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

[shintemaster]

Here we go.
what's the threshold for being able to comment? 10 games in country league reserves? 20 first grade games? Vfl listed?



You can still assign fault to the cause of accidents. Just because it's not intentional doesn't mean there's no fault. As the rules are written Archer committed an offence (forceful front on contact). Just because people hold the opposite opinion to yours doesn't mean they're biased or unknowledgable or HaVeNt PlAyEd ThE GaMe

As the rules are written Cleary also committed an offence.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Was Lindsay suspended for three weeks?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Did Petty get a three week holiday?

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

The system is broken when the same incident can be assessed as a free kick to the player who also gets suspended for 3 matches.

 

[Boxhead_31]

The system is broken when the same incident can be assessed as a free kick to the player who also gets suspended for 3 matches.

Was paid as a free kick against Archer wasn't it? A high contact free was paid going by what the umpire signalled

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

Was paid as a free kick against Archer wasn't it? A high contact free was paid going by what the umpire signalled

It was, but it should have been paid as taking out the legs.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

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.

Have you actually watched the video? Archer was trying to slow down from at least 15m out but can't biomechanically slow down in time. The 'charge' is madness.

 

[Andyy]

Nothing.

A clear football incident, no malice.

The contact below knees rules was brought in to stop that little dude who's name I forget from breaking people's ankles. Not for footy incidents like this.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Cleary's technique, whilst I agree was probably not textbook, isn't all that relevant to Archer's case. Cleary had possession of the ball well prior to Archer making late contact (he was maybe a couple of meters away from Archer when he collected it), so the contact below the knees rule really isn't relevant given the way they interpret it. If the impact occured at the point of the ball being loose/contested then yeah, very relevant, but it technically wasn't a contest by the time Archer arrived.

North will obviously argue against that, but my understanding is that this is how the AFL themselves see it - and is why Archer received a free kick against and a subsequent suspension based on the concussion outcome..

The concussion argument is irrelevant because Archer had no alternative way to approach the contest given cleary falling over just as he gets to the ball. He physically could not pull out. This is also the problem with the current system. You need to judge the action not the outcome. Any official official looking at the outcome in a case Like this should be sacked and we need to continue to sacking afl staff until ones come in who don't make decisions on that basis.

 

[MaxiBont]

Did Petty get a three week holiday?

These are not similar, I don’t think it should be a suspension but it’s clearly not that same as those 2 videos

 

[Bulldogs85]

looks like our coach doesn’t think Archer should be suspended

 

[mouncey2franklin]

That's a potential career-ender right there.

I don't want to see Cleary get rubbed out but if anybody should be answering for this, it's Cleary.

This is exactly why the rule was brought in.

Keep your flipping feet or else people can get seriously hurt.

I wouldn't even be against a new rule banning players from taking / keeping possession while off their feet tbh.

Might sound crazy but it's only a matter of time until we see somebody have their knee bent the wrong way on prime time TV.

Then, and only then, will the casuals realise how dangerous this is.

In what other sport are people allowed / encouraged to dive head first into oncoming players' knees?

 

[Makeshift Park]

I thought Bevo’s comments on 360 were well considered.

He talked about how this kind of incident highlights why he’d like to reform the MRO model to something closer to a civil law test. Ie one where the question is “on the balance of probability, did archer intend to hurt Cleary, and the answer for me is no”. (Paraphrasing)

 

[skipper kelly]

Here we go.
what's the threshold for being able to comment? 10 games in country league reserves? 20 first grade games? Vfl listed?



You can still assign fault to the cause of accidents. Just because it's not intentional doesn't mean there's no fault. As the rules are written Archer committed an offence (forceful front on contact). Just because people hold the opposite opinion to yours doesn't mean they're biased or unknowledgable or HaVeNt PlAyEd ThE GaMe

You must have also received votes in at least 3 games of those games. Once your expertise has been established along with character referrals, your post will also require a minimum of 8 peer reviewed references and 6-10 videos with multiple speed setting including one at 1fps. Twenty or so consecutive still shots would also be preferred.

Otherwise this is all meaningless and will just devolve into a back and forth chat amongst anonymous people on an internet forum.

 

[PP34]

Wow someone actually seriously claimed Archer ran in like Byron Pickett

 

[dean33]

If archer broke his legs and cleary wasn't concussed it would have been clearly who was suspended. Joke that afldecisions are based on the outcome of the incident. Hope archer gets off as he should not be suspended for that accident.

