MRP / Trib. Archer and Cleary incident, Rd 1, 2025

[kickazz]

I recon Australian Football is one of the few codes/sports that seemed to historically allow, laud and even give primacy to players who are late to the ball/contest and hit it with speed.

That's how the big hits and shirtfronts of yesterday occurred. I mean in Rugby, you simply cannot even tackle a player who is airborne trying to catch the ball. Footy - that was your big chance to hurt someone. Soccer perhaps favours the person first to the ball too much IMO, but again, it is a factor in judging a fair tackle.

It is this factor that is also lost in the whole "contact below the knees" rule. If "who was at the ball first" was factored in to this rule, it would be a lot easier to judge and make a lot more sense.

Even some marking - we praised the bravery of Riewoldt, Brown etc charging back with the flight to take a mark. As for the poor campaigner who was in position under the ball ready to mark? Stiff shit!

So that is the landscape we are working with, and I think generally the code has/had it a bit wrong in this regard. Charging late to a contest at full speed is kind of dangerous/reckless and can lead to trouble, and it was never a 'fair' contest against the person who has little to no momentum because they were already in position.

I've kind of thought this for a while and it was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the incident.

 

[HairyO]

I recon Australian Football is one of the few codes/sports that seemed to historically allow, laud and even give primacy to players who are late to the ball/contest and hit it with speed.

That's how the big hits and shirtfronts of yesterday occurred. I mean in Rugby, you simply cannot even tackle a player who is airborne trying to catch the ball. Footy - that was your big chance to hurt someone. Soccer perhaps favours the person first to the ball too much IMO, but again, it is a factor in judging a fair tackle.

It is this factor that is also lost in the whole "contact below the knees" rule. If "who was at the ball first" was factored in to this rule, it would be a lot easier to judge and make a lot more sense.

Even some marking - we praised the bravery of Riewoldt, Brown etc charging back with the flight to take a mark. As for the poor campaigner who was in position under the ball ready to mark? Stiff shit!

So that is the landscape we are working with, and I think generally the code has/had it a bit wrong in this regard. Charging late to a contest at full speed is kind of dangerous/reckless and can lead to trouble, and it was never a 'fair' contest against the person who has little to no momentum because they were already in position.

I've kind of thought this for a while and it was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the incident.

Probably because crowds would boo, and media would mock, any player who pulls up short.

Look at how much gets said about NAicos never having taken a contested mark.

That said, the idea that players at full speed should be able to instantly calculate whether they are late to the ball and also be instantly able to react to an unexpected move by their opponent (such as losing their feet) is just ridiculous.

The Roos showed Archer was slowing and trying to change direction but the AFL doesnt care. Any concussion will be 3 weeks now.

If the AFL really think this perhaps restrict the legs like in the trotts so that speed is controlled.

 

[MaxiBont]

So if a player jumps for a mark and knees an opponent in the back or head, they're suspended now? They've breached their duty of care?

If a player has possession of the ball and gets a flying knee in the back of head from an opposition player not in a contest, then yes, they would be suspended.

The key factor is that Cleary had possession of the ball and it wasn’t a contest.

 

[McKuursma]

My first post in this thread back on page 9 was right after seeing the incident for the first time.

I've since seen it quite a few times now and my opinion hasn't changed.

When you're coming at the ball in the opposite direction to an opposition player and you're clearly gonna be 2nd to the ball then you have a duty of care. Whether your intention is to win the ball, to bump, to tackle, whatever it is, you wear the consequences if you decide to hit the contest hard and end up injuring a bloke.

Archer came in at full speed and was not bending over to pick up the ball, he was going for the man. I don't care if Cleary didn't keep his feet. The rule is that you're meant to try to keep your feet. Archer probably would've cleaned him up regardless given the speed he hit the contest.

3 weeks was the right call.

Maynard was pretty clearly going to be second to the ball no?

 

[Proffessor]

I recon Australian Football is one of the few codes/sports that seemed to historically allow, laud and even give primacy to players who are late to the ball/contest and hit it with speed.

