-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Harry McKay hit on Harry Sheezel
- Thread starter Chadwiko
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 9, 2008
- 12,262
- 12,179
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The MRP guidelines for classifying this as MEDIUM impact are somewhat clear, but there's grounds within the wording itself to get it downgraded.
"Notwithstanding any other part of these Guidelines, any Careless contact where there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised elbow or forearm) will usually not be classified as Low Impact even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved."
I am near certain Carlton take this to the tribunal arguing all of these points -- McKay decelerated, not accelerated, Arms were outstreched to protect himself but didn't brace for contact. Displayed some duty of care in the action. Nil impact to Sheezel. Favourable North medical report. No concussion test done. Reduced sanction for good record..?
Despite the collision having zero impact on Sheezel, and McKay not intending to hurt him, the AFL can't have players running into eachother with outstreched forearms given the high risk of serious impact. I don't think it's worth missing a week.. but I'd be very surprised if he gets off.
"Notwithstanding any other part of these Guidelines, any Careless contact where there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised elbow or forearm) will usually not be classified as Low Impact even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved."
I am near certain Carlton take this to the tribunal arguing all of these points -- McKay decelerated, not accelerated, Arms were outstreched to protect himself but didn't brace for contact. Displayed some duty of care in the action. Nil impact to Sheezel. Favourable North medical report. No concussion test done. Reduced sanction for good record..?
Despite the collision having zero impact on Sheezel, and McKay not intending to hurt him, the AFL can't have players running into eachother with outstreched forearms given the high risk of serious impact. I don't think it's worth missing a week.. but I'd be very surprised if he gets off.
Last edited:
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,680
- 23,061
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
I haven't seen anyone say he didn't get him in the head. It was stupid, but he gets him in the shoulder first.Nameless Carlton fans who believe that this below stillframe "proves" McKay didn't hit Sheezel in the head are delusional.
Free kick and a fine should be all it needs.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,680
- 23,061
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
You mean the same Harry McKay that didn't get a free all game?
Engimal v3
Premium Gold
Deserved 3-4
DocSholl
Club Legend
- Aug 10, 2021
- 2,834
- 11,257
- AFL Club
- GWS
Lol what was he protecting himself from?
If you're happy for Lynch to be suspended for that then fine. I don't really care, but you must accept the penalty when a Carlton player does similar.
For the record I see Lynch looking to leap to contest the mark, realise he's going under the ball, checks his leap as much as he can while turning his body to protect himself from Keath who is moving into the contest at a decent speed himself. Up until the last split second Lynch has his eyes on the ball. Lynch is barely off the ground when contact is made. In raising his body the way he did Lynch probably saved Keath from being collected with his shoulder in the head, instead getting him with the fleshier upper arm. I admit it's not ideal but it's contact sport and it literally happened in a fraction of a second. No-one from the Bulldogs chose to remonstrate either.
The McKay hit is late and high. Sheezel is well into his kicking action before McKay even starts to raise the forearms. Impact is low. I think McKay could have done more to check his actions, but also possibly wanted Sheezel to feel contact, however I don't think it was particularly malicious. Part of me says fine him and move on as no damage done but part of me says protect the head, punish the action not the outcome, concussion awareness etc and give him a week.
Similar to above, if McKay gets a week I can't complain when the next Richmond player gets a week for a similar incident.
Lynch is gone 100%. He could of jumped for the ball but instead bumped a player in the head.
Muddiemoose
Moderator
- Aug 24, 2017
- 28,401
- 102,854
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #85
Looks like Lynch mistimed his lead, got worked under the ball and turns his body to protect himself Keith was attempting a block
Not sure what Lynch could of done differently
Contested the ball
Muddiemoose
Moderator
- Aug 24, 2017
- 28,401
- 102,854
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #87
He was already worked under it and contesting the ball would of opened himself up to potential injury and the contact would of been made anyway potentially making the injury worse for Keith as well
Players are allowed you protect themselves
There was no ball to be contested. Even the Bulldogs defender who was a metre behind him only got hands to the ball with fully outstretched arms. I don't know if the ball was swirling but it lookslike both players mis-read where it was going to land. I guess Lynch could have made a full leap at the ball knowing he was nowhere near it and then collected Keath in the head with his hip a la Milburn on Silvagni. And then there'd be more calls of Lynch being a dog, a sniper, a cheap shot artist, etc etc. Or he could have ran straight through Keath. And then there'd be more calls of Lynch being a dog, a sniper, a cheap shot artist, etc etc.
- Jun 9, 2008
- 12,262
- 12,179
- AFL Club
- Carlton
They were gonna collide..?
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,453
- 43,579
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
100 kilo guy moving at speed with raised forearms hitting someone in the head... yes, of course there is a potential to cause serious injury.
- Jun 9, 2008
- 12,262
- 12,179
- AFL Club
- Carlton
This is core to why he gets off. McKay could have killed him.. yet Sheezel had an 11 possession 4th quarter and brushed off the contact.
McKay softened the imapct. Duty of care was taken. Not only should he get off he should be considered for Australian of the year.
Chadwiko
@ChadwikoTWW
- Sep 25, 2004
- 23,253
- 38,856
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Washington Commanders, Boston Celtics
- Thread starter
- #93
a) Sheezel had a 15 possession 4th quarter. Get it right
b) This hit came with 4~ minutes left in the game.
c) It doesn't matter if Sheezel was injured or unaffected; the citing isn't about the outcome but the potential outcome. See: the Logue ban literally last week. Day was also fine and didn't even go to ground like Sheezel did.
Griffin Logue says Hi
- Oct 18, 2016
- 5,068
- 9,798
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #95
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, hey?
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,680
- 23,061
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
Um... what?
Don't try to compare to the Logue one. Logue lined him up and ran straight through him. Was lucky to only get 1 week.
- Oct 18, 2016
- 5,068
- 9,798
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #97
Nothing in it and clearly tried to protect the opponent. Having one goober decide this stuff is stupid.
- Jun 9, 2008
- 12,262
- 12,179
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Why do the norf fans keep hanging out in here?
Sorry we beat you in your grand final, time to move on.
Sorry we beat you in your grand final, time to move on.
Well he got sent straight to the tribunal, how long his foot injury supposed to be?
Similar threads
- Poll
