The Hunter headclash

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Post Reply
Jacks Back
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2011 4:52pm
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1324 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909466Post Jacks Back »

An accidental head clash would be when both players arrive at their destination at the same time. This did not happen here. Clark got to the ball first, therefore Mackay then had a duty of care not to hit Clark in the head (because the head is protected, don't you know). As Mackay then chose to bump, and not to tackle, his duty of care was not to hit Clark in the head. Mackay's shoulder then makes contact with Clark's head. He, therefore, should have been found guilty and got his own right whack.

I think the tribunal gave the AFL a big piss off from trying to determine the outcome of a hearing before it happens rather than the tribunal facing the above facts of the case.


As ex-president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”


St Kilda - At least we have a Crest!
Gershwin
Club Player
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue 06 Apr 2004 2:05pm
Location: NE Victoria
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909471Post Gershwin »

Jacks Back wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 7:38am An accidental head clash would be when both players arrive at their destination at the same time. This did not happen here. Clark got to the ball first, therefore Mackay then had a duty of care not to hit Clark in the head (because the head is protected, don't you know). As Mackay then chose to bump, and not to tackle, his duty of care was not to hit Clark in the head. Mackay's shoulder then makes contact with Clark's head. He, therefore, should have been found guilty and got his own right whack.

I think the tribunal gave the AFL a big piss off from trying to determine the outcome of a hearing before it happens rather than the tribunal facing the above facts of the case.
It wasn’t a bump. A bump is when a player tucks in his arm and leads with his shoulder. It was a clash of bodies where the shoulder of one player accidentally made contact with the face of the other. Big difference.


summertime and the living is easy ........
CarlD
Club Player
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu 29 Sep 2011 12:24pm
Location: Central Coast
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909472Post CarlD »

The AFL has everyone on the same page ... again. I'm sure I'll understand the logic when the AFL explain why player X gets 4 weeks for a similar incident. :?


Yorkeys
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5052
Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2017 1:16pm
Has thanked: 1444 times
Been thanked: 1495 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909473Post Yorkeys »

The Law is an Ass.

The AFL rapidly losing credibility under current regime.

MRO and tribunal system a sad incompetent bizantine joke.

I'd like to see written judgements explaining how Mackay had no culpability. The decision seems to imply all the fault was Hunter's. Even in common law a person is responsible for their decisions if it causes harm, no matter how well intentioned or ignorance based, yes?

Hunter/Saints may take civil action, I hope.


Yorkeys
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5052
Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2017 1:16pm
Has thanked: 1444 times
Been thanked: 1495 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909474Post Yorkeys »

The Law is an Ass.

The AFL rapidly losing credibility under current regime.

MRO and tribunal system a sad incompetent byzantine joke.

I'd like to see written judgements explaining how Mackay had no culpability. The decision seems to imply all the fault was Hunter's. Even in common law a person is responsible for their decisions if it causes harm, no matter how well intentioned or ignorance based, yes?

Hunter/Saints may take civil action, I hope.


Scollop
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
Has thanked: 3683 times
Been thanked: 2568 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909477Post Scollop »

suss wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 10:09pm
Scollop wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:58pm The AFL legal team are a bunch of hacks

They were told that a conviction was the AFL preferred option and they couldn't deliver

Waste of time, good for nothing hacks who should seriously look to change professions
Jeff Gleeson is the best in the business. If he couldn't get it done then no-one could.
You’re probably right.

The MRO and the AFL botched this from the start

The excuse is; “as long as you are contesting the footy, it’s ok to turn your body to protect yourself”. Doesn’t matter if you happen to protect yourself with your shoulder hitting someone’s jaw or your hip getting them flush on the scone.

What they are really saying is they don’t want to stop players from getting hit in the head or getting concussion or breaking their jaw if it is going to completely eliminate collisions because they enjoy seeing collisions. CTE is ignored because these dinosaurs want to witness ‘good ol’ fashion footy’ and all the bs about the head is sacrosanct becomes obsolete.

