There was never any issue with Cotchin's & there wasn't any issue with this either.
When the ball is the objective (& not the man) then any contact is incidental in a contact sport.
If there is then it's no longer a contact sport.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
When the ball is the objective (& not the man) then any contact is incidental in a contact sport.
If there is then it's no longer a contact sport.
Imagine the uproar if Christian were to resign. That would make two senior AFL officials (Christian and the chief of umpiring(?), both jobs would then be included in Shocking’s ever growing resume. Nothing to see here, move along.
Not surprised with the decision under the current rules and the overall notion of 'going for the ball". However it doesn't make it correct if you are serious about player welfare and concussion. Can see a rule change coming outlining a certain level of duty of care required and going for the ball recklessly like this will be punishable.
Soccer has completely outlawed all aggressive front on tackles even if you are "going for the ball" (straight red card) and career ending incidents have virtually disappeared. And here we are talking about a broken leg, not severe concussion which can ruin your life.
Soccer has completely outlawed all aggressive front on tackles even if you are "going for the ball" (straight red card) and career ending incidents have virtually disappeared. And here we are talking about a broken leg, not severe concussion which can ruin your life.
We all know who they are.
Most of this stems from certain coaches / teams using poor technique when attacking the ball or taking possession.
How many times do you see players bend over to pick the ball up, and then bend their neck down hoping for high contact from the incomming tackler, or worse moving forward into a stationery tackler to milk a high contaqct free kick? I cringe when i see this type of play. It's only sheer luck that nobody has had their neck broken doing this.
THe other pet hate is players dropping the knees of shoulder so the tackle slips up and hits them in the head or goes high. If the AFL is serious about getting rid of high contact, then don't reward players for trying to get hit in the head. Play it as their 'prior opportunity' and call holding the ball.
As Allan Jeans used to say "don't put your head where you can put your bum".
This sort of approach seems to be getting lost from our game. Maybe it's part of the whole new age thing with players worrying that they will inadvertantly expose the first gay AFL footballer, or maybe it's just a free kock quest!
The efforts to 'milk' high contact free kicks is causing a raft of players to use poor technique in attacking the ball. All the onus for duty of care is on the player tackling, and nobody is talking about the player with the ball having a duty of care to himself. What exactly is he? A mindless robot in these circumstances? Has our society become so socialist that it's all about being the victim in this and the victim in that when we can actually help ourselves.
Don't go into a contect head first. Coach it. Don't coach for the high contact free kick which Chris Scott obviously does. There are teams Geelong, Western Bullfrogs and the Demons who are expert at milking this type of free. Then there is Richmond who actively coach that out of our game. Damien Hardwick has said so himself. Dylan Grimes at one point got high contact free kicks almost every time he was tackled. In a presser Hardwick was asked about it, and he showed clear distain for it, and the nedt thinhg you know it was out of Grimes's game.
How many times do you see players bend over to pick the ball up, and then bend their neck down hoping for high contact from the incomming tackler, or worse moving forward into a stationery tackler to milk a high contaqct free kick? I cringe when i see this type of play. It's only sheer luck that nobody has had their neck broken doing this.
THe other pet hate is players dropping the knees of shoulder so the tackle slips up and hits them in the head or goes high. If the AFL is serious about getting rid of high contact, then don't reward players for trying to get hit in the head. Play it as their 'prior opportunity' and call holding the ball.
As Allan Jeans used to say "don't put your head where you can put your bum".
This sort of approach seems to be getting lost from our game. Maybe it's part of the whole new age thing with players worrying that they will inadvertantly expose the first gay AFL footballer, or maybe it's just a free kock quest!
The efforts to 'milk' high contact free kicks is causing a raft of players to use poor technique in attacking the ball. All the onus for duty of care is on the player tackling, and nobody is talking about the player with the ball having a duty of care to himself. What exactly is he? A mindless robot in these circumstances? Has our society become so socialist that it's all about being the victim in this and the victim in that when we can actually help ourselves.
