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

[fake tyrone]

I don't like that Archer has copped 3 weeks for something that was clearly an accident, and I can't help but wonder if he would have been suspended at all if he was a bigger name from a bigger club in the finals or premiership race.

Having said that, I think it's pretty clear what the message from the AFL is. You can't go clobbering into blokes if you're second to the contest and claim it was just an unfortunate accident or you were just 'going hard at it'. Clearly the players are being expected to accept a duty of care towards each other and need to adjust their approach.

I have NFI how the players are going to adjust, though. When I was playing tackers and school footy I was always told to put my head over the ball and not to worry about getting hit because I'd always get the free kick. Now we have blokes going head first but being pinged for hitting the opposition player below the knees. How exactly we adjudicate two opposing players charging at a loose ball between them seems a very difficult thing atm, and I can't think of another sport that has the same problem.

 

[Proffessor]

I'm gonna say it. This decision will change AFL big time. Players will start being coached not to go for the ball and to be reactive. Be better to wait and tackle.

AFL is clearly a joke RN Kane has ****ed it up.

So more like the way the game has been played for the majority of the previous 100 years then?
Sounds good to me.

 

[MJG14]

Reckon Archer is a little unlucky but those blaming Cleary for this have got to be kidding themselves.

 

[Bald]

People really need to learn the difference between responsibility at fault. Nobody is at fault here.

Cleary is responsible for keeping his feet. Archer is responsible for attacking the contest with a duty of care. Both failed in their responsibilities, but only one was by choice. Clearly Archer had no intent to hurt Cleary but he was very much more in control of himself than Cleary was as Cleary lost his feet.

And yes, after all of that I still don’t think Archer should be suspended because sometimes shit just happens.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

How is it that Cleary is cleared here for taking out the legs of Archer.
I thought you cannot do that anymore?

 

[PP34]

Running towards a contest is now apparently dangerous and reckless if someone happens to lose their feet and smack their head into you.

**** me footy truly has gone to shit.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

How is it that Cleary is cleared here for taking out the legs of Archer.
I thought you cannot do that anymore?

Because he didn't. He had the ball, lost his footing and went to ground and then Archer ran into him.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I'm gonna say it. This decision will change AFL big time. Players will start being coached not to go for the ball and to be reactive. Be better to wait and tackle.

AFL is clearly a joke RN Kane has ****ed it up.

It won't change anything. The vast majority of players have long stopped barrelling into an opponent bending over to pick up the ball from front on.

 

[DocSholl]

Does anyone know what the alternatives given by the AFL counsel were?

They implied Archer should have anticipated Cleary going.to ground and therefore slowed down earlier.

I thought Jackson's explanation was quite good tbh, but the AFL is shit scared of any concussion other than ones caused in a marking contest.

 

[sabso]

I think he's stiff, but the afl is pretty consistent these days, if there's a head injury, you're screwed

Ginbey/lalor. Username checks out

 

[mouncey2franklin]

I've been following North for long enough to know what happens from here.

A North player will be injured in a similar incident and the offending player will got off scot-free.

Most likely by the end of this H&A season.

In saying that, I don't want anybody in Archer's situation (for or against) to be suspended for something like this.

It is ridiculous.

At least when they rubbed out Ziebell a few years ago, he had actually left the ground recklessly.

There was some merit to the suspension.

But this time around, Archer has slowed down and tried to avoid contact, his opponent broke the rules and took out his legs.

wtf man

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Yet everyone involved on the night, and the vast majority of AFL on social media, believe it was an accident. If the MRO had boots, you'd be licking them.

A player decided to run into a contest, in which a team mate was already tackling an opponent who had taken possession of the ball, at full pace.

This was no accident, it was the foreseeable consequence of a poor decision on Archer's behalf.

The tribunal summed it up perfectly when they said Archer's decision to slow down was, 'too little, too late'.

 

[DocSholl]

He didn't decide to move towards the contest after Cleary had taken possession though, I'm not sure why people keep saying that.

 

[sabso]

He didn't decide to move towards the contest after Cleary had taken possession though, I'm not sure why people keep saying that.

Some think the mro/tribunal have any idea when they apply whichever rules they’ve applied. It’s absolutely not consistent from case to case so forgive us if we don’t accept their interpretation straight away.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Naicos would get off in this situation 10 times out of 10.

 

[roomagic1984]

I've been following North for long enough to know what happens from here.

A North player will be injured in a similar incident and the offending player will got off scot-free.

Most likely by the end of this H&A season.

In saying that, I don't want anybody in Archer's situation (for or against) to be suspended for something like this.

It is ridiculous.

