Just watched the Archer incident for the first time.
Fark me what was he supposed to do?
How the hell does someone get a 3 match ban for that.
They are going to turn football into a non contact sport at this rate. Thats a terrible decision imo.
3 Likes
Roger Merrett wasn’t bad at it either, but we liked that
I just saw the McInerney hit on Starcevic. Would I be wrong in saying that it was pretty soft, minimal if any actual head contact (hard to see any in the vision) & once again the AFL are punishing purely on the outcome & the fact that Starcevic has a history of concussion is being completely ignored? 3 weeks for what looked to me to be a minor & fair bump is just a terrible decision.
I think it’s at the point where as supporters you can’t even waste your energy on trying to make sense of MRO/Tribunal decisions. I have absolutely lost my mind at it for a while but honestly, it’s that far gone that I think post this Archer one you just have to find some amusement in how absurd it is and move on.
Accidents with no or little intent get bulk weeks now and that’s just the way it is.
1 Like
Right. So you are to argue that the AFL are not trying to stamp what Archer did, in the thread discussing why the AFL are stamping out what Archer did.
And whether there is anything in the rules about whether a player being 2nd to the ball has a duty of care to an opposition player or not, I don’t know, nor care. They have very clearly pushed that rhetoric repeatedly, so is very obviously an important part of their decision making in these matters.
1 Like
I get it you don’t know or care about the rules. The AFL are only caring about their liability hence why they are reacting to outcomes rather than having & enforcing rules. Archer’s exact action has drawn a fee kick in dozens of incidents even in our games but I don’t believe I have ever seen another player suspended for that same contact - do you have any examples Archer should have learnt from. Archer has been encouraged to do exactly what he did by the AFL introducing the contact below the knees free which was in itself a knee-jerk reaction to a player getting injured. How can the AFL have been trying to stamp out what Archer did if they rewarded it in nearly every other incident? Do you not understand the fact that if Cleary turned his head &/or rolled the impact to Archer was the one that was against the actual written rules? This verdict is purely a case of no matter what you do or your intentions if the outcome is a concussion then the AFL will act forcefully because they a shyte scared of being sued in the future.
1 Like
I know the rules dude. You are missing the point, the written rules and how they are adjudicated in the AFL are not the same thing. I care about the precedent the AFL has set on how they interpret things, because how they interpret things is what is important.
And do I have examples of players who are second to the ball being suspended for not showing a duty of care? Are you serious? It happens all the time. Open your eyes, and you will see it.
Go have a look at the Weid suspension last year in the VFL.
But either way, we obviously aren’t going to agree and I’m quite ready to move on. But not Archer though, he can wait a few.
1 Like
Dude alert
Dude alert
Dude alert
Dude alert
This may be a silly question - so apologies, but what would have happend if Archer had accidently cannoned into a teamate in the same way when they were both going for the ball, he wouldn’t have been suspended would he? There is no difference if the outcome had been the same - just that it’s your team mate
1 Like
I was thinking about that too. I’m assuming no penalty. Wasn’t Scrimshaw injured by friendly fire after hitting Ridley? Battle wasn’t charged
I don’t disagree with any of your description of the current state of affairs.
But what happens when someone takes a mark of the year contender, leaping up and collecting the opposition in the back of the head concussing them with his knees? A mark is rewarded, no free is awarded, no report made. How is that different from say Wright’s attempt to mark? They could choose not to fly for the mark. But because the speccy is seen as integral to the identity of the game, celebrated as such, two identical actions in terms of ‘duty of care’ and capacity to cause damage are treated very differently… Duty of care and the legal ramifications of concussion, and the fact that football is a dynamic and kinetic sport breed these kind of logical knots and paradoxes.
1 Like
(1) Wright didn’t mark it
(2) By the time he made contact with the player he wasn’t even attempting to mark it
agree - many spekkies are ‘in the back’ and according to the rules should be free kicks - and afl allows this 100% for entertainment value.
Do you have any examples of forceful contact below the knees that have resulted in suspension rather than a free kick to the player having their legs taken out? Weid was in no way the same. Now when you are able to admit there is very few, possibly no examples but conceed there are numerous examples where the player in Archer’s position has been rewarded, you might be able to understand that the AFL have been far more active in discouraging Cleary’s actions than Archer’s. This is the problem - the AFL change rules because of a specific incident but cause more problems. When you have past and present coaches state that they can’t see fault in what Archer did and wouldn’t discourage his attack at the contest, you have a fundamental problem with how this incident was assessed. I believe the AFL have actively encouraged Archer’s action through introducing the below the knees free kicks. You assert they have discouraged it because Weid was suspended for a shoulder bump. You can say you hope from now on the AFL continues to punish the player second to the ball but I don’t accept that is what they were doing prior to this incident and I don’t believe that will be their intention when no concussion is involved. They are simply reacting to the outcome and I will never believe a sport should be controlled by outcomes because confusion leads to even more incidents. I never thought the below the knees free should have been introduced but now that it has it should have been applied here.
How on earth was Weid’s suspension not the same thing? Oppo bloke goes to ground, Weid who was marginally 2nd to the ball collects him high with his hip. Also got 3 weeks. Probs because it is inconvenient to your argument I suspect.
Only thing discernibly different is Weid was making a genuine attack on the ball. Whereas Archer was in no position to contest the ball at any point.
If you listen to tribunal proceedings they will often refer to a player being second to the ball… this is not new. Wright’s suspension is again him being marginally late to a contest, albeit a different scenario.
Anyway, as I said, I’m moving on.
1 Like
(1) Not relevant if it was a realistic (legal) attempt at marking
(2) Milliseconds
No, the rules allow ‘incidental contact’ if your objective is to mark/spoil - so contact that otherwise would not be allowed is allowed (excepting clarifications like studs up/unrealistic etc). It’s not as though they just go ‘oh yeah there’s rules about contact but we ignore them for marks’. The rules are written to allow lots of contact that would otherwise be penalised.
2 Likes
(1) Except that Wright didn’t actually attempt to mark it.
(2) milliseconds late is still late.
If the sole objective is to contest\spoil. As soon as a player tries to protect themselves (often as an involuntary reflex action) by taking their eyes off the ball, or trying to turn side on, or lowering their centre of gravity, or tucking an arm in etc, they now have another objective. Contesting\spoiling is no longer the sole objective, and they open themselves up to giving away free kicks and MRO scrutiny for whatever happens afterward.
1 Like
Which is exactly the reason Wright got done - at the last millisecond went from attempting to mark to bracing for contact.
1 Like