Don't go into a contect head first. Coach it. Don't coach for the high contact free kick which Chris Scott obviously does. There are teams Geelong, Western Bullfrogs and the Demons who are expert at milking this type of free. Then there is Richmond who actively coach that out of our game. Damien Hardwick has said so himself. Dylan Grimes at one point got high contact free kicks almost every time he was tackled. In a presser Hardwick was asked about it, and he showed clear distain for it, and the nedt thinhg you know it was out of Grimes's game.
Cotchin's actions were more defensible than Mackay's on a few levels.
First, Cotchin actually took possession of the ball. Mackay didn't. And I go as far as to say Mackay's reckless approach to the contest meant that he either had no intention of collecting the ball or would have defied the laws of physics to have collected it cleanly.
Second, in the split second before impact, Mackay is looking at Clark, not the ball. This calls into question whether Mackay's object was indeed the ball. In Cotchin's case, his eyes never leave the ball and he most certainly does not look at Shiel.
Third, a concussion to Shiel wasn't a reasonably foreseeable outcome of his contest with Cotchin. Both players extended their arms to the ball, neither choosing instead to retard the other. Yes, it's always been arguable that Cotchin 'leans' into Shiel but he does not do so with the sort of force that would likely cause a concussion. Cotchin's body position is low, unlike Mackay's. I think the jury remains out as to whether Shiel did, in fact, receive his concussion from this incident anyway.
Fourth, and the thing I want to emphasise as the aspect I find most troubling about the Mackay incident, is that Clark could not have reasonably expected head-high contact at that contest and, therefore, would have had little reason to brace for contact nor protect his head. Shiel was clearly aware Cotchin was in the area and that a contest was about to occur. That he chose to put his head in harm's way was a choice that meant Shiel, partly, contributed to the outcome. In no way did Clark contribute to the outcome of having his face smashed in, particularly when you consider Mackay's feet were off the ground at the moment of impact.
The point of my previous post was to say that, from now on, Richmond supporters can shut down oppo-supporting friends who continue to think Cotchin should have been suspended by referencing the Mackay incident as being far more grave in its intent and its outcome.
We agree on your first point but are poles apart on the second one. Mackay had a choice as to whether he met Clark and he chose to accelerate into the contest. At that point the contact is no longer incidental, it's intentional, whether the ball is in the area or not, and he is responsible for the outcome. Even then I'm giving Mackay the benefit of the considerable doubt that collecting the ball was his sole objective.
So then you need to outlaw all dangerous actions with the potential for head injuries. Players putting knees up going for marks (Balta on Kennedy and Naughton on English). Players jumping into other players in marking contests (Henderson on Marshall). Players tackling opponents to the ground (Holman on Duncan).
The crazy thing is Clark was not concussed. Everyone is talking about protecting against concussion and the guy was not concussed. And how many players have been concussed in an incident like these where 2 players are competing for a ground ball?
It makes no sense to say this incident is too dangerous for the future of the game (he ran too fast??) yet ignore other risks in the game as a result of contested situations. Should you ban players from jumping above a certain height off the ground so knees don't reach head height?
If you are worried about the consequences of severe concussion you should not be playing a contact sport.
Disagree with almost all of that.
When the ball goes over his head Clark and Mackay are almost directly opposite each other. That Clark is not aware of Mackay at that point is surprising. This is a 360 degree game. He's been playing it for 20 years. To say it is unreasonable to expect someone else would be contesting that ball once it cleared him is wrong.
And to argue you shouldn't be able to accelerate into a contest if you are unlikely to get their first? The ball was bouncing - its an odd shaped ball that bounces all sorts of directions. To argue it was predictable where the ball was going to end up when it cleared Clark is guesswork. To argue that Mackay should not have accelerated towards the ball because he should have known where it would end up is also guesswork. Mackay ran towards the ball without really knowing if he would get there first or Clark. He did not line him up and iron him out.
The rules on "bumping" players in possession is clear cut. If you strike the head or they hit their head as a result of your bump you are in trouble. But you can't legislate for these types of collisions unless you also legislate for other/all potential incidents involving the head.
Grimes used to put his arm out and hook it under his opponents arm and lift it, causing the high contact. I never liked it and as you say he hasn't done it for quite a while.