I reckon some of them; if you asked them in private…might tell you they enjoy UFC and bare knuckle fights….or at the very least, they love their boxing. They just don’t care if someone breaks their neck or suffers severe brain trauma as far as this game is concerned.

We’ve seen how inconsistent the AFL have been on the major issue of the bump and incidents of brain trauma and concussions. They’ve flip flopped over the last five years, and meanwhile real evidence is emerging regarding damage caused to players in the short term and the long term. We lost one of our beloved Saints and he suffered for years probably due to his repeated head knocks …ffs everyone…wake up!!!

I think part of the biggest issue with changing the mindset of the general public is first changing the mindset of the power brokers and AFL headquarters.


saynta
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 23139
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
Has thanked: 9080 times
Been thanked: 3942 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909480Post saynta »

Banger9798 wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:55pm
saynta wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:38pm
Banger9798 wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:34pm
Saintly66 wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:29pm Haha Jesus, waiting for the day one of our boys does this and gets slaughtered at the tribunal.
Guaranteed it will happen next round we play

And there will be some minuscule difference that will convict him
I agree. Look what happened to Ben and that was a f****** accident...a travesty of justice. But we are St Kilda so it's what we have come to expect Doen't mean acceptance though.

I still don't understand how Long got weeks for that incident when he had his hands on the footy and turned his hip and the opposition player ran into it.
He was wearimg Red White and Black.


saynta
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 23139
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
Has thanked: 9080 times
Been thanked: 3942 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909481Post saynta »

Gershwin wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 10:51pm
saynta wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:25pm
Gershwin wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:22pm
saynta wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:10pm Unfucking believably.

If Long broke Dusty Martin's jam in identical circumstances, he would have got 10 weeks.
Stop being a sook. Fair decision.
Why do you feel the need to be offensive?
Your view is obviously not mine and I sat on similar tribunals for years, so I can claim some expertise.
Then may I humbly say the AFL tribunal got it right IMO. He didn’t line Hunter up, he was going for the ball and at the last split second prepared for the collision better than Hunter. It was nobody’s fault so we accept that it was bad luck and move on without behaving like the sooks that we have become. ‘They pick on us’, ‘it only happens to St Kilda’ etc. etc. No it doesn’t. The club isn’t complaining.
That's not what I saw. The crow lined him up from metres away and turned so that his shoulder contacted Hunter's jaw. Hunter actually had the ball in his hands. The club is piss weak for not jumping up and down. Unfortunately they have a history of bending over to Headquarters.


User avatar
SaintPav
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
Location: Alma Road
Has thanked: 1603 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909483Post SaintPav »

Scollop wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:54pm Two Words

Useless lawyers
Two other words.

Swimming pool

You know the joke.

There really is an oversupply of lawyers in the west


Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
User avatar
SaintPav
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
Location: Alma Road
Has thanked: 1603 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909485Post SaintPav »

Can we appeal?

Take it to the Privy.

Hang the bastard.


Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
User avatar
SaintPav
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
Location: Alma Road
Has thanked: 1603 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909486Post SaintPav »

saynta wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 11:23am
Gershwin wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 10:51pm
saynta wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:25pm
Gershwin wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:22pm
saynta wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:10pm Unfucking believably.

If Long broke Dusty Martin's jam in identical circumstances, he would have got 10 weeks.
Stop being a sook. Fair decision.
Why do you feel the need to be offensive?
Your view is obviously not mine and I sat on similar tribunals for years, so I can claim some expertise.
Then may I humbly say the AFL tribunal got it right IMO. He didn’t line Hunter up, he was going for the ball and at the last split second prepared for the collision better than Hunter. It was nobody’s fault so we accept that it was bad luck and move on without behaving like the sooks that we have become. ‘They pick on us’, ‘it only happens to St Kilda’ etc. etc. No it doesn’t. The club isn’t complaining.
That's not what I saw. The crow lined him up from metres away and turned so that his shoulder contacted Hunter's jaw. Hunter actually had the ball in his hands. The club is piss weak for not jumping up and down. Unfortunately they have a history of bending over to Headquarters.
Correct.

