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

[Roosurgence]

Not vi. Cleary at no point had his head over the football.

Some people don’t understand going to ground is not having your head over the footy.

 

[Roosurgence]

I'll have to admit at first look I was also worried about archers leg approaching a contest like that with contact below the knees is just asking for a broken leg. Thought contact below the knees.

But on reflection the duty of care is a little bit more so on archer in this case because he came from so far out.

Its dangerous both sides so I think the action needs to be ruled out of the game.

Think he needs to adjust his approach and get low to the contest as well.

Exactly how do you approach a contest low when your opponent chooses to go to ground?

I’m just wondering how you think he can lower his body to shin height?

They aren’t playing limbo.

 

[HeHateMe]

Exactly how do you approach a contest low when your opponent chooses to go to ground?

I’m just wondering how you think he can lower his body to shin height?

They aren’t playing limbo.

He didn't lower his body at all though. That's part of the problem.

Just from seeing this incident I get that he is a very brave player but also pretty reckless with his own body. He was willing to throw his body at 100% into that contest and was lucky he himself didn't get a broken leg. We have see it before.

In this incident Cleary was clumsy and feel over also he wouldn't have had the slightest clue where archer was because where he was coming from. Players are going to be clumsy, archer needs to get low as well not go to ground but bend over and try to get hands to the footy, probably still would have been a collision but not knee to the head and would have protected himself and his legs alot better also.

 

[_Mike_]

Not vi. Cleary at no point had his head over the football.

This angle doesnt support that claim.

 

[_Mike_]

Exactly how do you approach a contest low when your opponent chooses to go to ground?

I’m just wondering how you think he can lower his body to shin height?

They aren’t playing limbo.

Archer's action has been graded on the outcome, rather than the act itself, & whether it was seen as intentional or avoidable IMO.

Careless, yeah you could argue that, was it worth 3? initially I thought it was purely accidental and the most it should get would be a week in line with concussion protocol.

 

[Sentinel]

Archer's action has been graded on the outcome, rather than the act itself, & whether it was seen as intentional or avoidable IMO.

Careless, yeah you could argue that, was it worth 3? initially I thought it was purely accidental and the most it should get would be a week in line with concussion protocol.

According to the classification table, there's no way the MRO could reach 1 week. The incident itself, if deemed a reportable offence, must be graded as careless conduct, severe impact (due to the concussion) and high contact. This is why he was either getting 0 or 3+.

 

[_Mike_]

According to the classification table, there's no way the MRO could reach 1 week. The incident itself must be graded as severe (due to the concussion) and high. This is why he was either getting 0 or 3+.

View attachment 2252447

Yeah I get the grading outcome, careless - severe - high impact results in 3w minimum. Graded severe on the outcome, IMO

 

[shintemaster]

Even at the speed footy is played at he had more than enough time to ascertain where the ball was, who was going to get to it first and plan for it.

If he seriously couldn’t tell from this moment below then that’s an issue with his visual awareness and depth perception and he’ll find himself in these positions more and more. View attachment 2252271

I hate to break it to you, but being first to the ball doesn't mean a player can't run at you. It's not a mark.

 

[BigRedRoo]

I think this incident highlight a major problem with players deliberately going to ground.

Its quite clear that if a player stands up in a tackle they will get pinged for HTB.
So it far better to go to ground, where the ball can be dropped, thrown or roll off without penalty. At worse a ball up will be called.
Get tackled from behind? No worries just throw yourself forward onto the ground and try and draw and in the back free kick.

I'm very sorry that Cleary got hurt, but as the rules stand its Cleary who deliberately goes to ground and slides forward into Archers lower legs. Free Kick Archer.

You can see Archer shortens his stride and start to turn sideways right before the collision, but Cleary is sliding forward and makes the contact inevitable.

 

[Liam Boy]

Are you just making things up as you go now?

They’re not both going for the ball. Cleary already has it.

View attachment 2252248

Do you just not understand cause and affect or are you only pretending to be clueless? Was Jackson Archer standing still in this frame? Did he decide to accelerate instantly after this?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I hate to break it to you, but being first to the ball doesn't mean a player can't run at you. It's not a mark.

Umm, you might want to enlighten yourself with the rules of the game, previously posted in the last page or two.

I’ve already posted that I’m not interested in hearing any more reasons as to why the MRO is wrong, when I’m convinced they got it right, so you can stop quoting me.

 

[shintemaster]

Umm, you might want to enlighten yourself with the rules of the game, previously posted in the last page or two.

I’ve already posted that I’m not interested in hearing any more reasons as to why the MRO is wrong, when I’m convinced they got it right, so you can stop quoting me.

Then perhaps you should jog on to another thread if you're not interested.

 

[Makeshift Park]

North is challenging the MRO call

Roos to challenge Archer ban

North Melbourne will challenge defender Jackson Archer's three-match suspension at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night

www.nmfc.com.au

 

[Outback Footy]

Hopefully Cleary is OK. And glad Archer is.

