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

[Proffessor]

Both Cripps and Maynard would be suspended today if the same incidents occured.

Cripps got off via a loophole which was closed, and the tribunal guidelines were updated following the Maynard decision. So neither are very relevant here.

'Not a court proceeding': AFL cracks down on Cripps Tribunal loophole

The AFL has moved to close the loophole that saw Patrick Cripps win his appeal against the Tribunal last year

www.afl.com.au

Explained: All the new rule changes for the 2024 season

The AFL has confirmed rule changes ahead of the 2024 premiership season

www.afl.com.au

Cripps and Maynard got off because the mercy instincts similar to those driving people to defend Archer, despite his obvious guilt, ramp up even more if the players happen to be in Brownlow or GF contention.

There were no problems with the rules just the way they were applied. The whole 'problem with rules' schtick is just to cover up the blatant failings of their contrived tribunal rulings.

 

[Sentinel]

Cripps and Maynard got off because the mercy instincts similar to those driving people to defend Archer, despite his obvious guilt, ramp up even more if the players happen to be in Brownlow or GF contention.

There were no problems with the rules just the way they were applied. The whole 'problem with rules' schtick is just to cover up the blatant failings of their contrived tribunal rulings.

I think that argument can only really be proven if the same defenses were used unsuccessfully in comparable incidents involving lower profile players.

 

[flyinghi64]

Bit harsh for what was basically an accident.
Would be interesting to see the outcome if Cleary wasn't pushed causing him to lose his balance and slightly change the direction of his momentum.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

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'.

Correct.
For all the “what should he had have done then!?” queries, you need to look at what Sheezal did.

He was right there and didn’t decide to run headfirst into the contest about to form in front of him.
He showed a duty of care that Archer either couldn’t identify was needed or chose not to have. And Sheezal got his hands on that ball as soon as it spilled.

3 weeks is completely justified, so that we try to avoid players getting caught up in these sort of car crash-like incidents in the future that could make players not only concussed but seriously injured.

 

[StillAtLarge]

Just had a squiz at the poll...wow, the majority of people on here actually want the ball taken off Cleary despite him winning it first!
Madness

 

[H00t]

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about.
All of all the things that are out of your control on a footy field the one thing you can control is your own body.

Archer should have been slowing down before he did so that when he got to Cleary he could safely challenge him for the ball. It’s what most players do when going to make a tackle.

That’s not to say he can’t contest at that speed. Just that when he does he has to make sure he gets it right. He’s the one making it unsafe so he takes the whack for any damage caused.

It’s all about duty of care. The ball wasn’t in dispute well before Archer got there.

 

[Coasters7]

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.

Yeah that’s bullshit reasoning from them.

On the reverse angle it clearly shows him slow up when he realises Cleary is falling (hence why his leg nearly gets snapped in half). That was also on slow mo so i think he’s done well to react as quick as he did.

The only alternative for him with their guidelines in that situation is for him to not contest the ball. May as well pack it up now if that’s the case.

 

[Liam Boy]

Correct.
For all the “what should he had have done then!?” queries, you need to look at what Sheezal did.

He was right there and didn’t decide to run headfirst into the contest about to form in front of him.
He showed a duty of care that Archer either couldn’t identify was needed or chose not to have. And Sheezal got his hands on that ball as soon as it spilled.

3 weeks is completely justified, so that we try to avoid players getting caught up in these sort of car crash-like incidents in the future that could make players not only concussed but seriously injured.

View attachment 2254530

Pretty poor word choice there.

This is an absurd thing to try to use as evidence. Sheezel didn't run into the contest because he could see that he had two teammates running to apply pressure and you don't want to all get sucked in at once. If Arch wasn't there he probably would've tried to be the second tackler.

If you're suggesting Sheezel showed duty of care by choosing not to go for a tackle, and Archer failed to show duty of care by going for a tackle, you need to think a little bit about the implications of that.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Pretty poor word choice there.

This is an absurd thing to try to use as evidence. Sheezel didn't run into the contest because he could see that he had two teammates running to apply pressure and you don't want to all get sucked in at once. If Arch wasn't there he probably would've tried to be the second tackler.

If you're suggesting Sheezel showed duty of care by choosing not to go for a tackle, and Archer failed to show duty of care by going for a tackle, you need to think a little bit about the implications of that.

So what you’re saying is that Sheezal had awareness from that far out that he didn’t need to attack the contest, but Archer didn’t.

I don’t think your defense of Archer quite works like you think it does, and in fact it proves what the tribunal stated yesterday which was that Archer didn’t show a duty of care even when he knew that he was not going to get to the ball first.

 

[Liam Boy]

So what you’re saying is that Sheezal had awareness from that far out that he didn’t need to attack the contest, but Archer didn’t.

I don’t think your defense of Archer quite works like you think it does, and in fact it proves what the tribunal stated yesterday which was that Archer didn’t show a duty of care even when he knew that he was not going to get to the ball first.

If you squint really carefully, you can see that Archer and Sheezel are actually wearing the same jumper as each other. Sheezel knew he didn't have to attack the contest... because he could see that Archer was going to. So he didn't need to.

