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

[Outback Footy]

Exactly how do you approach a contest low when your opponent chooses to go to ground?

I’m just wondering how you think he can lower his body to shin height?

They aren’t playing limbo.

And exactly how do you contest for the ball on the ground if you cant get low? Rock Paper Scissors?

 

[Outback Footy]

Why do people keep saying this? have you watched footy before? To stick a tackle. It's not complicated.

Just prior to Konstanty pushing Luke lower, Archer wasnt attacking the ball, no attempt to lower his body, insufficient effort to avoid contact. Weeks seems fair. Luke will probably be out for 3 at least with concussion. Archer showed no duty of care and no self preservation. Stupid. Deserves a holiday.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I personally don’t think Archer should be suspended as it wasn’t intentional but I can see why the MRO has done it.

Its almost like there's this whole grading of reportable incidents called "careless" that covers when a player isn't doing something intentional...

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Absolutely not Cleary's fault in any way.

But it's important to acknowledge as a separate fact that him losing his feet changed the outcome of the collission, and images show he lost his footing prior to any contact from behind.
He slipped, which is not his fault. But that also contributed to the contact. It's one of those accidents in sport that are horrible, but they do happen and it's not always someones fault.

It wouldn't have happened at all if Archer hadn't carelessly attacked an opponent who was bending down to pick the ball up in a vulnerable position from front on.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

View attachment 2252684
Just prior to Konstanty pushing Luke lower, Archer wasnt attacking the ball, no attempt to lower his body, insufficient effort to avoid contact. Weeks seems fair. Luke will probably be out for 3 at least with concussion. Archer showed no duty of care and no self preservation. Stupid. Deserves a holiday.

This is just complete rubbish.

His leg is extended forward trying to halt his momentum, you don't run leaning backwards with your legs out in front of you.

His actions in the frames prior to this show he realised he wasn't going to be first to the ball and that Cleary had ended up low to the ground. Going low at that point would have been an even worse action as it would show he was intentionally lining up Cleary.
He is actively in the process of trying to slow down to minimise impact, but the speed that both sets of players approached the ball meant it was too late.

 

[justlookingaround]

Don’t understand how Tom Lynch got the lightest suspension on the weekend despite being the only one that purposefully bumped at head height….

 

[Iamspock]

Predictable that North would challenge, and so they should given the suspension is clearly debatable based on the subsequent commentary around it (I'm not saying he should necessarily be let off though), but the tribunal can still only rule it 0 or 3 weeks, or even increase it.

Unless North is challenging the severity or impact grading, like the MRO the tribunal cannot give him 1 or 2 weeks for this. Under the guidelines the possibilities remain 0 or 3+ games.

Yes, I feel that those guidelines should be challenged, and probably be changed to 0, 1, 2 or 3, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Obeanie1]

Cleay lost his feet at the last movement didnthelp.

If it was a million second earlier he would have taken out Archer below the knees.

If it was a million second later he wouldn't have collided high.

No malice and the injury or free could have gone either way plus or minus 0.2 seconds

 

[GenericUsername202]

at this rate, in 5 years you will get suspended for a high tackle

 

[ferball]

at this rate, in 5 years you will get suspended for a high tackle

Five years? Try five minutes.

 

[PP34]

at this rate, in 5 years you will get suspended for a high tackle

Couple of years and marking will be banned because of people like the ones in this thread acting like Archer ran half the oval to head high bump Cleary.

 

[Roosurgence]

And exactly how do you contest for the ball on the ground if you cant get low? Rock Paper Scissors?

You stay on your feet and pick it up instead of going to ground. That’s why the below the knees rule was brought in, to stop players sliding, diving into the contest and bringing in to play collisions with a players legs.

Now whether he elects to go to ground, slips, trips etc why should Archer be penalised when the rules are set up for players to remain on their feet when contesting? The vision shows Cleary go down to his knees before the tackler behind makes contact, which is poor technique when trying to win the ball.

