

Charge/reckless play, unduly rough play ... there were plenty of reasons to throw the book at that dangerous incident.

Who/what should be protected here, at the end of the day . .. the right of a player to charge in and cause mayhem if there's a slim to 50/50 chance of them getting to a contest ... or the player, Clark in this case, not being subjected to a dangerous charge?

I think the AFL has to err on the side of protecting the head .. and not send mixed messages.

[samuraisaint]

How he got off and Ryder got weeks is an absolute joke and is frankly completely illogical.

One guy makes a decision to effect a contest and in doing so was going to effect a collision with the player who had eyes for the ball. The player with his eyes on the ball gets his jaw broken in the collision!!

Another guy merely stands his ground while an opposing player makes the questionable decision to run right into him at full pace; a 7 foot giant who is standing all by himself in the middle of the MCG because he didn't want to run around him. Of course Ryder is going to brace himself to protect himself. Anybody would - it's instinct. If he didn't see Ryder he needs to go to specsavers, if he did and thought he could run through Ryder, well, what can you say about deciding to run into the human equivalent of a telegraph pole!?!

Nah, 2 sh1t decisions for mine.

And remember, the MRO won't recognise precedents. That sounds like a get-out clause for letting certain players off for big games to me.

[saynta]

How he got off and Ryder got weeks is an absolute joke and is frankly completely illogical.

One guy makes a decision to effect a contest and in doing so was going to effect a collision with the player who had eyes for the ball. The player with his eyes on the ball gets his jaw broken in the collision!!

Another guy merely stands his ground while an opposing player makes the questionable decision to run right into him at full pace; a 7 foot giant who is standing all by himself in the middle of the MCG because he didn't want to run around him. Of course Ryder is going to brace himself to protect himself. Anybody would - it's instinct. If he didn't see Ryder he needs to go to specsavers, if he did and thought he could run through Ryder, well, what can you say about deciding to run into the human equivalent of a telegraph pole!?!

Nah, 2 sh1t decisions for mine.

And remember, the MRO won't recognise precedents. That sounds like a get-out clause for letting certain players off for big games to me.

Great sensible post...and so true.