It’s all about how they want to interpret it.

Not nice.


Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
User avatar
SaintPav
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
Location: Alma Road
Has thanked: 1603 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909487Post SaintPav »

saynta wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 11:16am
Banger9798 wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:55pm
saynta wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:38pm
Banger9798 wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:34pm
Saintly66 wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:29pm Haha Jesus, waiting for the day one of our boys does this and gets slaughtered at the tribunal.
Guaranteed it will happen next round we play

And there will be some minuscule difference that will convict him
I agree. Look what happened to Ben and that was a f****** accident...a travesty of justice. But we are St Kilda so it's what we have come to expect Doen't mean acceptance though.

I still don't understand how Long got weeks for that incident when he had his hands on the footy and turned his hip and the opposition player ran into it.
He was wearimg Red White and Black.
Correct.


Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
takeaway
Club Player
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 383 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909490Post takeaway »

Scollop wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 10:22am
suss wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 10:09pm
Scollop wrote: Thu 17 Jun 2021 9:58pm The AFL legal team are a bunch of hacks

They were told that a conviction was the AFL preferred option and they couldn't deliver

Waste of time, good for nothing hacks who should seriously look to change professions
Jeff Gleeson is the best in the business. If he couldn't get it done then no-one could.
You’re probably right.

The MRO and the AFL botched this from the start

The excuse is; “as long as you are contesting the footy, it’s ok to turn your body to protect yourself”. Doesn’t matter if you happen to protect yourself with your shoulder hitting someone’s jaw or your hip getting them flush on the scone.

What they are really saying is they don’t want to stop players from getting hit in the head or getting concussion or breaking their jaw if it is going to completely eliminate collisions because they enjoy seeing collisions. CTE is ignored because these dinosaurs want to witness ‘good ol’ fashion footy’ and all the bs about the head is sacrosanct becomes obsolete.

I reckon some of them; if you asked them in private…might tell you they enjoy UFC and bare knuckle fights….or at the very least, they love their boxing. They just don’t care if someone breaks their neck or suffers severe brain trauma as far as this game is concerned.

We’ve seen how inconsistent the AFL have been on the major issue of the bump and incidents of brain trauma and concussions. They’ve flip flopped over the last five years, and meanwhile real evidence is emerging regarding damage caused to players in the short term and the long term. We lost one of our beloved Saints and he suffered for years probably due to his repeated head knocks …ffs everyone…wake up!!!

I think part of the biggest issue with changing the mindset of the general public is first changing the mindset of the power brokers and AFL headquarters.
I think the opposite. Under existing rules, the tribunal's decision to let Mackay off was correct imo, and the AFL probably knew this.

However, the events that took place which led to the incident ending up at the tribunal indicates to me that the AFL does NOT want these type of incidents where the head is threatened to be able to continue without sanction. He got off, but the AFL by its action has sent a message, and even though it was deemed within the rules I am sure clubs have noted this and will start to educate players accordingly, starting now.

Look out for a rule change in the near future.


User avatar
The_Dud
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 14011
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
Location: Bendigo
Has thanked: 1314 times
Been thanked: 2092 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909492Post The_Dud »

Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.


All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
saint64
Club Player
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 12:18am
Location: Perth,WA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909499Post saint64 »

AS someone who hasn't been following any of the media comment opinion re this incident, I am genuinely shocked at this result. It flies in the face of all the AFL and medical experts have been saying over the last decade about needing to protect the head. Mackay had a choice and he chose to bump. He has to bear the consequences for that. Like others on here I am wondering whether Hunter has a potential future civil claim against Mackay and the AFL.