Dusty is the prime example of one that could easily milk them but chooses not to. He's never staged for a free I can recall.
I'm not surprised. You're nothing if not consistent.
This is the problem when you try and compare incidents and outcomes but, in any event, I can't take seriously the idea Clark would have been as aware of impending contact as Shiel was. That's just not plausible. Clark has his eyes on the ball. Mackay is at least 20 metres away as the ball falls to the ground ... see the screen grab below. Then, as Mackay approaches, Clark clearly has no sense Mackay is about to leave the ground, hit him hard and break his jaw—logic says he would have braced for that contact or altered his course. He did neither.
That is where this argument completely falls over. The risk of catastrophic injury was made all the more possible by Mackay choosing to barrel into the contest. So, what were better options? He could have waited for Clark to take clean possession and have tackled him. He could have contested the loose ball if Clark fumbled. He could have corralled Clark in an effort to intercept his disposal. He could have allowed Clark's opponent (Berry, I think it was) to have broken up the play with a tackle ... after all, he was right on his hammer. The point is, he had options that would have better reflected the duty of care a player has to minimise the chances of a terrible injury to an opponent. And, crucially, he had time to assess these options and change his actions.
You're undoing yourself here. Why, then, did Mackay opt to run directly at Clark if the fall of the ball was so unpredictable? Probably because his primary goal was not to possess the ball but to inflict maximum hurt.
Has that been confirmed? Source please. I doubt they even ran a concussion test, given the nature of the injuries.
Bear in mind our knowledge of concussion is improving rapidly, off a low base. In the past 10 years, we've learned a lot.
More and more parents will steer their kids away from footy unless the game is seen to be taking affirmative action on unnecessary and avoidable head-high hits.
So, to those who say the so-called sanitised game is not footy as they know and love it, would you prefer footy disappeared into irrelevance because the next generations are choosing soccer and basketball instead?
Footy's great without this kind of incident. In fact, it's better without it.
Good post. At the end of the day Mckay had a few options as you point out. But he opted to explode into the contest to take out the ball and man in the name of getting to the ball first. Careless, reckless, lacking duty of care to his opponent.I'm not surprised. You're nothing if not consistent.
This is the problem when you try and compare incidents and outcomes but, in any event, I can't take seriously the idea Clark would have been as aware of impending contact as Shiel was. That's just not plausible. Clark has his eyes on the ball. Mackay is at least 20 metres away as the ball falls to the ground ... see the screen grab below. Then, as Mackay approaches, Clark clearly has no sense Mackay is about to leave the ground, hit him hard and break his jaw—logic says he would have braced for that contact or altered his course. He did neither.
View attachment 12622
That is where this argument completely falls over. The risk of catastrophic injury was made all the more possible by Mackay choosing to barrel into the contest. So, what were better options? He could have waited for Clark to take clean possession and have tackled him. He could have contested the loose ball if Clark fumbled. He could have corralled Clark in an effort to intercept his disposal. He could have allowed Clark's opponent (Berry, I think it was) to have broken up the play with a tackle ... after all, he was right on his hammer. The point is, he had options that would have better reflected the duty of care a player has to minimise the chances of a terrible injury to an opponent. And, crucially, he had time to assess these options and change his actions.
You're undoing yourself here. Why, then, did Mackay opt to run directly at Clark if the fall of the ball was so unpredictable? Probably because his primary goal was not to possess the ball but to inflict maximum hurt.
Has that been confirmed? Source please. I doubt they even ran a concussion test, given the nature of the injuries.
Bear in mind our knowledge of concussion is improving rapidly, off a low base. In the past 10 years, we've learned a lot.
More and more parents will steer their kids away from footy unless the game is seen to be taking affirmative action on unnecessary and avoidable head-high hits.
So, to those who say the so-called sanitised game is not footy as they know and love it, would you prefer footy disappeared into irrelevance because the next generations are choosing soccer and basketball instead?
Footy's great without this kind of incident. In fact, it's better without it.
Now we have Shocking saying today that they will look at changing the rules again for next season.
So, another rule change.
He did not say what they would look at, but in context it will have to be something along the lines of body contact.
