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

[Outback Footy]

Well then obviously you think Archer intended this incident. I'll leave that there.

I dont think he intended it. I think he was careless. MRP agree with me.

I didnt mention Archer/Cleary. My point was artfully ignored. Youre focused on intent - how is that judged? Denial is a perfect defense.

 

[Outback Footy]

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.

I know how he avoids contact. He does what Sheezel did. He reads the play and doesnt race in to cause contact.
Experience v inexperience showing right there.
It was careless, it had serious consequences. If the League wants to eliminate carelessness, (ie encourage a duty of care) this should be penalised.

 

[Outback Footy]

So that image shows all of Archers body weight and cog behind the ball as he tries to stop once Cleary is sliding or diving toward him. Its obvious he is slowing down to avoid a serious impact.

The imapct happens one third of the distance from Archer to Cleary. The images are upthread. Its Cleary's momentum (and his lack of control over it) that causes the impact.

That only makes sense if Archer was stopped. Cleary wasnt the only player with momentum ffs.

Again, look at Sheezels actions, he was initially closer to Cleary than Archer. He excercised his brain and a duty of care to minimise impact. Archer was careless, Cleary was knocked out
Careless
High Contact
Severe impact
3 weeks

The formula is clear. Argue the formulas wrong or something else. Not this nonsense.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I dont think he intended it. I think he was careless. MRP agree with me.

I didnt mention Archer/Cleary. My point was artfully ignored. Youre focused on intent - how is that judged? Denial is a perfect defense.

Is this how you say 'I don't think he intended it'?.


How else is one supposed to interpret that? I read that as sarcasm alluding it was intentional.

Was it careless?, yeah probably, was it intentional, definitely not.

Could have Archer completely avoided the contact?, yeah he could have not gone in for the contest at all and probably be dropped next week, such is the nature of the game, contested ball sport.

The point I'm trying to make, is not centred on this incident / accident, it is that it is literally humanly impossible to remove concussion from the game, unless you rule out contact from the game.

And to be honest 99.999999999% percent of incidents are not intentional and not even careless, they're mostly just unfortunate accidents in a uber high speed contact sport.

So yeah intent should definitely be considered in sanctions of players. If Archer run in Picket style i:e intended then yeah give him 3, but not for unintended careless.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Im old and even I can still change direction in 15m. If he wanted to avoid the contact he could.

Look at these again.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/archer-and-cleary-incident-rd-1-2025.1392975/post-87063717

At 15m out, Cleary was still on his feet.

It wasn’t until Archer was close to 5m away that he fell down.

 

[Sentinel]

The point I'm trying to make, is not centred on this incident / accident, it is that it is literally humanly impossible to remove concussion from the game, unless you rule out contact from the game.

Not a single person has suggested this.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

This doesn't make sense, in the first sentence you claim he intended the action (which it's clear he didn't), then in the second sentence you claim he was careless (which is hard to do in a split second). Which is different to intent.

So which is it? Actually don't bother.

No I didn't claim he intended the action.

I said he was sanctioned based on intent. Which means his sanction was based on whether or not he intended to hit Cleary. Now he's the thing, you still get suspended for actions that you didn't intend to do.

 

[Proffessor]

Well, if you can somehow eradicate concussion from a full contact sport (one of the fastest full contact sports on the planet I'll add) through rulings then you should be awarded the nobel peace prize.

You won't be able to, it is literally humanly impossible.

To avoid concussion then you'll have to remove contact from the sport, there is no other way.

I challenge you to prove differently.

Please try to resist the temptation of intentionally misrepresenting the opposing argument.

Just because you can't eradicate something doesn't mean you shouldn't encourage good behaviour and discourage bad behaviour.

The sort of behaviour displayed by Archer which led to Cleary's concussion is thankfully not a common occurrence. Let's punish such behaviour appropriately and keep it that way.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

And to be honest 99.999999999% percent of incidents are not intentional and not even careless, they're mostly just unfortunate accidents in a uber high speed contact sport.