User avatar
Mr Magic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12795
Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
Has thanked: 802 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909504Post Mr Magic »

saint64 wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 1:01pm AS someone who hasn't been following any of the media comment opinion re this incident, I am genuinely shocked at this result. It flies in the face of all the AFL and medical experts have been saying over the last decade about needing to protect the head. Mackay had a choice and he chose to bump. He has to bear the consequences for that. Like others on here I am wondering whether Hunter has a potential future civil claim against Mackay and the AFL.
Surely the Tribunal has ruled that it was 'legal' according to the AFL rules so I'm not sure how he could possibly even
mount a case?

I'm having a deja vu moment, even though the incidents are not the same, the results seem to be :-
Hunter Clark and David McKay
Kosi and Giansirracusa

Both times our players' heads were cannoned into
Both times the opposition player was not guilty of anything?


User avatar
magnifisaint
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8140
Joined: Sun 02 May 2004 2:52am
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 610 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909506Post magnifisaint »

About time we just won games and forgot about focusing on the tribunal. It's just a sideshow at the moment.


Posting 20 years of holey crap!
bigcarl
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 18635
Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
Has thanked: 1979 times
Been thanked: 865 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909507Post bigcarl »

magnifisaint wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 1:54pm About time we just won games and forgot about focusing on the tribunal. It's just a sideshow at the moment.
Yep, Mackay’s exemplary record over many seasons saved him from a lengthy spell. We move on.

In some better news than what we’ve been getting, Marshall may be right for next week


Scollop
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
Has thanked: 3683 times
Been thanked: 2568 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909508Post Scollop »

The_Dud wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 12:16pm Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.
Mackay may not be a thug, but let’s look at the situation in the game…

Adelaide are desperate for some leadership and for their senior players to stop St Kilda’s momentum. They hadn’t scored and we were 5-5 or 5-6 before this incident.

Let’s also look ar his personal situation where he may be one of the senior players that the club tries to delist at years end with the Crows clearly in rebuild mode.

You can argue all sorts of intent and motivation and someone doesn’t have to be a thug to cause injury to an opponent in a contest. It’s been happening for 100 years. One of the best ways to knock someone out, is with a legal shirtfront.

In the hearing they asked him what his intent was. I mean seriously, how fuckn pointless! Mackay wasn’t going to say I tried to shirtfront Hunter Clark. They didn’t need to start getting into that. All they had to do was look at the side on vision of 2 players approaching the footy. Clark is 1 m from the ball and Mackay is approx 3.5 from the ball.

When you have a footy in dispute and player A has the advantage by 2 metres or more, then the probability of player B winning that footy are very, very, very low. That is all they needed to highlight. Not asking him directly if he was ‘going for the ball’

All the other close in shots and all the other angles of the 2 players before the collision are useless. The only relevant picture is the one where player A is looking straight down at the ball, while player B is approaching more than 2 m away and his eyes are fixed on player A. Player A was always going to get the footy first.

The only reason player A didn’t have a firm grip on ball at least half a second before player B arrived was because of the awkward bounce. Player B had to make a decision prior to the collision. He needed to decide how to dislodge the ball from player A and like any good footballer he also has an eye on the ball in case player A fumbles or taps the footy on instead of grabbing it.

Whether he was initially looking to tackle and he changed his mind or whether he was always just interested in a shirtfront is also irrelevant. He was never going to win the footy

All they had to do was show a side on picture to Mackay where he is 2.5 metres further away from the pill than Clark. Ask him to look at it. Ask him who he thought more likely to get the ball first. Ask him htf he thought he was going to contest the footy when he was no where near it


Scollop
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
Has thanked: 3683 times
Been thanked: 2568 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909510Post Scollop »

takeaway wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 11:56am
I think the opposite. Under existing rules, the tribunal's decision to let Mackay off was correct imo, and the AFL probably knew this.
Too simplistic. You’re listening to what the journos and the clubs are telling you. I just don’t think the advocate approached the hearing with enough ammunition or the correct strategy to nail the prick

I agree with everything else you said about rule changes going forward. The major stuff up was that Michael Christian is incompetent and the AFL didn’t handle this properly from the start. I’m devastated for Clark. I hope the karma bus gets Mackay in the end…at some stage.