At least when they rubbed out Ziebell a few years ago, he had actually left the ground recklessly.

There was some merit to the suspension.

But this time around, Archer has slowed down and tried to avoid contact, his opponent broke the rules and took out his legs.

wtf man

Is this when Jack won the football?

 

[Stax on the mill]

Naicos would get off in this situation 10 times out of 10.

Stupid, opportunistic and childish post.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Naicos would get off in this situation 10 times out of 10.

Stupid, opportunistic and childish post.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

He didn't decide to move towards the contest after Cleary had taken possession though, I'm not sure why people keep saying that.

As soon as Cleary took possession and his team mate tackled him, Archer should have been thinking of plan B and C, instead he continued to charge in, only trying to slow down when it was way too late.

If I'm driving a car, I have plan A, I know where I'm going and how I'm getting there, I have the cruise set but my eyes never stop moving, ready to react to any changes (plans B,C and D if needed).

 

[ferball]

A player decided to run into a contest, in which a team mate was already tackling an opponent who had taken possession of the ball, at full pace.

This was no accident, it was the foreseeable consequence of a poor decision on Archer's behalf.

The tribunal summed it up perfectly when they said Archer's decision to slow down was, 'too little, too late'.

So what you're saying is once someone takes possession of the ball other players should back off and not apply pressure to them, even tho that (ie applying pressure) was the key difference in pretty much every game on the weekend.

And you're also saying that slowing down to avoid impact isn't enough, beforehand the player running to the other player should slow down enough to basically let the other player escape with the ball, preventing any chance to tackle and control the player with the ball. The tribunal acknowledged that Archer had slowed between 25-33% of his speed before Cleary went to ground and said "oh but it wasn't enough".

Konstanty hadn't made contact with Cleary until Archer had slowed down significantly and was a split second and one step from stopping when another player slid into his legs. There were two frees given for the almost exact same thing in the Melb/GWS game the next day.

Its a rubbish decision made by an incompetent organisation that manages a contact sport trying to avoid legal fallout for the consequences of a contact sport.

 

[ferball]

He didn't decide to move towards the contest after Cleary had taken possession though, I'm not sure why people keep saying that.

Yep. He was already moving. Once Cleary took possession he slowed down and shaped to tackle him, which is obvious if you watch the videos of the incident or any of the 4500 different still images floating around.

The AFL acknowledged this but claimed because he wasn't approximately 0.2 of a second faster to anticipate Cleary taking the ball and going to ground he should be suspended for three weeks, the way Picket was for elbowing Moore in the head and the way and Cripps and Maynard weren't.

The AFL is more farcical every day and in 4-5 months when something similar happens involving a player who may play finals or poll high in the Brownlow we will see a different outcome.

 

[Cool Kangas]

Utter garbage.
Did nothing wrong.

Different clubs, different rules. Disgusting.

 

[TruRoo]

I have never made out that Cleary was intending to harm Archer, but it’s clear as day he made no attempt to stay on his feet. You don’t drop to your knees to gather a ball unless you intentionally try to do so. If he had overbalanced he probably misses the ball completely or overshoots it.

Only Cleary knows his intent, but that is not the technique you attempt to gather a ball at speed.

Ok superstar - what would you have done in Cleary's position?

Archer's suspension is utter bullshit. But it was a football accident, not the result of the WB player doing anything wrong. It should have been Cleary's free kick at best, but not a suspension.

By the time Archer made contact, Cleary was being tackled by Konstanty. That alone should end the whole "Cleary slid and took Archer's legs out" argument. But really, anyone suggesting this is comparable to why the rule was brought in anyway has one eye closed.

 

[Outback Footy]

A player decided to run into a contest, in which a team mate was already tackling an opponent who had taken possession of the ball, at full pace.

This was no accident, it was the foreseeable consequence of a poor decision on Archer's behalf.

The tribunal summed it up perfectly when they said Archer's decision to slow down was, 'too little, too late'.

100% correct

Sheezel did the right thing, he was initially closer to the contest and waited. Konstanty was right on top of Cleary, no need for Archer to get involved. Shows either a lack of awareness or simple inexperience. I dont for a minute think it was deliberate (he could just as easily have broken his leg on Konstantys head and taken 2 north playrs out instead of Cleary)

Careless
High
Severe
3 weeks.

 

[TruRoo]

But this time around, Archer has slowed down and tried to avoid contact, his opponent broke the rules and took out his legs.

wtf man

Falling over is not breaking the rules. Also, by the time Archer contacted Cleary the latter was being tackled by Konstanty.

Not sure why I'm even bothering replying to someone with a trans-baiting username such as yourself. How do we know you aren't just a troll here anyway?