 

[Roosurgence]

Couple of years and marking will be banned because of people like the ones in this thread acting like Archer ran half the oval to head high bump Cleary.

I would make a pretty good assumption that the majority of posters campaigning for it to be a suspension either are Bulldogs supporters or never played the game.

I can tell you that going to your knees with a player coming front on to you is something I was never taught and I would be surprised if any footy coach that has any idea would be coaching that technique. All it does is invite a collision like we saw.

Even the game day coaches have commented that it looks like a football accident with both players looking to contest.

 

[Sentinel]

You stay on your feet and pick it up instead of going to ground. That’s why the below the knees rule was brought in, to stop players sliding, diving into the contest and bringing in to play collisions with a players legs.

Now whether he elects to go to ground, slips, trips etc why should Archer be penalised when the rules are set up for players to remain on their feet when contesting? The vision shows Cleary go down to his knees before the tackler behind makes contact, which is poor technique when trying to win the ball.

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..

 

[Obeanie1]

He didn't lower his body at all though. That's part of the problem.

Just from seeing this incident I get that he is a very brave player but also pretty reckless with his own body. He was willing to throw his body at 100% into that contest and was lucky he himself didn't get a broken leg. We have see it before.

In this incident Cleary was clumsy and feel over also he wouldn't have had the slightest clue where archer was because where he was coming from. Players are going to be clumsy, archer needs to get low as well not go to ground but bend over and try to get hands to the footy, probably still would have been a collision but not knee to the head and would have protected himself and his legs alot better also.

Explain to us how getting lower would have helped?

Clearly slipped and fell after collecting the ball. Archer kept his feet.

Are you suggesting Archer should have got lower at the same speed? That would likely have been a worse outcome and very difficult in that split second.

Are you saying he was careless running so quickly at an opponent?

Well if his opponent had not slipped over he would have layed a tackle or bump.

 

[Roosurgence]

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..

Stop watching slow no replays. Watch it at full speed and there was not much time between Cleary taking control of the ball and the collision.

People keep watching media outlet slow mo’s and think these players operate in the matrix.

It’s 100% a contest. You have the right to come into the contest to tackle. Most players would have assumed Cleary keeps his feet and they are in position to tackle, so yes the poor technique is a major factor on why the incident even occurred.

He keeps his feet and we aren’t even talking about it.

 

[Sentinel]

Stop watching slow no replays. Watch it at full speed and there was not much time between Cleary taking control of the ball and the collision.

People keep watching media outlet slow mo’s and think these players operate in the matrix.

It’s 100% a contest. You have the right to come into the contest to tackle. Most players would have assumed Cleary keeps his feet and they are in position to tackle, so yes the poor technique is a major factor on why the incident even occurred.

He keeps his feet and we aren’t even talking about it.

I'm not talking time specifically, I'm talking distance. That distance is how far off Archer was from where the contest technically ended, when Cleary gathered the ball into his possession - and shows Archer was late to it and at fault according to the interpretation of the rule.

 

[HeHateMe]

Explain to us how getting lower would have helped?

Clearly slipped and fell after collecting the ball. Archer kept his feet.

Are you suggesting Archer should have got lower at the same speed? That would likely have been a worse outcome and very difficult in that split second.

Are you saying he was careless running so quickly at an opponent?

Well if his opponent had not slipped over he would have layed a tackle or bump.

No not the same speed, if his priority was to get lower his whole approach would have changed.

 

[Roosurgence]

I'm not talking time specifically, I'm talking distance. That distance is how far off Archer was from where the contest technically ended, when Cleary gathered the ball into his possession - and shows Archer was late to it and at fault according to the interpretation of the rule.

View attachment 2252797

That is less than 2 metres. Take into account two players coming toward each other at speed and that collision happens very quickly.

He’s not late to the contest if his intention is to tackle.

What’s he meant to do stop and just not compete?

It’s not like Cleary is stationary on the ground and he has picked him off from 5 metres.

