MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

RussellEbertHandball said:
Gleeson QC is representing the AFL in Mackay case.

The hanging panel has been appointed. Neitz and Loveridge I don't think have overturned the MRO the last 3 or 4 years I have been watching this. Below is a cut past from Foxsports report at below link with my odd comment in italics.

www.foxsports.com.au

NOT GUILTY: Crow David Mackay ‘acted reasonably’ says Tribunal jury after heated three-hour hearing

NOT GUILTY: Crow ‘acted reasonably’ says Tribunal jury after heated three-hour hearing
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au

Our cast of characters: Geoff Giudice is your Tribunal chairman. David Neitz, Paul Williams and Richard Loveridge are your jurors. Jeff Gleeson is representing the AFL while Andrew Culshaw represents Adelaide.

The AFLPA has sent a submission - which the AFL does not accept. The discussion now is whether the Tribunal chairman should consider the submission.

The AFL is arguing the Match Review Officer & head of footy have the absolute discretion to refer players to the Tribunal, countering the AFLPA's suggestion the league didn't follow its own Tribunal guidelines.


The AFL is speaking first and presenting its case - since Mackay wasn't officially charged by the MRO, of course.

The AFL says the charge is rough conduct. "They all come under the overarching offence of rough conduct ... which is interpreted widely to any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. A specific incident doesn't cease to be rough conduct under that wide interpretation because it might also be conduct that falls under one of the more specific examples, that is there's no compulsion to bring a charge persuant to one of the subsets. It would have been open to articulate the charge persuant to the rough conduct high bumps subset ... but as the AFL communicated, this charge is brought persuant to the overarching offence of any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances."

So AFL is saying MacKay's actions were unreasonable - this will be interesting.

Adelaide: The defence is quite simple; the Tribunal jury ought not to be satisfied that his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. It's a not guilty plea, the question is whether it's proven Mackay's conduct was unreasonable.

We're viewing the vision of the incident. As per usual it's impossible to watch on the video conferencing software; it's more like a PowerPoint.

Here's the medical report for Hunter Clark from St Kilda: Assessed immediately, clear signs of jaw injury, m(is)aligned front teeth, pain and bleeding. Clark left the game. Required ongoing treatment - CT scan on Sunday morning at the Epworth. Mandibular fracture in two places, unstable. Requires immediate plate fixation. Expected to miss 30+ days training, 6-8 weeks. No immediate concussive symptoms nor post-match, management centered on jaw injury and pain.

The AFL submits if it would be classified, this would be careless conduct, high contact and severe impact, eg 3+ weeks suspended and a direct referral to the Tribunal.

AFL: In the interests of consistency and parity, although you're at large as a jury, you ought place a sanction that's consistent with the MRO guidelines.

Adelaide has three witnesses. Firstly David Mackay, then Chris Sheedy (data analyst, Adelaide) to speak to certain evidence, then Dr Robert Crowther (biomechanics expert).

Mackay now being called.

Mackay, on what he did: I saw the ball go over Clark's head. It started rolling in my direction and I made a decision at that point in time to go after the ball and try and pick it up off the ground.

Adelaide: Did you think you'd get to the ball first?

Mackay: Yes, for the whole period of time leading up to the collision. At no stage did I take my eye off the ball, believing I was gonna be first to it. That belief at no point changed until there was a collision.

Mackay: I saw Clark and Sam Berry in my peripheral vision. But I was solely focused on the football; I was aware of their presence in the general area but having been focused on the ball primarily, I only saw them in the corner of my eye and wasn't 100% sure of their exact whereabouts.

Adelaide: If you thought you wouldn't get to the ball first, would you have done something different?

Mackay: Yes, I could've stopped, changed my run into the contest and positioned my body to either tackle or provide some sort of pressure. At no stage did I have that belief I couldn't get to the ball first which is why I made the decision that I did.

Mackay: I approached the ball on the ground like I've trained for and developed my technique over 15 years in the AFL. I approached the ball in the same way as if there was no pressure around, and positioned my body to take the ball and not put myself at risk of head and neck injury by going head-first. It's how I take ground-balls no matter the situation.


Do you agree you ended up with both feet off the ground?
Mackay: Yes, once the contact occurred. At no stage did I leave the ground before this

Did you leave the ground on purpose?
Mackay: Leaving the ground was purely the result of the impact. As part of my technique to pick up a groundball, at no stage would I leave the ground to do so.

AFL now addressing Mackay.