 

[Supreme_Chancellor]

looks like our coach doesn’t think Archer should be suspended

Well said Bevo.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Well said Bevo.

Yeah, 'well said' - Bevo wants him cleared on a standard he pulled out of his arse rather than following the existing system. Rather than establishing a process, we should just assess every incident based on what some random coach says.

It's a complicated incident. But these types of takes do nothing to help.

 

[Moonatic77]

If archer broke his legs and cleary wasn't concussed it would have been clearly who was suspended. Joke that afldecisions are based on the outcome of the incident. Hope archer gets off as he should not be suspended for that accident.

Spot on mate, this is it in a nutshell. It seems intent is virtually irrelevant and outcome the only thing that matters these days. Had Archer's knee been 2 or three inches to the left it would have been play on or at worst a free kick. This thread wouldn't even exist. Yes it's unfortunate for Cleary but penalising the young bloke for a clear accident is just wrong and quite frankly a blight on the tribunal laws.

 

[Supreme_Chancellor]

Yeah, 'well said' - Bevo wants him cleared on a standard he pulled out of his arse rather than following the existing system. Rather than establishing a process, we should just assess every incident based on what some random coach says.

It's a complicated incident. But these types of takes do nothing to help.

Says the random BF poster lmao.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Says the random BF poster lmao.

This childish retort doesn't even make much sense. I'm dismissing Bevo's silly take based on existing reality. Who I am or what I 'says' is not relevant.

Bevo's opinion on what he thinks the system should be - and why Archer should be cleared according to it - is obviously irrelevant to whether Archer should be cleared under the system that actually exists.

So his opinion is objectively worthless.

 

[McKuursma]

This childish retort doesn't even make much sense. I'm dismissing Bevo's silly take based on existing reality. Who I am or what I 'says' is not relevant.

Bevo's opinion on what he thinks the system should be - and why Archer should be cleared according to it - is obviously irrelevant to whether Archer should be cleared under the system that actually exists.

So his opinion is objectively worthless.

Bevo's opinion is that the system isn't equipped to deal with the grey area that this incident has brought to light. You clearly don't have the grey matter to deal with the uncertainty or otherwise have some subconscious bias preventing you from reflecting on that. Something for you to work on

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Bevo's opinion is that the system isn't equipped to deal with the grey area that this incident has brought to light. You clearly don't have the grey matter to deal with the uncertainty or otherwise have some subconscious bias preventing you from reflecting on that. Something for you to work on

As soon as I saw the alert and then the team next to your name, I smiled and said to myself 'I'm about to read some incredible nonsense'. You did not disappoint.

Bevo is indeed welcome to his opinion on what the system should be, as is any random nuffie. He can even launch a campaign to get it changed at the end of the year.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate about whether Archer should be cleared under the current system. You know, the one that exists right now. In reality. Not the coulda, shoulda, woulda system that exists in Bevo's or your mind.

Here, this chart may help:

 

[Proffessor]

The concussion argument is irrelevant because Archer had no alternative way to approach the contest given cleary falling over just as he gets to the ball. He physically could not pull out. This is also the problem with the current system. You need to judge the action not the outcome. Any official official looking at the outcome in a case Like this should be sacked and we need to continue to sacking afl staff until ones come in who don't make decisions on that basis.

Of course, Archer had alternatives and had plenty of opportunity to pull out. Sheezel was initially much closer to Cleary and somehow easily avoided crashing into him and knocking him unconscious.

Archer ran at Cleary in a manner that led to a serious injury causing collision, ultimately kneeing him in the head. He needs to get suspended for the good on the game and help reduce the probability of similar such incidents occurring at all levels of football.

It is that simple, and I hope the tribunal get it right for once.

The forceful contact below the knees rule also needs to be thrown out or at the very least re-written. It has caused nothing but problems and confusion especially regarding incidents like this which would not have been at all contentious before its recent introduction.

As it currently stands, a player could supposedly run in and knee or kick an opponent in the head and somehow blame the guy on the receiving end for forceful contact below the knees, possibly even expect a free kick as a bonus!

Cleary was in the process of gathering the ball, and therefore vulnerable. The rules are supposed to be designed to protect players in that position. The game can't allow opposing players to run in from front on and collide with their head at high force regardless of which part of their body is making the contact.

 

[sabso]

Sheezel was initially much closer to Cleary and somehow easily avoided crashing into him and knocking him unconscious.

so it wasn’t sheezel who came at him from behind well after and kneed him in the kidney then?