As I said he keeps his feet instead of going to ground and he doesn’t get hurt. The rules were brought in to stop players from going to ground.

It’s unfortunate he got knocked out, but accidents happen when players use poor technique to win the ball. There was no need need in that situation to drop to his knees, now it might have been a slip or through fatigue, but how is a player at speed meant to sum that up in a fraction of a second.

 

[Sentinel]

That is less than 2 metres. Take into account two players coming toward each other at speed and that collision happens very quickly.

He’s not late to the contest if his intention is to tackle.

What’s he meant to do stop and just not compete?

It’s not like Cleary is stationary on the ground and he has picked him off from 5 metres.

As I said he keeps his feet instead of going to ground and he doesn’t get hurt. The rules were brought in to stop players from going to ground.

It’s unfortunate he got knocked out, but accidents happen when players use poor technique to win the ball. There was no need need in that situation to drop to his knees, now it might have been a slip or through fatigue, but how is a player at speed meant to sum that up in a fraction of a second.

If his intention was to tackle, he failed at that.

Again, I'm stating how I believe the AFL interpret the contact below the knees rule, which if is the case would render Cleary's technique in gathering the ball irrelevant post-contest. We'll find out how that washes out tomorrow at the tribunal.

 

[Iamspock]

I would make a pretty good assumption that the majority of posters campaigning for it to be a suspension either are Bulldogs supporters or never played the game.

I can tell you that going to your knees with a player coming front on to you is something I was never taught and I would be surprised if any footy coach that has any idea would be coaching that technique. All it does is invite a collision like we saw.

Even the game day coaches have commented that it looks like a football accident with both players looking to contest.

You're right, you're assuming. Many Bulldogs supporters have sympathy for Archer. In fact, many of the more rabid responders, aren't even Bulldogs supporters, so maybe they're the ones that haven't played football.

 

[Roosurgence]

You're right, you're assuming. Many Bulldogs supporters have sympathy for Archer. In fact, many of the more rabid responders, aren't even Bulldogs supporters, so maybe they're the ones that haven't played football.

Read the post, I said posters campaigning for it to be a suspension.

There would be rationale Bulldogs supporters that saw it for what it was, an unfortunate football accident.

Unfortunately we have these results because lawyers running the comp only care about covering their arses from future litigation.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

That is less than 2 metres. Take into account two players coming toward each other at speed and that collision happens very quickly.

He’s not late to the contest if his intention is to tackle.

What’s he meant to do stop and just not compete?

He has to compete in a safe way. Coming from front on like that he can't, so yes he shouldn't compete if he can't do it without making high contact.

Seriously, approaching a contest like this has been outlawed since 2005 when the AFL decided no more Byron Pickett hits.

As I said he keeps his feet instead of going to ground and he doesn’t get hurt. The rules were brought in to stop players from going to ground.

No he would've still be hit by Archer, and likely still hit in the head. Because even if he keeps his feet, he's still going to be bent down to pick the ball up off the ground. He'd be just as much at risk of a neck injury from Archer crashing into him.

It’s unfortunate he got knocked out, but accidents happen when players use poor technique to win the ball.

Yes, Archer's approach to this contest was very poor.

 

[Maddo11]

I would make a pretty good assumption that the majority of posters campaigning for it to be a suspension either are Bulldogs supporters or never played the game.

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

Even the game day coaches have commented that it looks like a football accident with both players looking to contest.

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

 

[Moonatic77]

Hope North succeed with their challenge. Its an unfortunate footy incident nothing more. They play a high impact sport with no protection, it's inevitable that collision injuries will occur through no fault of any player. Oh yeah they can show freeze frames and slow motion etc but I've watched this at normal speed a few times now and I have no idea how Archer avoids that collision. Geez if you want to slow it down enough Archer has time to leave the ground, take a slash and still return in enough time to knee Cleary in the head. IMO people arguing he had other alternatives and was at fault don't really understand the reality and speed of the game.