MRO Thread

[GVGjr]

Re: MRO Thread

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.

I'd bet money that I will be proven wrong tomorrow night

So back to a question I posed earlier. If McKay collects a team mate with the same result does he go to the tribunal or get suspended?
If the answer is no then the broken jaw and therefore the result of the collision isn't really the consideration.

De Goey went hard at the player and with evil intent and got a week.

One last observation, if Naughton had have collected an opposition player when he concussed English would we be comfortable for him to cop his whack because he lifted his dangerous knee in a contest when perhaps he could have avoided it?

[jeemak]

Re: MRO Thread

I'd bet money that I will be proven wrong tomorrow night

So back to a question I posed earlier. If McKay collects a team mate with the same result does he go to the tribunal or get suspended?
If the answer is no then the broken jaw and therefore the result of the collision isn't really the consideration.

De Goey went hard at the player and with evil intent and got a week.

One last observation, if Naughton had have collected an opposition player when he concussed English would we be comfortable for him to cop his whack because he lifted his dangerous knee in a contest when perhaps he could have avoided it?

Now that's a topic worth discussing. Is jumping into people's heads with your knees a great idea in a sport that wants to reduce the prevalence of concussion? Of course it isn't but we want to see high marks and the chances of it happening are slim. But I can see future where that sort of action is penalised if an injury is sustained.

As for team mates colliding I don't think there'd be a suspension, but again I don't think it would happen in lieu of believing that Mackay both set out to win the ball and hurt his opponent.

For the record I reckon you'll win that bet.

[GVGjr]

Re: MRO Thread

Now that's a topic worth discussing. Is jumping into people's heads with your knees a great idea in a sport that wants to reduce the prevalence of concussion? Of course it isn't but we want to see high marks and the chances of it happening are slim. But I can see future where that sort of action is penalised if an injury is sustained.

As for team mates colliding I don't think there'd be a suspension, but again I don't think it would happen in lieu of believing that Mackay both set out to win the ball and hurt his opponent.

For the record I reckon you'll win that bet.

So the extent of the injury is only a consideration if it happens to an opposition player? It's not reckless, dangerous or unreasonable if it's a team mate on the receiving end

It's a complex issue.

[1eyedog]

Re: MRO Thread

Now that's a topic worth discussing. Is jumping into people's heads with your knees a great idea in a sport that wants to reduce the prevalence of concussion? Of course it isn't but we want to see high marks and the chances of it happening are slim. But I can see future where that sort of action is penalised if an injury is sustained.

As for team mates colliding I don't think there'd be a suspension, but again I don't think it would happen in lieu of believing that Mackay both set out to win the ball and hurt his opponent.

For the record I reckon you'll win that bet.

This can simply be remedied by incorporating the over 50s veteran superleague rules of no bent knees in a marking contest.

[jeemak]

Re: MRO Thread

So the extent of the injury is only a consideration if it happens to an opposition player? It's not reckless, dangerous or unreasonable if it's a team mate on the receiving end

It's a complex issue.

It is complex but I'm not sure the two are comparable, if you take the view that Mackay intended to hurt Clark which I think he did.

[jeemak]

Re: MRO Thread

This can simply be remedied by incorporating the over 50s veteran superleague rules of no bent knees in a marking contest.

Absolutely it can. I wonder if it will be.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

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

Interesting listening to Adam Treloar on the incident (see here ). He coaches some under 17 players and the action by Mackay is exactly what he teaches them to do, ie go in hard for the ball.

I think he needs to be found not guilty otherwise footy will be a disaster. No one will want to go for the ball, they will hold back.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: MRO Thread

If we are opening up injury being the determinant of suspension, why just the head? Rocca’s tackle/sling cost Bob and us 12 months of his prime footy through injury. But that was just an ‘act of god’. Or players get pushed near the boundary and hit the advertising boards hard and cop a hand injury. What is you chase too hard and a player pings a hammy?

Feels like a slippery slope when non-overtly unlawful acts are penalised based on an injury outcome. If that happens then for fairness, the rules of the game should be re-written that all players on the field who cause injury shall be suspended. Then everyone is clear. Remove the concept of an ‘accident’.

Even the law acknowledges the risk to injury:

“In the sporting context, a person who agrees to play a particular sport acknowledges and agrees to certain forms of bodily contact, usually within the defined rules of the sport and will have therefore given consent.

Not only is a player considered to have consented to contact within the rules of the sport but also implied consent to receive certain contact which may be outside the rules of the sport but what a player might reasonably expect during a game. For example a high tackle in rugby league is outside the rules of the sport but is reasonably expected and may occur in a fast paced game.”

The law accepts shit does happen sometimes. Injury isn’t the determinate of a legal intervention. Yet this could possibly be the new league standard. I’m half serious above. Shit or get off the pot. Suspensions for anyone involved in injuries, everyone without exception, or, focus or intent and actions that are clearly defined as illegal acts under the rules. I don’t see anything from the footage that warrants suspension. A guilty verdict creates a mess. An acquittal still creates a decent mess. There needs to be certainty from my perspective. I fear this poorly run monopoly won’t do the necessary work to provide it to the players, clubs, fans and stakeholders. It’ll be an ongoing lottery and when it happens in a final series or towards a Brownlow, we’ll I hope we have Peter Gordon retained…

[jeemak]

Re: MRO Thread

Interesting listening to Adam Treloar on the incident (see here ). He coaches some under 17 players and the action by Mackay is exactly what he teaches them to do, ie go in hard for the ball.

I think he needs to be found not guilty otherwise footy will be a disaster. No one will want to go for the ball, they will hold back.

Got to the four minute mark and threw up......Robbo asked if it was opportunistic which is what I called it and now I fear I think like Robbo and my night is ruined.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: MRO Thread

Interesting listening to Adam Treloar on the incident (see here ). He coaches some under 17 players and the action by Mackay is exactly what he teaches them to do, ie go in hard for the ball.

I think he needs to be found not guilty otherwise footy will be a disaster. No one will want to go for the ball, they will hold back.

Yep. If there are genuine ‘accident’ traffic collisions, where a driver isn’t charged despite not breaking a law just because there’s car damage. If there’s a driver at fault whose clearly broken laws then sure. But if they haven’t, common sense dictates that sometimes damage occurs without needing a culprit to blame. The notion of ‘act of god’ is in all parts of society, surely the afel subscribe to the concept? Or not?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: MRO Thread

Yep. If there are genuine ‘accident’ traffic collisions, where a driver isn’t charged despite not breaking a law just because there’s car damage. If there’s a driver at fault whose clearly broken laws then sure. But if they haven’t, common sense dictates that sometimes damage occurs without needing a culprit to blame. The notion of ‘act of god’ is in all parts of society, surely the afel subscribe to the concept? Or not?

They think they are god so no.

[divvydan]

Re: MRO Thread

Mackay found not guilty, the conduct was not consider to be unreasonable.

[comrade]

Re: MRO Thread

Good call.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: MRO Thread

Right outcome.

[KT31]

Re: MRO Thread

Mackay found not guilty, the conduct was not consider to be unreasonable.

Thank @#$& for that.