MRO Thread

[Go_Dogs]

So looking at the rules, I think the Tribunal will need to decide:
1. when he made the decision to attack the ball at speed (probably at least 10m out to build up momentum)
2. should he / would he have known there would be a contest at the ground ball (probably safe to assume there would be)
3. given that, was the force reasonable and necessary (well, he had eyes for the ball and wanted to be first there so attacked it with speed. Should he have slowed down rather than trying to win the ball at such ferocity because there was a likelihood that someone else would be there contesting it too?)

I think there is sufficient ambiguity in the Rules and the facts of this one that it could go either way. Hopefully it doesn’t result in weeks.

[GVGjr]

What did McKay actually do wrong? What has he been charged with?

I'm all for protecting players but on face value it's two players going hard for the ball.
I can't see it was intentional or reckless but happy to hear others views.

[jeemak]

This is from the AFL's reporter:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/631742/w...an-at-tribunal

In a statement released on Monday, the League clarified that its legal counsel will argue that Mackay's bump was "unreasonable in the circumstances" after it was referred directly to the Tribunal by the Match Review Officer.

The statement read: "As such, the AFL will argue that, regardless of whether Player Mackay was (1) contesting the ball, (2) bumping Player Clark or (3) both, he still contravened the general prohibition on unreasonable conduct (including in contesting the ball)."

That doesn't really sit well with me.

[bornadog]

What did McKay actually do wrong? What has he been charged with?

I'm all for protecting players but on face value it's two players going hard for the ball.
I can't see it was intentional or reckless but happy to hear others views.

I agree with you, this is a charge because of a broken jaw, otherwise it would be play on.

[GVGjr]

I agree with you, this is a charge because of a broken jaw, otherwise it would be play on.

I guess so but if McKay had collected a team mate with the same result rather than an opposition player would he still be off to face the tribunal or would it be accepted as just part of the game?

It smacks of wanting to be seen to be doing something rather than a well thought out charge.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Bulldog Joe]

I agree with you, this is a charge because of a broken jaw, otherwise it would be play on.

It is the perennial problem with the AFL.

Charge based on outcome when it should be intent.

The player deserving a 3 week suspension this week was Mumford who had intent to hurt North players in 2 separate incidents.

[GVGjr]

This is from the AFL's reporter:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/631742/w...an-at-tribunal

In a statement released on Monday, the League clarified that its legal counsel will argue that Mackay's bump was "unreasonable in the circumstances" after it was referred directly to the Tribunal by the Match Review Officer.

The statement read: "As such, the AFL will argue that, regardless of whether Player Mackay was (1) contesting the ball, (2) bumping Player Clark or (3) both, he still contravened the general prohibition on unreasonable conduct (including in contesting the ball)."

That doesn't really sit well with me.

How do we coach players to avoid this? The end result might really change the fabric of the game.

[jeemak]

How do we coach players to avoid this? The end result might really change the fabric of the game.

Do you think his main objective was to get the ball then? Or do you think it was an opportunistic act that enabled him to collect an opposition player with a bump at the same time as possibly taking the ball?

I think it was the latter.

[Hotdog60]

I watched the video replay and as far as I could see it was two players gone hard for the ball. All the is in my opinion is a accident in a contact sport.
If MacKay backs away or shirks the issue he would have been on the phone with the coach.
This reeks of the below the knees sliding in rule were one player gets a broken leg in wet conditions and the AFL just about kills the in and under player.

[GVGjr]

Do you think his main objective was to get the ball then? Or do you think it was an opportunistic act that enabled him to collect an opposition player with a bump at the same time as possibly taking the ball?

I think it was the latter.

I'm happy to be proven wrong here but from my perspective it looked to me to be two players trying to get too the ball first. I don't think he lined him up to bump him or hurt him but it was a very physical collision where one player got his jaw broken.

I still can't grasp what he did wrong. If Clark gets up unscathed is it even a free kick?

[Mofra]

If you watch the incident in real-time (not slowed down), Clark and MacKay just seem to be going for the ball and Clark didn't see him coming. I didn't think there was malice in it and perhaps a couple of years ago it isn't even looked at.

The AFL tend to look at results rather than intent which is a terrible way to adjudicate. If it was a more aware player there instead of Clark and MacKay did exactly the same thing it probably ends up being a shoulder to shoulder contest, a play on and it's forgotten ten seconds later.

[EasternWest]

It is the perennial problem with the AFL.

Charge based on outcome when it should be intent.

The player deserving a 3 week suspension this week was Mumford who had intent to hurt North players in 2 separate incidents.

Nah he's just clumsy, just what big boys do.

[Grantysghost]

Do you think his main objective was to get the ball then? Or do you think it was an opportunistic act that enabled him to collect an opposition player with a bump at the same time as possibly taking the ball?

I think it was the latter.

Tend to agree, you can be doing two things at once. I thought at the pace he hit the contest at there was a risk of damage and he had some intent there to hit the player and smashed his jaw. Whether he should be suspended I don’t know, but he plays for the Crows so yes, 4 weeks.

The bump has been dead for ages, can’t recall the last good one. Time to let it go.

[comrade]

Footy collision or dangerous bump, that's what will need to be clarified and decided upon. Most former/current players seem to fine with the action (David King the loudest exception). Pundits like Robbo and Whately think it deserves multiple weeks as a minimum and any head high contact of that nature should and will be stamped out of the game.

Personally, I think it's a footy collision and doesn't deserve a suspension. It's a fast paced, contact sport and you can't avoid these types of contests sometimes, unless we want to coach it out of the game entirely which I'm not sure is good.

Compare that to the de Goey incident on Oliver, I'm happy JDG got a week for that. Deliberate, went for the head and even though Oliver put some mayo on it, he's lucky it wasn't worse.

[jeemak]

I'm happy to be proven wrong here but from my perspective it looked to me to be two players trying to get too the ball first. I don't think he lined him up to bump him or hurt him but it was a very physical collision where one player got his jaw broken.

I still can't grasp what he did wrong. If Clark gets up unscathed is it even a free kick?

Well it's easy to say that when it's literally impossible to prove you wrong!

I'm not saying that he did anything wrong, it's a game where this stuff might happen, you might be on the wrong end of it and that's a risk you accept. I was always taught to protect myself and I don't think players do that enough these days and I'm not sure Clark did. I'm not blaming Clark either.

But I can't watch that at any speed and not immediately see that Mackay wanted to hurt him. Players want to hit bodies and hurt them, I don't care what they might say in public, they all want to hit bodies and hurt them.