I thought Dunstall was the most articulate on the matter, (god 360 is so much better with him, and especially when he is not on Bounce). Incidental contact has to remain a part of the game, If the vision wasn’t so clear that Mackay was playing the ball and not the man I could understand the fuss, but risk has to remain a part of the game.

I see this as one more skirmish in the AFL's war against the NRL. A new front has been opened regarding head trauma. The NRL don't quite know what to do about it, but they know it's affecting junior uptake of the sport.

The AFL want the mums of the land to say "you're not playing rugby" and they further want them to say "but that AFL is okay ... they try to protect the head".

As in all things, the AFL is inconsistent and erratic on this. That's why they can let certain pieces of thuggery go as "part of the game" and other things, clearly "in play" (eg the Geelong guy who got tackled fairly but landed on his head) get cited.

All part of their big picture war on other codes.

What’s worse?

1) copping a 3 week holiday for it?

2) your opponent copping a week or more concussion or another type of injury?

3) squibbing a contest and trying to shake that label off?

Number 3 everyday of the week for mine. 

If it gets weeks for this I'll be very disappointed.

We can't be suspending players for playing the ball, even if there is an accidental injury.

I heard Gerard and Robbo suggesting that he may have attacked the ball with too much speed..... are they f'ing serious? 

Imagine if the AFL bring in a ruling that you can't run too fast at the ball.... how ridiculous.

Even in less contact sport like basketball people get injured, it is just a part of any sport unforutnately.

Is the battle for the best spectacle in the land prepared to slow sport down enough for the sake of saving itself?

Ok how do we do it..

46 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

...

I heard Gerard and Robbo suggesting that he may have attacked the ball with too much speed..... are they f'ing serious? 

Imagine if the AFL bring in a ruling that you can't run too fast at the ball.... how ridiculous.

...

It would be another great area for umpires to have to adjudicate.  Porbably could work in some interpretations too.

I see a lot of the Jack Viney incident in the Mackay. Both players going for a ground ball and collision being inevitable due to the bounce of the ball and the proximity of the two players going for it.

You can't have a 360 degree sport where possession is able to be contested and then completely avoid these types of incidents. This could have even happened in basketball, which is a "non-contact" sport with a round ball.

On Mackay's speed being too fast, this is ridiculous. There is no rule about running too fast. And Mackay was not to know how the ball would bounce. It was just unlucky it landed in the middle of the two players after bouncing twice. Had the ball landed on the end, it could have landed straight in Mackay's hands.

A suspension would change nothing in the way players attack the ball and would be a gross misjustice. Players like Selwood, Oliver and Judd are lauded for the speed in which they attack the ground ball. They are not going to stop and there will inevitably be another incident. There is no point sending a message if only a few players will hear it and even if they do, they will be confused as to what they should do.

While I don't think you can ever completely reduce collisions in the game, the only way I can really see that they could be reduced is if they reduce the number of players on the field.

The other thing to note is that by banning the bump, it increases the potential for head on head clashes.

 

 

i thought it was dangerous and reckless

he came in at speed and elected to bump and hit the head.....he had choices

the afl have said repeatedly that if you elect to bump and head contact is made (deliberate or not) then you are in trouble

so.....reckless, high contact, high impact.....apply the formula

3 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I see a lot of the Jack Viney incident in the Mackay. Both players going for a ground ball and collision being inevitable due to the bounce of the ball and the proximity of the two players going for it.

You can't have a 360 degree sport where possession is able to be contested and then completely avoid these types of incidents. This could have even happened in basketball, which is a "non-contact" sport with a round ball.

On Mackay's speed being too fast, this is ridiculous. There is no rule about running too fast. And Mackay was not to know how the ball would bounce. It was just unlucky it landed in the middle of the two players after bouncing twice. Had the ball landed on the end, it could have landed straight in Mackay's hands.

A suspension would change nothing in the way players attack the ball and would be a gross misjustice. Players like Selwood, Oliver and Judd are lauded for the speed in which they attack the ground ball. They are not going to stop and there will inevitably be another incident. There is no point sending a message if only a few players will hear it and even if they do, they will be confused as to what they should do.

While I don't think you can ever completely reduce collisions in the game, the only way I can really see that they could be reduced is if they reduce the number of players on the field.

The other thing to note is that by banning the bump, it increases the potential for head on head clashes.

 

 

the difference (big) in viney's case was that viney had stopped and then braced for the contact he couldn't avoid

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the difference (big) in viney's case was that viney had stopped and then braced for the contact he couldn't avoid

Viney only slowed because the ball had bounced into Lynch's hands. For Mackay, the ball was in dispute and he had every right to attack it. Not a big difference at all in my view.

13 hours ago, DEE fence said:

I thought Dunstall was the most articulate on the matter, (god 360 is so much better with him, and especially when he is not on Bounce). Incidental contact has to remain a part of the game, If the vision wasn’t so clear that Mackay was playing the ball and not the man I could understand the fuss, but risk has to remain a part of the game.

LOL by your wording in the second option (... to tackle or teleport or something) it’s obvious which side of DEE fence you’re on!

13 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Viney only slowed because the ball had bounced into Lynch's hands. For Mackay, the ball was in dispute and he had every right to attack it. Not a big difference at all in my view.

i still think they were quite different and wouldn't use them in a comparison........jmo 

also for mackay, he may have started off to attack the ball ,but ultimately elected to shoulder bump at speed when he did have a choice..... imo

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i thought it was dangerous and reckless

he came in at speed and elected to bump and hit the head.....he had choices

the afl have said repeatedly that if you elect to bump and head contact is made (deliberate or not) then you are in trouble

so.....reckless, high contact, high impact.....apply the formula

this is the part that I am not sure I agree with. Imo he did not elect to bump. he is going for the ball, I think gets a hand on it and the players collide in an accidental or incidental collision. This is the crux of what will be debated tonight.

