Certified Legendary Thread David Mackay PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

[Deaneus!]

this is the anti-chooklotto tribunal thread, designed to demonstrate how corrupt the tribunal is

the anti-David Mackay

14

David Mackay

Age

36

Ht

181cm

Wt

78kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.0

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

7.7

5star

M

3.2

3star

T

3.2

5star

MG

315.4

4star

D

16.5

4star

K

7.0

3star

HB

9.5

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

2.0

3star

MG

265.5

4star

D

12.0

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

5.8

4star

M

4.6

5star

T

1.2

3star

thread is here:

The David Mackay thread

https://www.afc.com.au/news/2019-09-27/new-deals-for-mackay-and-strachan “David had one of his best seasons and his attitude, preparation and training standards are always first class,” Reid said. “We see him making a valuable contribution both on and off the field next year.”

www.bigfooty.com

please post accordingly

 

[GameofSloanes]

No problems with the AFL wanting to change the rules to protect the head even further - how they do it I have no idea ... "you are responsible for your opponent in every contest" - "all head injuries are the responsibility of the opposition that was involved in the incident" ???

The problem I have is that they are applying a possible change to the rules to an incident that happened before the new rule was even thought of!!

Mackay broke no rule, he cannot be charged under a future rule.

This is the real point of all of this. If what dmac did isn't against the current rules, and most seem to agree it isn't, there is no way he can get suspended.
It doesn't matter if everyone agrees we need to protect the head, introduce rules to outlaw this kind of thing, change the fabric of the game etc. You can't suspend people if the rule didn't exist
What you can do is introduce a rule, this week even, that from now on if you do something like this, even if you are going for the ball, you get 3 weeks. Then at least everyone knows
I fully expect him to get suspended

 

[jackster83]

This is the real point of all of this. If what dmac did isn't against the current rules, and most seem to agree it isn't, there is no way he can get suspended.
It doesn't matter if everyone agrees we need to protect the head, introduce rules to outlaw this kind of thing, change the fabric of the game etc. You can't suspend people if the rule didn't exist
What you can do is introduce a rule, this week even, that from now on if you do something like this, even if you are going for the ball, you get 3 weeks. Then at least everyone knows
I fully expect him to get suspended

Yep, just a blanket "causing an injury to the head" rule.

Someone will eventually get suspended for kicking the ball into another player's head.

 

[Sanders]

just out of curiosity i am wondering would the action of sending Mackay without charge to the tribunal be consider illegal by the courts?

He’s been charged now to avoid such risks

 

[GameofSloanes]

I’m starting to think you actually are Stephen Rowe.

I've thought it for a while

 

[Scorpus]

The best part of players getting suspended for obviously dumb things like this is when, mere minutes after the Tribunal hands down their verdict, the player says they absolutely will not change the way they play

 

[Moonwatcher]

Maybe the best result is to have Mackay suspended then be viewed as evening up the perceived wrongs against VIC clubs in favour of Adelaide.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Would just be a pity that a champion of the game such as DMac would take the hit.

 

[flashcrow]

dude316 Mackay's face on these pics would be perfect

I reckon that’s more of a job for flashcrow

 

[Moonwatcher]

View attachment 1155512View attachment 1155513

LUL Perfect

 

[Deaneus!]

 

[MrBarry]

Not "full speed", according to Robbo he was "ballistic". This is the unbiased media of course, what hope does the bloke have?

I just watched this and Robbo was being incrdibly melodromatic about the whole thing.

He went on some rant about how people are 'killing themselves' who have been involved in the game - no doubt linked to concussions. My position on it is this, 'if you decide to play a contact sport you HAVE to accept a level of risk that comes with it.' Should we stop playing the game because people do knee injuries? Should we stop playing the game because guys end up with back problems?

Any player that steps out onto an AFL field is brave, because yes it comes with a level of risk Robbo. We can't try and micro manage every aspect of the game, because someone might be involved in an unfortunate incident which then impacts them later in life..... Boxers get paid so well, because they accept the risk of potentially being killed a ring - that comes with the territory.

What Mackay did was not dirty and it was not 'ballistic'. We should absolutely be trying to risk manage situations in the sport which are reckless and do enganger the playes. But this simply IS NOT one of them. I have grave concerns for the game if this sort of incident is going to be penalised.

 

[Deaneus!]

 

[baldandbroke]

On a more serious note, has anyone set the footage of the incident to the first verse of "Mack the Knife" yet?

"Oh the shark has pretty teeth, dear..."

Pretty teeth? Isn't it "such" teeth? Have I been singing it wrong all these years????

 

[Deaneus!]

Honestly if he takes matches for this football is dead.

I’d recommend our next match, pulling a stop-work meet while Carlton run away with the ball.

After all, it’s not safe, not even when you’re first to the ball.

The AFL can go **** themselves, and our club can too if they fold for this nonsense

 

[FR0GGY]

Bassett tended to represent himself IIRC. He also tended to 'get off'.

Did he take his mouth guard?

 

[dogs105]

Did he take his mouth guard?