If it was avoidable then its literally the definition of careless.

Could have Archer completely avoided the contact?, yeah he could have not gone in for the contest at all and probably be dropped next week, such is the nature of the game, contested ball sport.

If he can't make the contest without causing high contact, then yes he should not go into it. That's literally what the instructions to players say you have to do.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

So yeah intent should definitely be considered in sanctions of players. If Archer run in Picket style i:e intended then yeah give him 3, but not for unintended careless.

If he ran at him and intented to hit hit high then he would've deserved much more than 3 weeks.

 

[Sentinel]

If he ran at him and intented to hit hit high then he would've deserved much more than 3 weeks.

Old mate who talks with such authority hasn't yet realised that (or understood why) the bottom half of this table exists.

 

[Kappa]

If Clearly made forceful contact to Archer's legs because he chose to go to ground then why wasn't it a free kick against?

 

[shintemaster]

No.
He didnt.
He was over the ball and in control of it long before Archer got there

If he was in control of the ball why did he then drop to the ground?

 

[Roosurgence]

Cleary had the ball, Archer was still metres away. Archer didnt lower his body he stood and braced for conttact against a blokoes head. He had time yet made no effort to avoid contact. He had the duty of care.
If archerand cleary collided together above the ball and cleary took his legs out youd have an argument, they didnt, Cleary was there first, Archer needed to avoid the contact.

In what world did he brace for contact, he attacked the contest and had his legs taken out from under him.

How the **** do you lower your body when your opponent dives head first to the ground?

Cleary was not on the ground stationary, if he was then fair enough, but his momentum carried him forward after going down to his knees.

Did you even see the incident?

It’s like someone throwing themselves in front of a train and saying the train driver caused the death. If you attack the ball with that poor a technique you open yourself up to getting hurt.

 

[Roosurgence]

The problem is that it wasn't just an 'unfortunate football accident', and that is why many believe a suspension is warranted.

Archer came in carelessly from the front and in doing so caused the incident and injury. He failed in his duty of care to his opponent and almost injured himself in the process too.

Contrast Archer's behaviour to Sheezel who started out closer to both the ball and Cleary.

It’s 100% a football accident.

If you want to talk reckless then diving head first into an oncoming player is about as reckless as it gets.

The player actually has a duty of care to protect themselves, which they can do by keeping their feet and not going to ground.

 

[Roosurgence]

If he was in control of the ball why did he then drop to the ground?

Most likely trying to draw a free kick. They all do it now. It’s the rod for its own back the AFL has created by paying free kicks for any head contact regardless if it’s initiated by player or opponent.

 

[TruRoo]

Most likely trying to draw a free kick. They all do it now. It’s the rod for its own back the AFL has created by paying free kicks for any head contact regardless if it’s initiated by player or opponent.

There is no way it should be a suspension but continually suggesting Cleary was even close to "trying to draw a free kick" as you have here and others have on our board is a severe misrepresentation. He was running at full tilt himself and picking up a ground ball while under pressure from behind.

We've watched our supposedly AFL level footballers repeatedly fall over under considerably less pressure and at less speed for the past half a decade, but this no name Bulldog with what? 20 games experience? should've been able to pick up the ball at pace like prime GAJ and just continue on? Particularly late in the game in those conditions - he was probably fairly spent.

Archer had every right to attack the contest. Cleary fell over in the process of gaining possession and there was no way for Arch to suddenly not collide in the way he did. It was a footy accident, that's all.

 

[Outback Footy]

In what world did he brace for contact, he attacked the contest and had his legs taken out from under him.

How the **** do you lower your body when your opponent dives head first to the ground?

Cleary was not on the ground stationary, if he was then fair enough, but his momentum carried him forward after going down to his knees.

Did you even see the incident?

It’s like someone throwing themselves in front of a train and saying the train driver caused the death. If you attack the ball with that poor a technique you open yourself up to getting hurt.