If you think he chose to bump he should get weeks if not, we should be cleared. If they declare it incidental contact but still suspend him then the game is in trouble and we will start to see players not attack the footy at 100% which will ruin it

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i thought it was dangerous and reckless

he came in at speed and elected to bump and hit the head.....he had choices

the afl have said repeatedly that if you elect to bump and head contact is made (deliberate or not) then you are in trouble

so.....reckless, high contact, high impact.....apply the formula

I was of this view until i saw all the vision, and what was conclusive for me is he had his arms out reaching for the ball, not tucked into a Byron like cannon ball. Check all the vision and see if you stick to this POV?

41 minutes ago, DubDee said:

this is the part that I am not sure I agree with. Imo he did not elect to bump. he is going for the ball, I think gets a hand on it and the players collide in an accidental or incidental collision. This is the crux of what will be debated tonight.

If you think he chose to bump he should get weeks if not, we should be cleared. If they declare it incidental contact but still suspend him then the game is in trouble and we will start to see players not attack the footy at 100% which will ruin it

fair enough. I thought he chose to bump.

36 minutes ago, DubDee said:

this is the part that I am not sure I agree with. Imo he did not elect to bump. he is going for the ball, I think gets a hand on it and the players collide in an accidental or incidental collision. This is the crux of what will be debated tonight.

If you think he chose to bump he should get weeks if not, we should be cleared. If they declare it incidental contact but still suspend him then the game is in trouble and we will start to see players not attack the footy at 100% which will ruin it

Will it ruin AFL? I'm not so sure. Legal action against the AFL or the clubs for allowing avoidable concussions might ruin it, though. And therein lies the problem - was it avoidable?

Physics isn't my strong suit, but isn't force measured as a combination of speed and mass? If so, because players are professional and fitter, bigger, stronger and faster than ever before, I would have thought the collision forces today have the potential to be greater than they have ever been before. We're not going to be able to make players smaller or weaker, but we might be able to slow them down. Perhaps abolishing interchange altogether might provide the paradigm shift needed to make the game slower and therefore safer.

By the way, an excellent article by Jake Niall in The Age today on this very topic.    

It's already apparent that players are deciding that their opponent may get to the ball just before them and they stop going for the ball and prepare to tackle.   Quite often it seems to me that they made that decision wrongly, but I guess it is safer to takcle than collide.

17 minutes ago, sue said:

It's already apparent that players are deciding that their opponent may get to the ball just before them and they stop going for the ball and prepare to tackle.   Quite often it seems to me that they made that decision wrongly, but I guess it is safer to takcle than collide.

It's a good strategic decision to wait and tackle if (1) the umpires are prone to pay a free kick for holding the ball/incorrect disposal or (2) data shows that your team is better than your opponents at clearances should the umpire throw the ball up instead of paying a free kick.

The footballer in me who played in the 70s and 80s who once copped a king hit behind play and had to live with it says great contest,  play on and unlucky to Hunter 

The father of 2 young boys In me says we need to protect the head at all times and despite zero malice from Mackay, he chose to bump and broke Hunters jaw in 3 places with the potential of ongoing health issues as a result.

I love tough footy as much as anyone but concussion / brain injury are changing people's lives and in some cases ending them.

I won't be upset if a precedent is set here.  

it also comes back to this nebulous thing called a "duty of care"

in this case there was a good chance of harm with a bump (instead of a tackle or something else) and therefore a duty of care to avoid a bump. The player bumped had much less momentum and was still in the process of focussing on the ball. He was very vulnerable and deserved some duty of care.

this is why i thought it reckless and the bumper wears the consequences, in this case quite serious

I’m in two minds, as I am sure the AFL is.

At the time of the incident I thought it was fair enough and just unlucky that Clark was injured.

Then I saw the incident on David King’s review (First Crack?). Mackay ran from the opposite direction at speed and must have known a collision was inevitable. He had time to change his actions.

Now I’m no lawyer, but I have closely followed Better Call Saul. If both players had done exactly the same but Mackay was the injured party, would Clark be going to the tribunal? If the tribunal finds against Mackay, it will need to define specifically which aspect of his behaviour was the problem. And it must not be the same as Clark’s action.

This whole thing about the action versus the outcome will have to change eventually.  Intent and action will become the most important part of the review. It’s not often I agree with Robbo, but he made the point on AFL 360 that DeGoey’s action on Oliver was far worse than Mackay’s on Clark. DeGoey had no interest in the ball and both players were lucky that Oliver jumped straight up and took his free kick. DeGoey got away with a one week suspension. Mackay broke Clark’s jaw in three places but at least he was going for the ball. 
 

22 minutes ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Now I’m no lawyer, but I have closely followed Better Call Saul.

So, you’re better than a lawyer. ?

Both players had eyes for ball , one had more runway. Collision ACCIDENTAL and in play in context of winning the ball.if AFL ban this then may as well follow tidelwinks

5 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Both players had eyes for ball , one had more runway. Collision ACCIDENTAL and in play in context of winning the ball.if AFL ban this then may as well follow tidelwinks

Have you ever played tiddlywinks? It can get quite heated. ?