MRP / Trib. 2024 MRP Lotto thread II

[rickety]

Archer didn’t tackle, he recklessly ran in towards a guy who was in the process of gathering the ball and getting tackled from behind by one of Archer’s team mates, and effectively kicked/kneed him in the head leaving him unconscious with a brain injury.

I wonder if you would see the situation differently if the jumpers were reversed.

My guess is you would be calling for six weeks rather than three.

Didn't get a chance to tackle as your bloke squibbed it. Archer ran in to make a contest and had his legs taken out from him. Your boy was falling before Konstanty touched him.
Watch it again.

 

[Samsquanch]

If he had not been reckless and taken appropriate care then his opponent wouldn’t have ended up in hospital.

Perhaps be careful slinging around terms like "reckless" and "appropriate care".

The damaging action last night was taken by the player who went to ground in this instance. Archer is entitled to presume he can tackle a player with possession of the ball coming towards him (provided his tackle is legal within the laws of the game) even if another teammate is also likely to be tackling that same player. In fact, as a defender it's his obligation, just as it would have been the obligation of every other player on the ground when an opponent has possession of the ball.

The laws, as they are written make it clear that "rough contact" includes "making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the opposition Player to take evasive action". Players are coached with awareness of this law and have been for some years now.

The sequence of images posted below make it plainly clear that Archer did take evasive action (appropriate care) by trying to stop in order to avoid or minimise contact with Cleary and they also make it clear that it was Cleary's momentum that resulted in him making contact below the knees of Archer (with some last instant force applied by Konstanty after Cleary had gone to ground). Having the ball doesn't change anything other than to explain why Archer was presenting in that contest. Unfortunately, the contact was forceful as we all saw and there was a serious injury as a result.

I certainly don't believe for a second that Cleary intended to harm Archer or to trip him, and obviously he had no intention whatsoever of injuring himself but that was a consequence of him not staying on his feet.

I'll finish off by noting that I am familiar with the horrific injury suffered by Neil Sachse back in the 1980s that left him a quadriplegic - I would not want to see anybody injured like that in any circumstances and speaking for others, nor would anybody else here I'm sure.

 

[Samsquanch]

Didn't get a chance to tackle as your bloke squibbed it. Archer ran in to make a contest and had his legs taken out from him. Your boy was falling before Konstanty touched him.
Watch it again.

Images above make that clear.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Ça

Are you sure you don't have a brain injury? lol

I LOL’d hard.

 

[rickety]

Perhaps be careful slinging around terms like "reckless" and "appropriate care".

The damaging action last night was taken by the player who went to ground in this instance. Archer is entitled to presume he can tackle a player with possession of the ball coming towards him (provided his tackle is legal within the laws of the game) even if another teammate is also likely to be tackling that same player. In fact, as a defender it's his obligation, just as it would have been the obligation of every other player on the ground when an opponent has possession of the ball.

The laws, as they are written make it clear that "rough contact" includes "making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the opposition Player to take evasive action". Players are coached with awareness of this law and have been for some years now.

The sequence of images posted below make it plainly clear that Archer did take evasive action (appropriate care) by trying to stop in order to avoid or minimise contact with Cleary and they also make it clear that it was Cleary's momentum that resulted in him making contact below the knees of Archer (with some last instant force applied by Konstanty after Cleary had gone to ground). Having the ball doesn't change anything other than to explain why Archer was presenting in that contest. Unfortunately, the contact was forceful as we all saw and there was a serious injury as a result.

I certainly don't believe for a second that Cleary intended to harm Archer or to trip him, and obviously he had no intention whatsoever of injuring himself but that was a consequence of him not staying on his feet.

I'll finish off by noting that I am familiar with the horrific injury suffered by Neil Sachse back in the 1980s that left him a quadriplegic - I would not want to see anybody injured like that in any circumstances and speaking for others, nor would anybody else here I'm sure.

View attachment 2252155

Either holding the ball free for JK, or taking the legs out for JA. 2 frees against the one bloke ...... neither paid.

 

[Samsquanch]

Either holding the ball free for JK, or taking the legs out for JA. 2 frees against the one bloke ...... neither paid.

Two frees and he should have been reported for rough contact. It's a text-book case that could not possibly align more closely to the precise wording of the laws of the game (quoted in my post above).

The MRO has applied the penalty to the wrong person.

In lodging the appeal, North ought to insist that Cleary is cited for rough contact.


I know North won't do that due to "optics" but it is the job of the MRO to act within the laws of the game.

 

[King Corey]

Archer didn’t tackle, he recklessly ran in towards a guy who was in the process of gathering the ball and getting tackled from behind by one of Archer’s team mates, and effectively kicked/kneed him in the head leaving him unconscious with a brain injury.

I wonder if you would see the situation differently if the jumpers were reversed.

My guess is you would be calling for six weeks rather than three.

Let me guess, the extra "f" in your name is for (f)apping?

Or is it for (f)ree kick bulldogs?

ps- your post is emotive, inaccurate, self-righteous, deliberately provocative and most importantly - neither insightful nor funny.

You made it this far by the good grace of this board. Scurry along now back to gobbing the MRP members or whatever you do in your spare time.

Bye.