Moods
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 4940
Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
Has thanked: 343 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909512Post Moods »

The_Dud wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 12:16pm Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.
Completely agree with everything here. It's nice to agree sometimes don't you think Dud? :D


User avatar
The_Dud
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 14011
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
Location: Bendigo
Has thanked: 1314 times
Been thanked: 2092 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909515Post The_Dud »

Scollop wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 2:24pm
The_Dud wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 12:16pm Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.
Mackay may not be a thug, but let’s look at the situation in the game…

Adelaide are desperate for some leadership and for their senior players to stop St Kilda’s momentum. They hadn’t scored and we were 5-5 or 5-6 before this incident.

Let’s also look ar his personal situation where he may be one of the senior players that the club tries to delist at years end with the Crows clearly in rebuild mode.

You can argue all sorts of intent and motivation and someone doesn’t have to be a thug to cause injury to an opponent in a contest. It’s been happening for 100 years. One of the best ways to knock someone out, is with a legal shirtfront.

In the hearing they asked him what his intent was. I mean seriously, how fuckn pointless! Mackay wasn’t going to say I tried to shirtfront Hunter Clark. They didn’t need to start getting into that. All they had to do was look at the side on vision of 2 players approaching the footy. Clark is 1 m from the ball and Mackay is approx 3.5 from the ball.

When you have a footy in dispute and player A has the advantage by 2 metres or more, then the probability of player B winning that footy are very, very, very low. That is all they needed to highlight. Not asking him directly if he was ‘going for the ball’

All the other close in shots and all the other angles of the 2 players before the collision are useless. The only relevant picture is the one where player A is looking straight down at the ball, while player B is approaching more than 2 m away and his eyes are fixed on player A. Player A was always going to get the footy first.

The only reason player A didn’t have a firm grip on ball at least half a second before player B arrived was because of the awkward bounce. Player B had to make a decision prior to the collision. He needed to decide how to dislodge the ball from player A and like any good footballer he also has an eye on the ball in case player A fumbles or taps the footy on instead of grabbing it.

Whether he was initially looking to tackle and he changed his mind or whether he was always just interested in a shirtfront is also irrelevant. He was never going to win the footy

All they had to do was show a side on picture to Mackay where he is 2.5 metres further away from the pill than Clark. Ask him to look at it. Ask him who he thought more likely to get the ball first. Ask him htf he thought he was going to contest the footy when he was no where near it
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about your measurements. When Clark first touches the ball Mackay is literally about to touch it himself.

Mackay has his hands out reaching for the ball, if you're trying to shirtfront (or just bump) someone you would have your arm tucked bracing for the impact.

It looks like Clark was just unlucky he was crouched down slightly further than Mackay which caused the top of his shoulder to hit him in the jaw.


All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
User avatar
samoht
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5878
Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:45am
Location: https://www.amazon.com.au/Fugitive-Sold ... B00EO1GCNK
Has thanked: 615 times
Been thanked: 460 times
Contact:

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909520Post samoht »

Clark was unlucky that Mackay could afford to go flat out and be a wrecking-ball with impunity, banking on the fact that he had a clean record.

I wonder if his "clean record" has had a reset now, at least.


Scollop
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
Has thanked: 3683 times
Been thanked: 2568 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909524Post Scollop »

The_Dud wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 3:58pm
Scollop wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 2:24pm
The_Dud wrote: Fri 18 Jun 2021 12:16pm Initially I thought he'd get done because he hit him in the head and there was an injury.

But watching it again and listening to the reason he got off it makes sense. They were both going for the ball, his hands were down to pickup the ball, he got there a split second after Clark and unfortunately got him high. Neither had possession so couldn't really tackle him, and he still clearly had one foot on the ground at impact.