The weeks that he found it again, he did

 

[footy4ever]

The weeks that he found it again, he did

was the best mouth guard chucker ever

 

[John Who]

Hey guys, I just did a thread on the main board:

The DMac/HClark case - what is the alternative action?

There’s been a lot of controversy resulting from the collision between David Mackay and Hunter Clark in the recent round 13 game between the Crows and the Saints. Everybody has got their opinion, but on this thread, I would like to pose one simple question: For either Mackay and Clark, what...

www.bigfooty.com

I strongly feel there is absolute unjust here, not just as a Crows fan but also as a footy lover. Please vote on the poll if you feel strongly about footy and sad at where the game is heading.

 

[Vhaluus]

Hey guys, I just did a thread on the main board:

The DMac/HClark case - what is the alternative action?

There’s been a lot of controversy resulting from the collision between David Mackay and Hunter Clark in the recent round 13 game between the Crows and the Saints. Everybody has got their opinion, but on this thread, I would like to pose one simple question: For either Mackay and Clark, what...

www.bigfooty.com

I strongly feel there is absolute unjust here, not just as a Crows fan but also as a footy lover. Please vote on the poll if you feel strongly about footy and sad at where the game is heading.

Oh god, your thread creation has escaped this board, you're lose through all of bigfooty now....

 

[Jarmayhem]

Pretty teeth? Isn't it "such" teeth? Have I been singing it wrong all these years????

Depends on the version I think!

 

[Maddogmetro]

Here's something I consider curious. In this same exact round, two players contesting the ball was determined to have no consequence, despite there being an injury.

The Marshall incident in the Port game:

'Henderson and Marshall approach the ball from opposite directions and high contact is made by Henderson on Marshall. It was the view of the MRO that Henderson was contesting the ball and no further action was taken.'

So in the same round, we have two incidents, but each looked at with completely different rules.

One under the existing rules that we all know.

The other, the AFL decide to make into a 'test case' and apply different new rules, for no apparent reason.

It beggars belief.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

This is the real point of all of this. If what dmac did isn't against the current rules, and most seem to agree it isn't, there is no way he can get suspended.
It doesn't matter if everyone agrees we need to protect the head, introduce rules to outlaw this kind of thing, change the fabric of the game etc. You can't suspend people if the rule didn't exist
What you can do is introduce a rule, this week even, that from now on if you do something like this, even if you are going for the ball, you get 3 weeks. Then at least everyone knows
I fully expect him to get suspended

But I’m still uncertain as to what outlawing “something like this” would even look like. What rule could you possibly introduce that would stamp out incidents like this? Both players attempted to get the ball as they were running at it from opposite directions. There was a collision. One player was injured. It sucks, but what was Dmac supposed to have done differently, other than not try and get the ball… which is an absurdity. Winning possession of the ball is kinda the point of the game.

I will be astounded if he gets games… but the AFL never ceases to astound…

 

[Miss Vanessa]

You know what's really stupid? Tex hits a guy in the back of the head with a double fist cause he's frustrated, but because the guy isn't concussed Tex just gets a fine. So Mackay is about to get 4-6 weeks for going for the ball because he then ran into someone and they broke a jaw, while Tex basically punching a guy gets nothing.

If you're serious about protecting the head Tex should be getting 2 weeks and Mackay nothing.

Yep. As a parent with kids who are keen to play the sport, I can live with the idea of them getting injured in the general course of the game, but would be bloody livid if another kid gave my kid a little gut punch which did no real or lasting damage. Though the outcomes are completely different, I’m fine with one and not the other. One is acceptable and the other isn’t. The whole thing about outcome being more important than the intent is complete bollocks.

 

[DJ75]

Here's something I consider curious. In this same exact round, two players contesting the ball was determined to have no consequence, despite there being an injury.

The Marshall incident in the Port game:

'Henderson and Marshall approach the ball from opposite directions and high contact is made by Henderson on Marshall. It was the view of the MRO that Henderson was contesting the ball and no further action was taken.'

So in the same round, we have two incidents, but each looked at with completely different rules.

One under the existing rules that we all know.

The other, the AFL decide to make into a 'test case' and apply different new rules, for no apparent reason.

It beggars belief.

This is absolutely incredible and a great point.

If we are 'protecting' the head and it is about the outcome, then Henderson should be suspended as well. The rationale for not suspending Henderson is that he was 'contesting the ball'. Yet everyone agrees Mackay was doing exactly the same thing. The only argument is that Mackay was contesting it too much.
Are we really trying to make judgement calls about how 'aggressive' the contest was? Is that where we are? Or have we changed the rules within 3 days?

 

[Murray2503]

Pretty obvious listening to the coaches on 360 that they have been told the position they are expected to take. The AFL is going to make an example here. Ricciuto will be interesting in the morning, reckon the AFL has already told the AFC, what their position should be as well. Will they accept it?

We shouldn't . We should take this to the High Court if we have to. The AFL wants "Touch Footy" as their "end-game". You can't legislate accidents out of the game in a contact sport. The Players Association should be getting on the front foot here. They should not allow one of their players to have their livelihood taken away because of an accident.