The Head is sacrosanct

[Scollop]

AFL Tribunal: Shock result as Dees LOSE striking case

https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/afl-gr ... c-10598795

Gleeson explained the jury’s findings.

“We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this; it was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard’s head."

Gold Coast’s medical report of Charlie Ballard stated: “We wanted to be cautious with Charlie’s neck taking him off the ground, but after further assessment he has responded well and we expect him to train fully this week to be available for selection for Friday.” The link below is more reactions regarding the Van Rooyen case

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/ ... e17424b3af

The head is sacrosanct...unless you happen to be a Saints player and your name is Hunter Clark. Most of us grew up watching that sort of thing every week. We'd call what happened to Clark a shirtfront by David Mackay in that game up in Cairns. Clark ended up in hospital with multiple face fractures and Mackay was not even cited by the MRO. The AFL clumsily tried to prosecute.

The fact that Mackay attempted to rip the footy out of Hunter's hands was the primary focus of the tribunal at that time AND absolutely no consideration given for any potential to cause injury by the Adelaide player. All the dinosaurs were quick to applaud the tribunal's 'sanity'. The link below is the Fox Sports news story after the tribunal cleared the prick Mackay

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/ ... 1168616502

If you freeze the vision below at 3.30 it's clear that Mackay was going to be second to the footy. Mackay wasn't interested in whether his attempt to gain possession was going to inevitably result in a forceful blow to Hunter's head...the AFL tribunal dismissed the case and totally ignored the potential to cause injury from this type of shirt front

[Scollop]

I personally hope Van Rooyen gets off. I just can't stand the fact that there is so much inconsistency. Especially when Hunter was sent to hospital and the perpetrator (David Mackay) gets off scot-free and same last year when the Brownlow medalist got off, Willy Rioli got off, and guys like Tom Hawkins & Tom Lynch from Richmond get off by pretending they are clumsy

They've clamped down hard on the tackling, but obviously it's the collision injuries that are just as likely to cause head trauma. If the head is sacrosanct then for fk sake!! The AFL have to provide clear instruction to the people at the MRO and the tribunal need to be consistent

[Life Long Saint]

The Close/Dawson one was interesting for me.
It appeared that Dawson's momentum took him to ground rather than any additional tackling action by Close.
He's not a solid bloke and seemed to be more like hangin on to Dawson rather than forcing him to ground.

[Otiman]

The Caminiti incident split the footy world, but this has the entire footy community against the AFL.

Melbourne needs to get a range of brownlow medalists, norm smith medalists, B&F winners, to come out in support that they are reasonable players and disagree with the "reasonable player" interpretation.

[The_Dud]

Are we still carrying on about Clark/Mackay?!?

[samoht]

Caminiti got what he deserved, but at least what he did was in retaliation to Murphy's forceful punch.
Murphy's punch to Caminiti's neck and jaw was not "low impact" and it was also totally uncalled for - he should have been suspended too (gotten weeks on top of any games he might have missed from concussion).

[saynta]

Are we still carrying on about Clark/Mackay?!?

Yes, because it clearly was a wrong decision.

[older saint]

All clubs need to pool resources and make them available to Melbourne to appeal this. Goes against the actual rules of the game ( as pointed out in the tribunal) , wasn't a swinging arm and only just missed the ball.

For the tribunal to say that a player needs to consider the possibility of high contest before entering the contest is ridiculous lawyer talk ( comment made by chair who is a QC). What the game is actually about is up for challenge here because the AFL is shot scared of head contact- mind you the GC players does not have concussion.

Using this theory Roo should have got 6 weeks for contact with Milne at the SCG and Jono Brown the same at Mcg v Hawthorn

[B.M]

Chose to clean up Clark

Hit him in the head

0 weeks

Still shake my head

Van Rooyen
Attempt to spoil the ball, arm makes incidental contact
2 weeks

[samoht]

If the AFL is "shot scared" of head contact, you'd think it would have suspended Murphy for punching Caminiti.

Was that punch to the head/neck/jaw in play or was it an uncoordinated attempt to spoil the ball?

The Saints' heads should be the most sancrosanct, by definition.

I think the Murphy punch was the most blatant of all ... what the AFL should have been all over.

[Scollop]

Are we still carrying on about Clark/Mackay?!?

Did you watch the vision? If you did you would have seen the score.

What do you think Mackay had on his mind at the 3.30 mark?

"Gee... I'm a good chance to win this footy" ...Or "Right... I'm a good chance to hurt the opposition"

When your side is down by 6 goals and you desperately need a spark to inspire the team, what better way than to clean up the opposition

The d**khead Mackay had the gall to say he was only going for the ball. Fwits at the tribunal asked what his intentions were... what did they expect him to say?

Yeah...hee hee hee...I knew I had the little Saint fukr on toast

[samoht]

Jumper punches get cited which are disguised, short, sharp punches, but Murphy's coming from a long way back and obvious for all to see, and which connected with force and intent to the neck/head wasn't.

I think that says it all.

[takeaway]

Are Melbourne appealing? I hope they do, as any suspension is wrong in my view. Hopefully sanity will prevail, as it did in the Clark incident.

[samoht]

The Clark/Mackay incident unfortunately leaves room fior interpretation, and was "in play" but Murphy was another kettle of fish.

[lewdogs]

If the McKay Clark incident happened now he'd get rubbed out. No question about it.

[saynta]

Are we still carrying on about Clark/Mackay?!?

Did you watch the vision? If you did you would have seen the score.

What do you think Mackay had on his mind at the 3.30 mark?