I imagine it's like when a player gets injured in a pack marking contest, you're not going to start rubbing blokes out for that.

Also the Crows player seemed like he's not the thug type.
Mackay may not be a thug, but let’s look at the situation in the game…

Adelaide are desperate for some leadership and for their senior players to stop St Kilda’s momentum. They hadn’t scored and we were 5-5 or 5-6 before this incident.

Let’s also look ar his personal situation where he may be one of the senior players that the club tries to delist at years end with the Crows clearly in rebuild mode.

You can argue all sorts of intent and motivation and someone doesn’t have to be a thug to cause injury to an opponent in a contest. It’s been happening for 100 years. One of the best ways to knock someone out, is with a legal shirtfront.

In the hearing they asked him what his intent was. I mean seriously, how fuckn pointless! Mackay wasn’t going to say I tried to shirtfront Hunter Clark. They didn’t need to start getting into that. All they had to do was look at the side on vision of 2 players approaching the footy. Clark is 1 m from the ball and Mackay is approx 3.5 from the ball.

When you have a footy in dispute and player A has the advantage by 2 metres or more, then the probability of player B winning that footy are very, very, very low. That is all they needed to highlight. Not asking him directly if he was ‘going for the ball’

All the other close in shots and all the other angles of the 2 players before the collision are useless. The only relevant picture is the one where player A is looking straight down at the ball, while player B is approaching more than 2 m away and his eyes are fixed on player A. Player A was always going to get the footy first.

The only reason player A didn’t have a firm grip on ball at least half a second before player B arrived was because of the awkward bounce. Player B had to make a decision prior to the collision. He needed to decide how to dislodge the ball from player A and like any good footballer he also has an eye on the ball in case player A fumbles or taps the footy on instead of grabbing it.

Whether he was initially looking to tackle and he changed his mind or whether he was always just interested in a shirtfront is also irrelevant. He was never going to win the footy

All they had to do was show a side on picture to Mackay where he is 2.5 metres further away from the pill than Clark. Ask him to look at it. Ask him who he thought more likely to get the ball first. Ask him htf he thought he was going to contest the footy when he was no where near it
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about your measurements. When Clark first touches the ball Mackay is literally about to touch it himself.

Mackay has his hands out reaching for the ball, if you're trying to shirtfront (or just bump) someone you would have your arm tucked bracing for the impact.

It looks like Clark was just unlucky he was crouched down slightly further than Mackay which caused the top of his shoulder to hit him in the jaw.
Most people have not bothered to pause the video and look at the important side on shot that is not distorted or compressed.

How far do you think athletes like footballers travel in half a second? The team representing the AFL needed to explain this and explain how long it takes for the brain to decide what to do and the reaction time for Mackay's muscles to act on the brain's instructions

Maybe most people don't have the ability to freeze frame the action and create a snapshot photo.

People seem to think that MacKay decided what to do AT the point of impact. That is absurd and scientifically not possible


B.M
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 2688 times

Re: The Hunter headclash

Post: # 1909526Post B.M »

I think he should have gone, but it was trial by media

And all the pundits saw him as innocent so it went his way

He clearly got him high, if he was playing the ball, he would have been a lot lower…. Check the vision, the reason he didn’t possession is because he wasn’t low enough, and he turned his body to brace for contact (in other words bump)

Hunter was wide open, because he was chasing the ball which was moving in the same direction as he was running so he couldn’t turn his body to protect himself, he was in a very vulnerable position and was taken out…. If it wasn’t high, it would have been the perfect shirtfront… but he got him high… therefore he should have got weeks

Yes he was contesting the ball, but doing so by bracing and taking the contact (bumping) and didn’t get low enough.

The ball was knee high, why was McKay off the ground when trying to possess it?
Because he was trying to make physical contact, which is fine… as long as you don’t get them in the head!!!


Post Reply