The way I see it the only reason Cleary was contacted in the head was that he decided to go to ground. He could have kept his feet and avoided any head high contact so I think its his own fault. I think the tribunal should look at actions not outcomes. I don’t see any error or illegal action from Archer & as you say in most similar incidents Archer would have been awarded a free kick. Scrimshaw deliberately swung a strike at Ridley’s head. There’s no time when thats a legal action or will draw you a free kick. No comparison between the 2 incidents.
How is that even possible?
2 Likes
It was Hawthorn hit of the past; Matthews , Dippa and Dermie all used a swinging forearm.
Dipper was also keen on using his elbows.
He used to give them a touch up with a pencil sharpener before each match. Allegedly.
2 Likes
No. The only reason Cleary was contacted in the head, was because Archer, who was 2nd to the ball, and was always going to be 2nd to the ball, charged at him at top speed without any consideration to what might potentially play out in front of him.
If you are second to the ball, you need to position yourself, so that you can react to the play that is before you. He did not do that. He didn’t react at all, until he was pulling his knee out of Cleary’s face.
Cleary could have contested the ball better. But even if he had kept his feet, as he should have, he is perfectly entitled and should be expected to lower both his body and his head down to collect the ball… and in doing so, he most likely still would have been knocked out. Because Archer did not prepare for the obvious inevitability that he would make a play for the ball.
5 Likes
Watching the replays of it I think it could easily be argued that he tried to slow down when he realised a full on collision was going to happen when he went for the loose ball. I think his issue was totally misjudging the situation which wasn’t helped by Cleary going head first into the contest. He gets three weeks so the AFL can reasonably argue they did every thing within the rules to stop these actions in 30 years time when they get hit with another class action.
1 Like
He did not position himself so that he could meaningfully slow down, or change course, and so neither occurred.
Trying to slow down, is different to actually slowing down.
I have always claimed that Dipper had the sharpest elbows in the game. It wasn’t just Kevin Walsh he so courageously ran through. A few weeks earlier he had done similar to Curly Austin, who was taking a mark. Dipper courageously ran in front on and elbowed him in the face.
Dawks had a long line of thug/mugs, before Lethal there was Don Scott and before even him there was a thug FF John Peck.
2 Likes
His footfall gets smaller as he realises he’s going to collide with Cleary. He just misjudged it. AFL tribunal upheld the 3 weeks because if they didn’t legally they’ll be toast in 30 years time. It is what it is…
If Cleary breaks Archer’s leg in 3 places and comes out unscathed who is getting banned? Same action different outcome…this is the bizarre world the AFL have created for themselves!
1 Like
He did not position himself so that he could meaningfully slow down, or change course, and so neither occurred.
Trying to slow down, is different to actually slowing down.
The AFL said he reduced speed by about 25%, but that really is neither here nor there.
I don’t have a problem with him being suspended. I can cop that it was negligent.
It should have been a week, though.
What I can’t cop is the same penalty for an accident where you’re arguing that someone should have been more careful, as an incident that is quite clearly Not an accident in any way.
5 Likes
1 week, nah.
Fair point on the intention side of things.
I haven’t looked at the grading.
I would assume Hawthorn flog was graded as intentional, and Archer as negligent, or whatever their terms are.
Was there a different grading in terms of impact? Could easily see Archer being graded as severe vs Hawthorn flog being high
I’m pretty sure they were both graded exactly the same in all categories.
Personally I don’t see Archer’s incident as different to arriving late to a marking contest (in fact there’s probably a lot of similarities to the Wright incident).
Someone with a bit more situational awareness probably looks to corral rather than kamikaze into an opposition player and a teammate.
1 Like
There is nothing in any part of any rule that says that the person second to the ball should temper their approach to the contest and in fact that person is rewarded with a free kick for keeping their feet in the every other contact that hasn’t resulted in a concussion. Once again the key here is that the AFL are adjudicating based on outcome rather than actions. If Cleary turn his head, Archer gets the free kick. Cleary is the one with the action the AFL have been trying to change and that going to ground is the AFL directive thats being pushed to the junior competitions
2 Likes
Duty of care has become a dominant principle in adjudicating these cases. because it’s a moral principle it’s difficult to assess and sometimes its application defaults to ‘did the player have a safer alternate course of action’.
whether or not you agree with the decision in this case, every player is now expected to modify their approach to the contest so as not to breach this duty.
1 Like
I wonder if we’ll see players go for an accident with a teammate, now that intent is irrelevant.
1 Like
was thinking the same thing.
player prioritises self preservation
and fails duty of care towards team mate.
will never happen, as afl won’t admit their rules and application of them have become that ludicrous.
AwFL doesn’t care about what is ludicrous, only what is lucrative.
3 Likes
Ridley will probably end up suspended for 3 games for headbutting Scrimshaw’s arm. The club will not challenge either.