That's how the big hits and shirtfronts of yesterday occurred. I mean in Rugby, you simply cannot even tackle a player who is airborne trying to catch the ball. Footy - that was your big chance to hurt someone. Soccer perhaps favours the person first to the ball too much IMO, but again, it is a factor in judging a fair tackle.

It is this factor that is also lost in the whole "contact below the knees" rule. If "who was at the ball first" was factored in to this rule, it would be a lot easier to judge and make a lot more sense.

Even some marking - we praised the bravery of Riewoldt, Brown etc charging back with the flight to take a mark. As for the poor campaigner who was in position under the ball ready to mark? Stiff shit!

So that is the landscape we are working with, and I think generally the code has/had it a bit wrong in this regard. Charging late to a contest at full speed is kind of dangerous/reckless and can lead to trouble, and it was never a 'fair' contest against the person who has little to no momentum because they were already in position.

I've kind of thought this for a while and it was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the incident.

I've always cringed at the way commentators lauded acts like Riewoldt's and Brown's famous marks going backwards into packs so strongly. They were foolhardy and dangerous, and their replication shouldn't be encouraged.

Brown eventually had to retire due to concussion issues and essentially became a victim of his own foolhardiness. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[ferball]

With one minute to go in the Saints/Tigers game there is an incident that is almost identical to this one and none of you pearl clutchers have even mentioned it.

Pretty clear youse (and the MRO) only wanted the suspension cos it involved an Archer. MRO still sleeps with the light on cos of his dad.

 

[BF Tiger]

With one minute to go in the Saints/Tigers game there is an incident that is almost identical to this one and none of you pearl clutchers have even mentioned it.

Pretty clear youse (and the MRO) only wanted the suspension cos it involved an Archer. MRO still sleeps with the light on cos of his dad.

Have you got footage? Did anyone end up with a brain injury?

 

[ferball]

Have you got footage? Did anyone end up with a brain injury?

There is a centre bounce with a minute to go. Zac Jones wins the clearance and gets cleaned up, possibly by Mansell, as he goes to ground and handballs. I think the incident happens at 0.55 left on the clock.

If we lose today and I have the shits I might make a gif of it.

Essentially tho its the same incident. Even without a head impact it should be an unduly rough play charge - careless, low/medium impact to the body = fine - if the MRO is consistent. (Or Mansell should get a free for being taken out low.)

It won't be cos we all know the whole thing is a farce.

And frankly neither incident should cop any sanction.

Like the Mansell/O'Connell incident being discussed in the other thread, people in the AFL media are sooking cos someone got hurt. They are looking for someone to blame cos they are generally arse licking ****wits who want to be seen leading a witch hunt against footballers getting hurt. Even tho in that incident O'Connell ran into that contest under his own power. (So Mansell can expect a month at least... )

The whole thing is a joke and the MRO doesn't help. He has form for ignoring incidents where a north player cops a concussion when in the previous month a North player copped a suspension for exactly the same thing.

He should be sacked and replaced with someone who is competent and doesn't play favorites or pursue 30 year old grudges.

 

[Sentinel]

This is what the tribunal said about the Archer incident: "His duty of care required him to slow more appreciably and earlier in order to give himself the opportunity to avoid or minimise head high contact."

In the Richmond/Saints game, the player made no impact to the head or neck, so how is it the same incident? Had they crashed into Jones' head then sure, there's likely a case to answer (impact depending on concussion or not), but that didn't happen so where's the argument that the duty of care was breached? What would the basis of this MRO charge be?

 

[ferball]

This is what the tribunal said about the Archer incident: "His duty of care required him to slow more appreciably and earlier in order to give himself the opportunity to avoid or minimise head high contact."

In the Richmond/Saints game, the player made no impact to the head or neck, so how is it the same incident? Had they crashed into Jones' head then sure, there's likely a case to answer (impact depending on concussion or not), but that didn't happen so where's the argument that the duty of care was breached? What would the basis of this MRO charge be?

Its just a fluke that one player hit another's head and the other didn't.

The only difference is Jones was aware enough to get his head out of the way while trying to dispose of the ball.