"Gee... I'm a good chance to win this footy" ...Or "Right... I'm a good chance to hurt the opposition"

When your side is down by 6 goals and you desperately need a spark to inspire the team, what better way than to clean up the opposition

The d**khead Mackay had the gall to say he was only going for the ball. Fwits at the tribunal asked what his intentions were... what did they expect him to say?

Yeah...hee hee hee...I knew I had the little Saint fukr on toast

Well said.

[saynta]

If the McKay Clark incident happened now he'd get rubbed out. No question about it.

Who, Clark.?

[SaintPav]

Incredible.

What’s also incredible was that score line with 9 min 20 sec to go in the first half. I'd to see that on Sunday.

[lewdogs]

If the McKay Clark incident happened now he'd get rubbed out. No question about it.

Who, Clark.?

Um no, the other guy.

[saynta]

If the McKay Clark incident happened now he'd get rubbed out. No question about it.

Who, Clark.?

Um no, the other guy.

I was pulling your leg.

[Sanctorum]

The decision in the 'van Rooy' incident sets a whole new precedent about a player's responsibility when trying to punch the ball clear in a contest.

There is no doubt that the ongoing revelations about players suffering from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), as a result of one or more concussions sustained when playing football, are starting to have an impact.

Obviously the onus is now on individual players to exercise a duty of care when engaging in a contest for the ball, no matter how difficult that will be to control in the heat of the moment.

If you're a parent or spouse or son/daughter of a player with CTE who has taken his life you may take the view that concussion caused by an opponent, accidental or otherwise, should be stamped out of the game.

I venture to suggest that the AFL has listened to these stories and in consultation with the medical specialists has decided that the time for change is now.

Jonathon Brown and a host of former players and commentators, plus many on this forum, complain that the 'van Rooy' incident has always been a normal part of the physicality of football, and should remain so.....and that the AFL is giving in to the litigation lobby.

Back in the 'good old days' we laughed when we saw a fullback give his opposing full forward a fist to the back of the head, or a 'cauliflower ear' in the process of preventing a mark.

There is good sense in both opposing viewpoints, but as I see it ultimately the AFL has a singular responsibility to protect players from the worst effects of knocks to the head, and while van Rooy's opponent was not seriously injured, it could easily have turned out otherwise.

The outcome of this situation is that coaches and players will need to adapt to the new criteria and as they have done in the past no doubt they can and will.

At the end of the day, as much as we all take football games seriously and enjoy the courageous physicality of the players, it is not a 'life or death' contest, it's just a game!

[Otiman]

The decision in the 'van Rooy' incident sets a whole new precedent about a player's responsibility when trying to punch the ball clear in a contest.

I think this is the problem.

There was no edict from the AFL last week that the rules have changed.

The Murphy incident last week was 0 weeks. JVR this week 2 weeks.

There is no education from the AFL/MRO/Tribunal to the public, and there most definitely needs to be. However, it seems to be news to the players as much as the fans so there is nothing going out from the AFL on this.

"Precedent" shouldn't mean waiting for an incident then ruling differently.

It should be a huge effort to broadcast a range of past incidents and explain why each of them would or wouldn't result in suspension with new interpretation of the rules.

Because no 'rules' have changed it's impossible to do this.

[Devilhead]

Don't see much difference between the Van Rooyen incident and when Carlisle copped 2 weeks for striking Jack Riewoldt with a forearm to the head in a marking contest a few years back.

Both were clumsy attempts to spoil and both paid the price for hitting the head

[Dis Believer]

The decision in the 'van Rooy' incident sets a whole new precedent about a player's responsibility when trying to punch the ball clear in a contest.

There is no doubt that the ongoing revelations about players suffering from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), as a result of one or more concussions sustained when playing football, are starting to have an impact.

Obviously the onus is now on individual players to exercise a duty of care when engaging in a contest for the ball, no matter how difficult that will be to control in the heat of the moment.

If you're a parent or spouse or son/daughter of a player with CTE who has taken his life you may take the view that concussion caused by an opponent, accidental or otherwise, should be stamped out of the game.

I venture to suggest that the AFL has listened to these stories and in consultation with the medical specialists has decided that the time for change is now.

Jonathon Brown and a host of former players and commentators, plus many on this forum, complain that the 'van Rooy' incident has always been a normal part of the physicality of football, and should remain so.....and that the AFL is giving in to the litigation lobby.

Back in the 'good old days' we laughed when we saw a fullback give his opposing full forward a fist to the back of the head, or a 'cauliflower ear' in the process of preventing a mark.

There is good sense in both opposing viewpoints, but as I see it ultimately the AFL has a singular responsibility to protect players from the worst effects of knocks to the head, and while van Rooy's opponent was not seriously injured, it could easily have turned out otherwise.

The outcome of this situation is that coaches and players will need to adapt to the new criteria and as they have done in the past no doubt they can and will.

At the end of the day, as much as we all take football games seriously and enjoy the courageous physicality of the players, it is not a 'life or death' contest, it's just a game!

I don't disagree with anything stated here. However, I would bet London to a brick that the AFL's motivation extends no further than minimizing future potential payouts resulting from legal actions.

[Yorkeys]

Are we still carrying on about Clark/Mackay?!?

Yes, because it clearly was a wrong decision.

Aggegiously wrong. Wrong in fact and principle. Media decided to support McKay for no other reason than foster media debate. MRO and tribunal are a bunch of arbitrary wankers given pseudo legal respect. Fools that failed logic101 or corrupt. If we accept their roulette approach and "just move on" we validate their capricious crap.