AFL is showing the vision right at the start of the incident - where Mackay is very far away from the ball, disputing his evidence that he thought he'd get to the ball first. Mackay disagrees.

AFL: "You gave evidence you thought you'd get to the ball first. Having looked at the vision, is that still your view?"
Mackay: Yes
AFL: You see the ball's a lot closer to Hunter Clark there?

Mackay: From that angle, it looks so.
AFL: Not only from that angle, it is the case it was a lot closer to Hunter Clark?
Mackay: At that point in time yes.

The AFL is arguing there's enough distance between Mackay and the ball for it to be a mark (15 metres).
Mackay: I wouldn't say I sprinted as fast as I could. I sprinted at a speed I believed would allow me to get to the ball.
AFL: Even if we accept your evidence, you must've thought it was going to be close?

Mackay: Potentially, but that happens multiple 100 times in a game where I think I can get to the ball first but there'll be some pressure. That's part of the game.
If I believed I couldn't have got there first, I would've changed my run-in, my angle of my body and looked to put pressure, but I didn't have that belief.

AFL: Surely you did run as fast as you could?
Mackay: I'm not sure where it stacks up with my speed capability.

AFL: You knew it was a St Kilda player who was closer to the ball, didn't you?

Mackay: No, because there were times where I believe my teammate Sam Berry was on the other side of Hunter Clark, which is why I wasn't clear on exactly what was happening with those two players. My focus was on the ball.

AFL: But Mr Mackay, certainly a sufficient time before the impact, you knew it was a St Kilda player because you're not saying to the jury you would've clattered into a player if it was your teammate

Mackay: I was trying to go for the ball and get my hands on the ball, and whether that was a teammate or an opponent, my focus was purely on the ball. I wasn't sure of their positioning.

AFL: Just to be clear, it's your evidence that you were sufficiently unaware of whether it was your teammate or Clark, and it would've been the same outcome if your teammate was ahead of Clark?
Mackay: My evidence is I'm not sure at the time I played the ball.

AFL is asking why Mackay would have let up if he'd known he wasn't getting to the ball first, as he previously testified.
Mackay: To avoid getting stepped around. My objective there would've been putting pressure on or to tackle. If I came in at high speed with the intention to tackle, it's very easy to get stepped around.

AFL: Would it be a factor that if you didn't get there first and simply entered the contest in the way you did, you would've injured the player, was that a factor?
Mackay: I wasn't thinking about that at all.

AFL: Do you accept there are occasions where it's not reasonable to contest the ball because you could cause serious injury to another player?
Mackay: I accept there are a number of possibilities that involve that.
Click to expand...



Gee AFL just hang him already... cripes.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Duckimus Prime said:
That is generally the prosecution's job.

With Tribunal hearings the AFL is prosecution, the players are the defence and three members are the Jury.

The members of the Jury are notionally independant of the AFL.
Click to expand...

Such a ridiculous method.. it's not a criminal case ffs. They shouldn't have prosecutors and defendants. Just list the facts and an expert panel makes a judgement.
 
Part II of probably IV or V parts.

Mackay doesn't accept that he was tucking his arm in at the point of contact; he says he was turning his body.

AFL: I take it you have no recollection of where the contact was made?
Mackay: No.

AFL: But you've seen it sufficient times to understand what happened, do you accept your shoulder hit his face?
Mackay: Yes.

AFL: And at the moment of impact, your body's in the position it would be if you were bumping?
Mackay: No.

AFL: There's two aspects to this. One, is your body in the position to be bumping? Two, did you intend to bump him? I want to take them one at a time. Forget about your intent.
Mackay: No, I don't accept that (position to bump). My forearm is limp, I haven't tucked that in at all, and the point of impact I've actually got my hands ball trying to take the ball, which is not the position if I was bumping.


AFL is asking Mackay to comment about the suggestion he knew from the time he started running towards the ball it was likely Clark would get that first, that he was many metres away, that he was entering at high speed and that a high speed collision resulting in significant impact to Clark's head and face was not only possible but a likely outcome if you contested the ball.

Mackay: I don't agree with that.

AFL: What do you say to, whether your feet left the ground moments before or after the moment of impact, you were in an upwards motion consistent with hurtling into the contest and bumping Clark?
Mackay: I disagree.

AFL: You realised, both due to the way in which Clark was approaching the ball and your way, he was in a position of vulnerability. What do you say to that?
Mackay: I'm unsure how to answer that. I don't know what Hunter Clark was thinking.

