Player Watch #34: Jackson Archer - suspended for 3 matches for "hit" on WBD player Cleary- charge upheld, Jacko suspended

[ansonholt]

Are you heading in Anson?

No. I changed my mind and replied to my own post. It won't achieve anything except give others something to laugh at. Let's hope we as a club can express our anger on the field and win this weekend. **** the AFL.

I hate that I hate them and the club I love has to play in THEIR league.

 

[Muscles Thommo]

Club won’t appeal. We are the AFL’s useful idiots…

We just get the lube out

 

[travelli]

Watching it live l thought...Jacko you're in trouble!!

Why?

Because the AFL is all about protecting itself from further litigation on concussion and CTE down the track and when the AFL spokesmen in the media kept crying out phrases like 'reckless' 'excessive speed' and duty of care...well you get this outcome.

Majority of actual football knowledgeable pundits all agree that it should have been a free to Jacko on the rule of sliding in a tackle...but Clearly lying there and then the stretcher - as much as l hate to see it, what if Jacko broke his leg, l wonder if he would've gotten 3?

Load of crap BUT...they better be consistent now because this won't be the last of this type of report!!

My only surprise is that people have got so worked up about this. Listening to the baiting media? He was always out.

 

[Its a Process]

Here are some facts:

• Oval ball shape in dispute with two players going flat out to get it.
• Archer realises he is going to be 2nd to the ball and noticeably slowed down
• Archer is entitled to think that Cleary is going to keep his feet and he will be in a good position to tackle/pressure him
• Cleary goes to ground and he subsequently takes out Archer's legs.

Hard to fathom we couldn't argue this successfully, although in reading the transcript we gave it our best shot.

It's going to look awkward later in the year when two players wait for the other player to get to the ball first and neither goes hard as they don't want to injure their opposing player.

 

[shintemaster]

Here are some facts:

• Oval ball shape in dispute with two players going flat out to get it.
• Archer realises he is going to be 2nd to the ball and noticeably slowed down
• Archer is entitled to think that Cleary is going to keep his feet and he will be in a good position to tackle/pressure him
• Cleary goes to ground and he subsequently takes out Archer's legs.

Hard to fathom we couldn't argue this successfully, although in reading the transcript we gave it our best shot.

It's going to look awkward later in the year when two players wait for the other player to get to the ball first and neither goes hard as they don't want to injure their opposing player.

Two players will go low - and hurt each other. The MRO / Tribunal can have a fun time suspending both of them for the same offence.

 

[Event Horizon]

Club won’t appeal. We are the AFL’s useful idiots…

It's not that simple. To appeal you need to have new evidence or be able to prove some sort of legal error was made. It's not simply presenting the same evidence to a different panel

 

[Event Horizon]

Two players will go low - and hurt each other. The MRO / Tribunal can have a fun time suspending both of them for the same offence.

They'd suspend whoever arrived second and if they arrive at exactly the same time, they'd suspend whoever ran faster

 

[TruRoo]

How can that be a shit take? Why is Archer responsible because a bloke fumbles and chooses to dive forward?? Shake your head mate.

I never said Archer was responsible. The suspension is bullshit.

BUT Cleary's actions weren't a choice to dive forward. He lost his feet while gaining possession and by the time Archer got to him there was also the complicating factor of Konstanty being there too. It's just a football accident the MRO and tribunal has decided to **** Archer over.

You said Cleary could have tapped the ball or slowed down. I'd hate it if one of our players did the same - like FOS' first attempt at the ball which led to Richards' first goal on the weekend.

 

[Horace]

I've just re-watched the video a couple of times. The video is from a different angle from where I watched the actual incident on Saturday night, not far from where I was sitting.

My conclusion is exactly the same however and that this was just an absolute accident. No-one should have been reported or suspended. Not one of the three players acted maliciously or could possibly have had any idea as to what the consequences would be of that collision.

Very lucky there was only one concussion. Arch exceptionally lucky to not have a broken leg or wrecked knee.
Goodness knows how Konstanty avoided serious injury.

The AFL has a huge problem looming and that is that they by suspending a player after an accident like this, they are actually taking out the most important aspect of the game, being the spontaneity of it. And that is the very essence of what makes this game such a wonderful game to participate in and watch.

It will eventually become a non-contact sport if this disturbing trend we have been increasingly seeing continues.

Suspensions once were for committing a malicious act on the field and rightly needed to be dealt with. Accidents on the field happen all the time and should not be adjudicated in this way.

 

[nicko74]

what "made" this game such a wonderful game to participate in and watch (edited for accuracy)

It is ****ed beyond repair imo

 

[TruRoo]

My conclusion is exactly the same however and that this was just an absolute accident. No-one should have been reported or suspended. Not one of the three players acted maliciously or could possibly have had any idea as to what the consequences would be of that collision.