In what world did he brace for contact, he attacked the contest and had his legs taken out from under him.

How the **** do you lower your body when your opponent dives head first to the ground?

Cleary was not on the ground stationary, if he was then fair enough, but his momentum carried him forward after going down to his knees.

Did you even see the incident?

It’s like someone throwing themselves in front of a train and saying the train driver caused the death. If you attack the ball with that poor a technique you open yourself up to getting hurt.

Watch it again sunshine. Cleary only had eyes for the ball. Couldnt even see Archer. He was attacking the ball. Archer only had eyes on Cleary and should have avoided the contact, or attempted to. Sheezel read the play and held back. Konstanty also impacted Clearys positioning and forced him lower than he would have been without that contact.

Archer will learn

 

[Outback Footy]

If he was in control of the ball why did he then drop to the ground?

Konstanty

 

[Outback Footy]

Is this how you say 'I don't think he intended it'?.

View attachment 2253397
How else is one supposed to interpret that? I read that as sarcasm alluding it was intentional.

Was it careless?, yeah probably, was it intentional, definitely not.

Could have Archer completely avoided the contact?, yeah he could have not gone in for the contest at all and probably be dropped next week, such is the nature of the game, contested ball sport.

The point I'm trying to make, is not centred on this incident / accident, it is that it is literally humanly impossible to remove concussion from the game, unless you rule out contact from the game.

And to be honest 99.999999999% percent of incidents are not intentional and not even careless, they're mostly just unfortunate accidents in a uber high speed contact sport.

So yeah intent should definitely be considered in sanctions of players. If Archer run in Picket style i:e intended then yeah give him 3, but not for unintended careless.

Lol, that was me referring to Giants player without naming the grub. My point isnt referring to Archer/Cleary either.

If intent is the determinant its easily avoided by saying "I didnt mean it Guv, it were an accident. Honest" (use best cockney accent). Intent isnt measurable.

 

[Andyy]

Pretty much this. He shouldn't be suspended. But the rule was made with the focus of diving at the ball with someones legs in the way in a close up contest. Not sliding on the ground when opponent is still 10m away when you first go down. Clearly didn't "dive at Archers legs", he went low well before Archer was near, slid along the ground, player behind him probably helped drive him forward. The above videos where said player was awarded a free kick, are not even close to being the same incident as the Archer/Cleary one.

It's good its going to the tribunal, because now the so called grey area can be debated openly. We will get an idea on why the AFL initially ruled how they did. Once again, I hope he gets off. Not like he did a Pickett.

Cheers.

This is the kind of BS that needs to be suspended:

 

[StillAtLarge]

Once you're second to the ball you have a duty of care to your opponent. Archer clearly failed that metric

 

[Cam Payne]

Digits is getting shafted here.

Edit, Digits the other son of a gun.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Once you're second to the ball you have a duty of care to your opponent. Archer clearly failed that metric

Clearly Archer had a duty of care to Cleary. But that duty of care only apply to behaviour that can be reasonably foreseen. That why, in the 2025 AFL tribunal guidelines, it specifically says that an exemption to the "careless" classification of "rough conduct" can apply, so long as

"The contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not reasonably be foreseen."

So, could Archer have reasonably foreseen that he was going to hit Cleary's head?

I've replayed the video of the incident a few times, and I reckon Archer had less than a second between the point where Cleary's head fell over the footy and his body collided with Cleary's.

I also reckon that he'll be able to argue that in the second immediately before then, he did slow down, which can be corroborated by his body positioning. I expect he did that anticipating that he was going to collide with Cleary, but it wouldn't have been apparent until the last fraction of a second that Cleary's head was going to be the point of impact.

 

[TruRoo]

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.

Come on, no it wasn't. What LT did to force the rule to be brought in was nothing like what happened here. This was just a footy incident, the player in control of the ball fell while gaining possession. LT slid into a player who was better positioned than him to try to win the ball.