If he has his way, AFL footy, as we have always known it, will be out the window.
Is he wanting it to be a non contact "sport"
So, another rule change.
He did not say what they would look at, but in context it will have to be something along the lines of body contact.
If he has his way, AFL footy, as we have always known it, will be out the window.
Is he wanting it to be a non contact "sport"
I don't really get this point of view. In my footy-watching life, people have consistently been revulsed by thuggish acts committed on a footy field when the ball was, supposedly, in dispute. Lockett / Caven. Lloyd / Sewell. Magro / Jezza. Wellingham / Simpson. Rucciuto / Kemp. O'Dea / Greening.
The common denominator in all these incidents was the felled player didn't expect the high, violent contact. They were playing the ball while their opponent chose to play the man.
I don't know what Hocking has in mind. But if he can untangle the frightful mess we've found ourselves in when the likes of David Mackay goes unpenalised for an act that resulted in a catastrophic yet foreseeable outcome, the game can only be better for it.
Well he can start with 2 Geelong players making head high contact with each other. Jeremy Cameron and Gary Rohan having no duty of care for each other. Likely to happen often when you put 2 gial hungry forwards in the same forward line
So, what would be your answer to this problem No. 8
All sports have inherent physical risks.
Even non contact sports have injuries of one sort or another.
I had a shoulder injury in my karate days and never gave any thought to banning martial arts.
Part of the risk taken when involved in a contact sport.
Gray, the thing that annoys every footy fan is uncertainty. So, I would advocate for a solution that simply and clearly puts 'awareness' at the top of the consideration list. What do I mean?
Well, let's use the Mackay / Clark incident as the example. Who initiated the contact? Mackay. Who chose for that contact to be forceful? Mackay. Who got to the ball first? Clark. Who had eyes solely for the ball? Clark. Who was hit in the head? Clark. Who was severely injured? Clark.
If we agree on those facts, then, for me, Mackay has failed in his duty of care to protect Clark from a terrible injury.
How? Because Mackay chose to initiate contact on a player who had minimal awareness of impending contact. The action then needs to be graded, and the reason Mackay needed a lengthy suspension was due to the severity of the hit. For the absence of doubt, a run down tackle that is executed fairly and results in no injury (or potential for injury) would not receive a suspension, even though the player who was tackled was not 'aware' he was about to get caught.
So, the incident assessment would go something like this:
1. Is it reasonable to believe the injured player was or should have been aware of impending contact? Yes: no case to answer. No: move to point 2
2. Was the possibility of injury reasonably foreseeable? Yes: suspension graded higher, move to point 3. No: suspension graded lower
3. Did the force of the contact contribute to the severity of the outcome? Yes: highest grading for suspension. No: suspension in middle range of options
It comes down to whether a player is given the chance to protect themselves. Other punters will ask, 'are you going to outlaw marking contests?'. Of course not. When a player chooses to contest a mark, they are 'aware' of possible contact and can either brace for that contact, opt out of the contest or display dumb courage and go into it without a care. That's on them.
The point here was, Clark had little reason to expect he'd be put into hospital from that passage of play. That outcome was completely on Mackay. And it's based around 'awareness' because no player would knowingly or willingly put themselves in Clark's situation.
And before there is any more handwringing among the 'it's no longer footy without the bump' apologists, let's not forget Mackay had myriad other options to the one he chose. Nobody would have been decrying 'the end of the game as we know it' had Mackay chosen to tackle, corral or even allow Berry to contest the ball instead.
Remember, the spectre of CTE is hanging over footy, and the lawyers are watching. The game needs to show it is actively minimising the chance of head injuries, lest it be litigated into irrelevance.
Ummmm.
If you choose to enter the contest n chase a loose ball all around a rather large paddock filled with lots of other players. You need to be aware that one of those other players may make forceful contact with you, because he's also contesting for the loose ball, same as within a marking contest.
If you go in blind and stupid there's a bloody good chance you'll be sat on your arse, hard.
I looked at that as well.
I what SHockings view is if it’s 2 teammates contesting a ball and one gets knocked out. Will he cite the other teammate?
I demand an answer..now you poonce!