You're allowed to get to the ball second. You're supposed to tackle the guy who has the ball.

 

[Outback Footy]

If you squint really carefully, you can see that Archer and Sheezel are actually wearing the same jumper as each other. Sheezel knew he didn't have to attack the contest... because he could see that Archer was going to. So he didn't need to.

You're allowed to get to the ball second. You're supposed to tackle the guy who has the ball.

Safely. I think thats the extra word youre looking for there.

And "tackle"? At what point was Archer in control or position to tackle? You cant tackle anything when youre running straight at it at those speeds.

Konstanty very lucky he didnt get taken out as well.

Strapping Young Lad is 100% correct, Sheezels actions were those of an experienced player, Archer was acting like an over excited puppy. Way too keen to involve himself, caused an unnecessary and serious injury.

 

[Liam Boy]

Safely. I think thats the extra word youre looking for there.

And "tackle"? At what point was Archer in control or position to tackle? You cant tackle anything when youre running straight at it at those speeds.

Konstanty very lucky he didnt get taken out as well.

Strapping Young Lad is 100% correct, Sheezels actions were those of an experienced player, Archer was acting like an over excited puppy. Way too keen to involve himself, caused an unnecessary and serious injury.

Sheezel has nothing to do with this, he's not going for the tackle because that isn't his role in the situation, his decision not to tackle says nothing about Archer's decision to tackle. It's like watching a marking contest where one player goes up and the other stays down for the crumb and saying "huh, that guy thinks jumping for a mark is a bad idea."

 

[StillAtLarge]

What the heck? - Glenn Archer living the GTA dream

www.bigfooty.com

The Archers have never been great drivers in heavy traffic

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Is this when Jack won the football?

 

[PP34]

Wonder how many weeks that Dogs bloke would get these days for wiping out Jordan Lewis

 

[StillAtLarge]

Wonder how many weeks that Dogs bloke would get these days for wiping out Jordan Lewis

One way ticket to The Hague

 

[Maddo11]

Think of it as trying to stop your car before an accident but you rear end the car in front. He was careless in that he put himself in a position where he couldn't avoid the accident.

Basically, Archer confirmed for being your typical white Ford Ranger driver.

 

[Proffessor]

I think that argument can only really be proven if the same defenses were used unsuccessfully in comparable incidents involving lower profile players.

For the Maynard-Brayshaw incident, the argument can be proven logically by reading the rules as they existed at the time along with charges and the recorded tribunal rulings and associated justifications.

The charges were written in such a way that according to the rules and the indisputable facts, Maynard would clearly be guilty of one or the other. Depending on which way his counsel chose to mount their defence.

As it turned out their argument for getting off the first charge essentially admitted guilt for the second charge, and the argument for why he wasn’t guilty of the second charge admitted guilt for the first charge.

The mounting of these contradictory explanations of Maynard’s behaviour in the same hearing from the same defendant, required the tribunal to perform a feat of amazing mental gymnastics in order to accept both these mutually exclusive stories as being valid and they then contrived a way to blame the rules to cover up their disgraceful conduct.

Every person involved in that disgraceful ruling should be ashamed of themselves and be banned from any future involvement in judicial proceedings at any level.

 

[charcoalchicken]

Games cooked

 

[CaptainHowdy87]

My first post in this thread back on page 9 was right after seeing the incident for the first time.

I've since seen it quite a few times now and my opinion hasn't changed.

When you're coming at the ball in the opposite direction to an opposition player and you're clearly gonna be 2nd to the ball then you have a duty of care. Whether your intention is to win the ball, to bump, to tackle, whatever it is, you wear the consequences if you decide to hit the contest hard and end up injuring a bloke.

Archer came in at full speed and was not bending over to pick up the ball, he was going for the man. I don't care if Cleary didn't keep his feet. The rule is that you're meant to try to keep your feet. Archer probably would've cleaned him up regardless given the speed he hit the contest.

3 weeks was the right call.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Lol what a load of rubbish in this thread. Archer has come running in at pace legs first into a player contesting the ball who is falling to the ground.
Archer knees him in the head and concusses him.
3 weeks is getting off light.
If Archer wants to keep playing the big hero like that he will be suspended out of the game.
One player was playing the ball, the other was going in knees first.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Games cooked

Archer is cooked mate like his dirty dad.

 

[CaptainHowdy87]

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

#rentfree

 

[TiAn_]

If you think Cleary, with with his head over the ball, having taken possession while it was rolling (not bouncing), while being pressured, is at fault for what happens to Archer, who isn’t even in frame yet, but is moving at such an idiotic rate of knots he cannons into both of these players and KOs one of them and nearly rips his own knee to shreds, then you’re an absolute moron.

I can’t fathom how cooked you’d have to be to actually want players putting their head over the ball and winning it to be a free kick against. Wayyyy worse outcome for the game moving forward. If the roles were reversed the Roos supporters in here would be even more rabid.

 

[Kappa]

So if a player jumps for a mark and knees an opponent in the back or head, they're suspended now? They've breached their duty of care?