AFL: My question was slightly different; that you were aware you were coming at him with high-speed impact?
Mackay: No; I was unsure of the position of his body when I made a play on the ball.

AFL says it should be rejected as incorrect evidence that you didn't know whether it was a St Kilda or Adelaide player he was about to make contact with.
Mackay repeats he was unsure of what Clark and Berry were doing.

Adelaide re-examining Mackay.

Adelaide: You were asked about whether it was a St Kilda or Adelaide player. Did you know you were about to make high-speed impact with anyone?
Mackay: No; we play a 360 game with collisions and pressure which can come from any direction. I went to attack the ball in a manner that protects myself from pressure any direction it can come.

He adds the ball was moving faster than usual and skipping across the ground because the conditions were wet in Cairns.

Time for Adelaide's second witness - Chris Sheedy, Crows data analyst. (He was at Port for 10 years. Did we ever take him to the tribunal??)

Adelaide is bringing some additional footage which includes the distances between the players (Clark, Mackay) and the ball. There's a still frame that shows Clark was 10.35m from where the ball would end up and Mackay was 10.22m from where the ball would end up.

The system being used is called PIERO.

This is very much like the Lab vision you'll see on Fox Footy broadcasts where the players have a coloured dot under them and it shows their path.

The AFL is questioning the exact measurement and whether it was truly made at the start of the contest - since Mackay started his run from out of screen - and indeed whether the program was accurate. Sheedy said it was to "within a metre".
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Part II of probably IV or V parts.

Mackay doesn't accept that he was tucking his arm in at the point of contact; he says he was turning his body.

AFL: I take it you have no recollection of where the contact was made?
Mackay: No.

AFL: But you've seen it sufficient times to understand what happened, do you accept your shoulder hit his face?
Mackay: Yes.

AFL: And at the moment of impact, your body's in the position it would be if you were bumping?
Mackay: No.

AFL: There's two aspects to this. One, is your body in the position to be bumping? Two, did you intend to bump him? I want to take them one at a time. Forget about your intent.
Mackay: No, I don't accept that (position to bump). My forearm is limp, I haven't tucked that in at all, and the point of impact I've actually got my hands ball trying to take the ball, which is not the position if I was bumping.


AFL is asking Mackay to comment about the suggestion he knew from the time he started running towards the ball it was likely Clark would get that first, that he was many metres away, that he was entering at high speed and that a high speed collision resulting in significant impact to Clark's head and face was not only possible but a likely outcome if you contested the ball.

Mackay: I don't agree with that.

AFL: What do you say to, whether your feet left the ground moments before or after the moment of impact, you were in an upwards motion consistent with hurtling into the contest and bumping Clark?
Mackay: I disagree.

AFL: You realised, both due to the way in which Clark was approaching the ball and your way, he was in a position of vulnerability. What do you say to that?
Mackay: I'm unsure how to answer that. I don't know what Hunter Clark was thinking.

AFL: My question was slightly different; that you were aware you were coming at him with high-speed impact?
Mackay: No; I was unsure of the position of his body when I made a play on the ball.

AFL says it should be rejected as incorrect evidence that you didn't know whether it was a St Kilda or Adelaide player he was about to make contact with.
Mackay repeats he was unsure of what Clark and Berry were doing.

Adelaide re-examining Mackay.

Adelaide: You were asked about whether it was a St Kilda or Adelaide player. Did you know you were about to make high-speed impact with anyone?
Mackay: No; we play a 360 game with collisions and pressure which can come from any direction. I went to attack the ball in a manner that protects myself from pressure any direction it can come.

He adds the ball was moving faster than usual and skipping across the ground because the conditions were wet in Cairns.

Time for Adelaide's second witness - Chris Sheedy, Crows data analyst. (He was at Port for 10 years. Did we ever take him to the tribunal??)

Adelaide is bringing some additional footage which includes the distances between the players (Clark, Mackay) and the ball. There's a still frame that shows Clark was 10.35m from where the ball would end up and Mackay was 10.22m from where the ball would end up.

The system being used is called PIERO.

This is very much like the Lab vision you'll see on Fox Footy broadcasts where the players have a coloured dot under them and it shows their path.

The AFL is questioning the exact measurement and whether it was truly made at the start of the contest - since Mackay started his run from out of screen - and indeed whether the program was accurate. Sheedy said it was to "within a metre".
Click to expand...
Jeepers if Mackay held up that well under pressure on the field he'd get a lot less flack from Crows fans.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Part III

Adelaide is now calling biomechanical expert Robert Crowther as a witness


Crowther is being asked about some stillframes of the moment of impact. He submits Mackay's foot was off the ground at the moment due to his natural running motion, and that he was slowing down.