Very lucky there was only one concussion. Arch exceptionally lucky to not have a broken leg or wrecked knee.
Goodness knows how Konstanty avoided serious injury.

This. All three players approached the contest fairly and according to the rules, but circumstances led to the outcome.

 

[HongKongRoo]

This. All three players approached the contest fairly and according to the rules, but circumstances led to the outcome.

Disagree, according to the LT rule, Cleary should not have dived on the ball. In other games on the weekend it was paid as a free against. Unfortunate that he was concussed but he initiated the dive.

 

[TruRoo]

Disagree, according to the LT rule, Cleary should not have dived on the ball. In other games on the weekend it was paid as a free against. Unfortunate that he was concussed but he initiated the dive.

What LT did was in no way comparable. Thomas slid at the feet of a player to gain possession of the ball. Same with those other examples from the Melbourne v GWS game.

Cleary fell while gaining possession of the ball and had it in his hands by the time Archer impacted him. At the same time Konstanty was already tackling him too.

 

[Horace]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

The AFL is putting the accident on trial in the Jackson Archer case. Can it win?

Jackson Archer certainly did not mean to hurt Luke Cleary and may not have even meant to hit him, but in the AFL's battle against concussion it is a distinction that may not matter at the tribunal.

www.abc.net.au

 

[kool kangas]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

The AFL is putting the accident on trial in the Jackson Archer case. Can it win?

Jackson Archer certainly did not mean to hurt Luke Cleary and may not have even meant to hit him, but in the AFL's battle against concussion it is a distinction that may not matter at the tribunal.

www.abc.net.au

l waiting to see the first player to slow down or stop completely going into the same type of situation and get booed by supporters for being gutless and roasted by his coaches.....

 

[King Corey]

Jackson should sue the AFL for lost earnings.

 

[chubbspeterson]

l waiting to see the first player to slow down or stop completely going into the same type of situation and get booed by supporters for being gutless and roasted by his coaches.....

Dylan Stephens is a visionary.

 

[Roonescape]

The only one I agree with is the Scrimshaw penalty which seemed like a pretty cheap shot.

Looked pretty cut and dry but it was against * so I'm alright with it.

 

[Samsquanch]

Too expensive for you

Couldn't believe the result last night. Listened to Razor Ray's explanation on AFL 360 of why it wasn't a contact below the knees free and that didn't make any sense either. The whole thing is so subjective. I'm not going to derail and talk about Lynch from my club, although I think that was bs too. The only one I agree with is the Scrimshaw penalty which seemed like a pretty cheap shot.

Razor lickspittling on tv. No. I'm not buying what he's selling.

 

[Samsquanch]

Two players will go low - and hurt each other. The MRO / Tribunal can have a fun time suspending both of them for the same offence.

If it's Watson and Weightman it will be poetry in motion.

 

[Ashley B]

It’s funny how our game is called Australian Rules. As most of the adjudication is interpretation. There is no definitive answer to most of them. And with more umpires it will only get worse

 

[Horace]

If the AFL is going to adjudicate ground ball contests where someone is concussed as suspendable actions, I wonder when where the outcome is the same, the act of contesting a mark will lead to a suspension.

We often hear commentators say "so and so crashed the pack to take a mark". It is surely only a matter of time, then, where a player flies for a mark, "crashes a pack" and knocks out an opposition player.

What is the difference between a ground ball contest and an aerial contest, where one player concusses another in pursuit of winning the footy? Surely not much. Well nothing really, especially if someone "crashes a pack".

 

[Themanbun]

It's not that simple. To appeal you need to have new evidence or be able to prove some sort of legal error was made. It's not simply presenting the same evidence to a different panel

Not exactly true man, sorry. The reasons for appeal are:

» Error of law that has a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.
» That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably
could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
» Classification of offence manifestly excessive or inadequate.
» Sanction imposed manifestly excessive or inadequate.

I'd be appealing on point 2 simply to get an additional set of approval for the AFL's decision so they have absolutely nowhere to hide when two players go low, knock each other out, and then sue the AFL.

 

[Samsquanch]

Not exactly true man, sorry. The reasons for appeal are:

» Error of law that has a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal.
» That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably
could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
» Classification of offence manifestly excessive or inadequate.
» Sanction imposed manifestly excessive or inadequate.

I'd be appealing on point 2 simply to get an additional set of approval for the AFL's decision so they have absolutely nowhere to hide when two players go low, knock each other out, and then sue the AFL.

There's nothing more dangerous than a cornered AFL CEO and Executive General Manager of Football. They'll have our bloody license as quick as look if we leave them without an opportunity to weasel their way out of the situation.

We've been warned off. We leave it at that. We aren't big enough to take on headquarters. They know it and so do we.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Read a few comments online from non-North supporters who suggested the AFL PA should challenge the decision due to the sheer ****ing absurdity of the call.

Don't really disagree