In this instance Archers team mate was right on Cleary, arguably impacted him going to ground, Archer was sprinting into a collision. He could just as easily have cleaned up his team mate. Theres a duty of care and in this instance Archer failed that completely. Why run hard into that contest? Dumb play. Virtually no situational awareness. Waiting for that contest to come to him would always have given him more options to impact the play, safely.

Cleary was always first to the ball, the attacking player deserves to be protected.

 

[Iamspock]

North is challenging the MRO call

Roos to challenge Archer ban

North Melbourne will challenge defender Jackson Archer's three-match suspension at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night

www.nmfc.com.au

I think it's a good move, all these non-clearcut incidences need to be challenged, the 0 or 3 penalty is to rigid.

 

[ferball]

I think this incident highlight a major problem with players deliberately going to ground.

Its quite clear that if a player stands up in a tackle they will get pinged for HTB.
So it far better to go to ground, where the ball can be dropped, thrown or roll off without penalty. At worse a ball up will be called.
Get tackled from behind? No worries just throw yourself forward onto the ground and try and draw and in the back free kick.

I'm very sorry that Cleary got hurt, but as the rules stand its Cleary who deliberately goes to ground and slides forward into Archers lower legs. Free Kick Archer.

You can see Archer shortens his stride and start to turn sideways right before the collision, but Cleary is sliding forward and makes the contact inevitable.

These days players release (ie drop) the ball just before contact then appeal for (and often get) frees for being held without the ball.

 

[ferball]

Umm, you might want to enlighten yourself with the rules of the game, previously posted in the last page or two.

I’ve already posted that I’m not interested in hearing any more reasons as to why the MRO is wrong, when I’m convinced they got it right, so you can stop quoting me.

Lets see what the tribunal says.

 

[ferball]

I think it's a good move, all these non-clearcut incidences need to be challenged, the 0 or 3 penalty is to rigid.

If Gerard Whateley thinks it shouldn't be a report then its so far from a reportable offence it isn't funny.

 

[Liam Boy]

Hopefully Cleary is OK. And glad Archer is.

In this instance Archers team mate was right on Cleary, arguably impacted him going to ground, Archer was sprinting into a collision. He could just as easily have cleaned up his team mate. Theres a duty of care and in this instance Archer failed that completely. Why run hard into that contest? Dumb play. Virtually no situational awareness. Waiting for that contest to come to him would always have given him more options to impact the play, safely.

Cleary was always first to the ball, the attacking player deserves to be protected.

Why do people keep saying this? have you watched footy before? To stick a tackle. It's not complicated.

 

[Sentinel]

I think it's a good move, all these non-clearcut incidences need to be challenged, the 0 or 3 penalty is to rigid.

Predictable that North would challenge, and so they should given the suspension is clearly debatable based on the subsequent commentary around it (I'm not saying he should necessarily be let off though), but the tribunal can still only rule it 0 or 3 weeks, or even increase it.

Unless North is challenging the severity or impact grading, like the MRO the tribunal cannot give him 1 or 2 weeks for this. Under the guidelines the possibilities remain 0 or 3+ games.

 

[Some Idiot]

Bad bounce okay.

Still you are not taught to drop your knees and dive head first onto a loose ball. It’s dangerous.

Even more so since the Gary Rohan sliding rule implementation.

Does that mean you deserve to be KOed? No.

But accidents can happen and definitely are more like when the head is in harms way.

I agree it's an accident, but trying to blame Cleary is inappropriate. He didn't go to ground on purpose

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

When I first saw it, I felt like Archer was late to the contest. The sliding in rule isn't really for momentum slides with someone a couple of metres away. It's more for those 50/50 balls where one slides in to get the ball before the other.

The sliding rule is starting to annoy me and some players milk it for the free by searching for the contact to their legs.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

If I was Cleary in that situation with a North player already tackling me, I wouldn't be expecting Archer to recklessly cannon into me from front on.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I agree it's an accident, but trying to blame Cleary is inappropriate. He didn't go to ground on purpose

Absolutely not Cleary's fault in any way.

But it's important to acknowledge as a separate fact that him losing his feet changed the outcome of the collission, and images show he lost his footing prior to any contact from behind.
He slipped, which is not his fault. But that also contributed to the contact. It's one of those accidents in sport that are horrible, but they do happen and it's not always someones fault.

 

[Outback Footy]

Why do people keep saying this? have you watched footy before? To stick a tackle. It's not complicated.

Have you never played the game? Archer didnt attack the ball, he attacked the 2 blokes streaming towards him, he made no attempt to get down to the ball and the bloke he was gonna tackle was at ground level winning the ball. Archers knee did the tackling. He was always only gonna take one of them out. Combined speed when they connected was always gonna be brutal. Reckless at best, unnecessary, did some serious damage. Lucky for him he didnt break a team mate.

Would not have been funny but imagine if hed connected with Konstanty? Knocked Konstanty out and broken his own leg? Inches from doing exactly that. Stupid play.