Crowther also says Mackay then went airborne as a consequence of the collision, not voluntarily - ie he didn't jump off the ground to collide into Clark.

The AFL asks Crowther whether one player was more in position to bump or not.
Crowther says he doesn't know what "bumping" is.




Crowther: "Both players indicate the intention to retrieve the ball; both players' arms are extended outright. The lunge that Clark makes to lower his centre of mass, I agree he's trying to grab the ball, but so is the action produced by Mackay."

That's the end of Dr Crowther, who for what it's worth likes basketball more than footy because he's 6'7".


AFL now making an argument.

Rough conduct is any conduct that's unreasonable in the circumstances. It's a phrase you've heard so many times, it almost loses its currency or its meaning. Any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. It's not conduct which is dangerous; nor outrageous or disgraceful. Just unreasonable.

AFL mentions the duty of care players have. "There's an obligation on every player to take care not to engage in contact that constitutes a reportable offence.

"Test it from the perspective of the player. When you look at it, do you think what Mackay did was prudent? Was it reasonable? If you think it was unreasonable, that's the end of the matter."

AFL: "There's been a lot of talk about contesting the ball. Contesting the ball is not a license to cause serious injury to another player. It's long been the case that players might perform a reportable offence despite the fact they're contesting the ball."


AFL: "It had to have been reasonable for a player to contest the ball in that way. There are certain circumstances where to contest the ball is just not reasonable, and the howls of protest we sometimes hear that that's a change to the game and a change to the fabric of the game, it's not true. Every single match we see players who realise it won't be reasonable for them to contest the ball in that particular moment.

"Mackay gave evidence that if he didn't think he'd get to the ball first he'd do something different ... he acknowledged that I can accept there might be circumstances where to contest the ball would be unreasonable. We're not asking whether it's EVER unreasonable to contest the ball, just that it was here.

"Was it reasonable for him to run 20-plus metres to enter a contest at high speed, knowing that a player was coming towards him, wide-open, vulnerable? This wasn't an accident in the sense it was unforeseen. It was quite foreseeable that if Mr Mackay sprinted the way he did and hurtled into Mr Clark, he would bump him front on at very high speed. You can be clearly satisfied about that, that was foreseeable. And then it was not only possible, it was likely, that high contact would occur ... is that OK? Is that reasonable?"

AFL: "I'm not saying Mackay intended to break Clark's jaw, but he must've known that a high-speed collision with a vulnerable player might result in serious injury."

AFL: It was more likely, by a considerable margin, he was either going to get there a litle bit late or a lot late. The ball bouncing is a fickle thing; you can't decide 20-odd metres out, I'm going for this contest come what may. Players don't do that.

AFL: "He knew he was going to make high-speed impact with Hunter Clark. He knew he wasn't going to hit his teammate."

"You might also be skeptical about his evidence he wasn't running as fast as he could."

AFL: We need not get tangled up in the question of whether he intended to bump. You need only be satisfied ... as to whether his body shaped into a bumping motion. I don't think it's said by anyone that he shaped in that way due to some involuntary force.

AFL: Just as engaging in a contest doesn't give you license to cause injury to another player, neither does extending your arms. I'm not suggesting he was pretending to reach for the ball, but at least a significant proportion of what he was doing prior to and at the moment of impact was turning his body, moving in an upwards motion as Dr Crowther acknowleged, and making forceful impact with Hunter Clark.

AFL: Even if you conclude he was entirely contesting the ball, it was still unreasonable.

So you ask, what was he to do? What he was to do was do what reasonable players do all the time; realise, only a fraction of time before the contest, it's not reasonable for me to do this and turn from trying to gather the ball to tap the ball, or tackle the player. We see it all the time, players stop short. It's not cowardice, it's not a lack of courage for the contest. The bravest players do it all the time, they recognise instinctively I've got to stop here, I've got to change. To think otherwise is to give license to spinal injuries.

AFL: "The potential for injury was frightening."

AFL: Reasonable players wouldn't have anticipated that type of impact (the bump from Mackay) in those circumstances. Only one player has pushed off his left foot in an upward motion. Why do you push off in an upward motion when you're contesting the ball which is lower than you are? You're bumping or significantly engaged in the act of bumping.

The AFL also says the data analyst's evidence shouldn't be considered because of the margins of error, and because Mackay started his run off screen. "It's of no assistance at all."