 

[Roostorm]

Dan is spot on

 

[Roosurgence]

Dan is spot on

Watching that in real time shows how bad that technique from Cleary was.

He saw the oncoming player and went straight to the ground putting himself and Archer in a position to get hurt.

He either shat his pants or was trying to draw a high free. Either way going to ground like that with a player coming at you is the act that is reckless.

 

[DuckYeah]

If he had not been reckless and taken appropriate care then his opponent wouldn’t have ended up in hospital.

Free kick to Archer. Dont dive on the ball and take out the tacklers legs. What if he had of done Archers knee? Or broke his leg? Its a tactic used by players to get high free kicks. **** around and find out. All that happened within 1.2 seconds from ball in dispute to him being hit. Get stuffed

 

[DuckYeah]

I think the fact that Konstanty tackled him forward made it more difficult for Archer to judge.

I dont think Konstanty did push him forward, Im 99% sure after watching it 1000 times, he dived forward. If you look, konstantys arms are pressed forward to brace himself upright, so he didn’t smack his face into the back of clearys head, they aren’t wrapped around him and they are bent, so he didnt push.

It was a text book below the knees free kick, it was reckless and the wrong bloke was suspended

 

[Unnamed1]

Don’t agree with the 3 weeks. Also don’t agree with the below the knees. By definition, his head hit the top of Archer’s knee, you can see him holding it after. Not below the knee.

Both players will wish they had their time again. Split second stuff. I think Beveridge called it right in the press conference and it should have stayed as that.

 

[hotchilli]

Don’t agree with the 3 weeks. Also don’t agree with the below the knees. By definition, his head hit the top of Archer’s knee, you can see him holding it after. Not below the knee.

Both players will wish they had their time again. Split second stuff. I think Beveridge called it right in the press conference and it should have stayed as that.

There's plenty of contact below the knees, enough contact to flip him over off his feet.

In the end Archer walks away very lucky his leg didn't caught in the wrong position to destroy his knee.

And hopefully Cleary isn't going to deal with any long term effects resulting from the concussion.

 

[Samsquanch]

If the suspension of Archer remains in place and if Cleary's action isn't suspended then expect to see more of the likes of weightman, Watson etc. taking dives in addition to their ducking to suck umpires into paying them free kicks. Certain coaches seem to encourage this kind of thing if it advantages their team.

It is up to the AFL to take immediate and decisive action to cease the act of diving for free kicks.

 

[giantroo]

 

[krakouers]

Fireman Sam is in our corner…
I don’t know wether to be horrified or confident

 

[Ashley B]

Fireman Sam is in our corner…
I don’t know wether to be horrified or confident

Its because this whole thing

 

[Roosurgence]

Surely the club sent the message to the AFL 5 minutes after that charge was laid that we will see you at the Tribunal?

Suspending a player for another players poor decision goes against the very fabric of the game.

 

[Disco Dew]

 

[Wild Bill]

Challenging

 

[Disco Dew]

Delete this.

you have been beaten!

 

[Chadwiko]

We will win this challenge.

 

[Disco Dew]

We will win this challenge.

It’s a slam dunk…

Probably another honourable loss coming up…

 

[Merlin007]

Perhaps be careful slinging around terms like "reckless" and "appropriate care".

The damaging action last night was taken by the player who went to ground in this instance. Archer is entitled to presume he can tackle a player with possession of the ball coming towards him (provided his tackle is legal within the laws of the game) even if another teammate is also likely to be tackling that same player. In fact, as a defender it's his obligation, just as it would have been the obligation of every other player on the ground when an opponent has possession of the ball.

The laws, as they are written make it clear that "rough contact" includes "making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the opposition Player to take evasive action". Players are coached with awareness of this law and have been for some years now.

The sequence of images posted below make it plainly clear that Archer did take evasive action (appropriate care) by trying to stop in order to avoid or minimise contact with Cleary and they also make it clear that it was Cleary's momentum that resulted in him making contact below the knees of Archer (with some last instant force applied by Konstanty after Cleary had gone to ground). Having the ball doesn't change anything other than to explain why Archer was presenting in that contest. Unfortunately, the contact was forceful as we all saw and there was a serious injury as a result.

I certainly don't believe for a second that Cleary intended to harm Archer or to trip him, and obviously he had no intention whatsoever of injuring himself but that was a consequence of him not staying on his feet.

I'll finish off by noting that I am familiar with the horrific injury suffered by Neil Sachse back in the 1980s that left him a quadriplegic - I would not want to see anybody injured like that in any circumstances and speaking for others, nor would anybody else here I'm sure.

View attachment 2252155

I'm sure the line of argument you've outlined will be the basis of our challenge, but I'm not hopeful of success. Cleary has possession of the ball before Archer arrives, so the counter argument will be that it is Archer that needs to exercise the duty of care

 

[blackshadow]

Archer didn’t tackle, he recklessly ran in towards a guy who was in the process of gathering the ball and getting tackled from behind by one of Archer’s team mates, and effectively kicked/kneed him in the head leaving him unconscious with a brain injury.

I wonder if you would see the situation differently if the jumpers were reversed.

My guess is you would be calling for six weeks rather than three.

I though professors knew how to think analytically.