AFL: Mackay ran at high speed, Clark was vulnerable, Mackay was moving in an upward motion consistent with bumping, his body turned into the bumping motion, and then you'll watch it one more time and say was that reasonable? If your answer is it wasn't reasonable, you'll uphold the charge.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Crowther is being asked about some stillframes of the moment of impact. He submits Mackay's foot was off the ground at the moment due to his natural running motion, and that he was slowing down.
Click to expand...

There you have it, he was actually slowing down. And people here think that if you do that you're a complete pussy.
Hmm, if only Mackay had thought to slow down a bit sooner.
 
Part IV

Adelaide now speaking to the jurors.

Adelaide: What you have here is two players going full tilt at a loose ball and they get there four 100ths of a second apart. To put that in context, since 1980 there's been one 100m men's Olympic final decided by less than four 100ths of a second.

Adelaide: "To say that Mackay was never going to get there is just garbage. This was a 50-50 ball. And there is nothing unreasonable about a player going hell for leather at a 50-50 ball."

Adelaide says that Clark was pushed into the contest due to contact from Adelaide's Sam Berry.

Adelaide: "From the broadcast angle, this looks particularly ugly. I was watching it and my initial instinct was 'well, that's weeks'. It looks like Mackay just cannons into that contest; but it's actually not right."

Adelaide: What makes a complete mockery of the AFL's case (that he turned to bump)... look at Mackay's right arm. It's hanging down, it's below the height of his right knee, it's about the height of Clark's right knee. It's nothing like a bump. There's no shoulder tucked in, there's no bumping position. this is a player that still has his hands down trying to get the ball and has taken impact at the last moment when he still has his hands down trying to get the ball.

Adelaide: Are you clearly satisfied that Mackay acted unreasonably? I submit you don't have anything he actually did that is unreasonable. He ran at high speed to reach a ball, effectively simultaenously with his opponent.

This case has garnered a lot of interest. Hunter Clark has suffered a really nasty injury, nobody is happy about that, not least anyone from Adelaide, Mackay included. And as a society we're becoming more aware of just how serious head injuries are. This isn't a concussion but it is a serious injury.

Sometimes it's contact in a marking contest. Sometimes it's a sling tackle, sometimes it's a player 'picking off' a vulnerable opponent. This is in the middle of those two extremes.

For some reason nobody seems concerned about marking contests. Todd Marshall was concussed on Thursday night by a player who didn't go anywhere near the ball. Will Hayward was concussed over a ground ball on Friday night.

When you're assessing the reasonableness, you might think it was reasonable for him to expect he was playing under the same rules that had applied for the previous 48 hours.

There's been a lot of discussion about this case changing the rules (broadly). That's not right; rough conduct has always been there, reasonableness is nothing new. But this case is trying to be a change of interpretation that happened overnight, and it's a change that happened without telling anybody.

Adelaide: There are occasions when it's not reasonable for a player to not contest the football. But not every nasty collision is the result of a breach of the duty of care.

Adelaide: "This was an accident, a pure football collision. David Mackay's conduct was not even close to unreasonable."

Adelaide: What the AFL seeks to ignore is that the ball was bouncing; it was always closer to Clark, but really skipping away. (But) these two players were about the same distance from the point of impact as one another. They travelled the exact same amount of distance in the exact same amount of time. These are two players going for a clear 50-50 ball.

Adelaide: Could he have stopped, waited, tackled? Absolutely. But the fact there was another action doesn't make it unreasonable for him to go for the ball. There are always multiple options - marking or spoiling, tackling or corraling.

Adelaide: Mackay showed good technique, the type every person south of the Murray is taught from the womb.

Adelaide: If we start punishing players who are genuinely showing proper technique, we'll end up with more head injuries, not less. I'm not talking about players tucking in shoulders from metres away; I'm talking about players like Mackay, trying to pick the ball up, approaching a groundball and protecting themselves with their hip and shoulder. To punish that, and send a message that they can't protect their own head and should leave themselves vulnerable, will lead to more players leading with their head more concussions, more facial injuries.

Adelaide: Mackay was entitled to go for the ball, and to protect himself. He did not launch himself into the contest and nothing he did was unreasonable.

AFL responds to Adelaide's testimony, disagreeing with the idea there has been a change in the rules and that this is a test of what is reasonable or unreasonable in the circumstance.

AFL: I'll restrain from myself from describing my learned friend's argument as garbage, citing the old adage the stronger the language, the weaker the argument.

Tribunal chairman says if the jury does determine Mackay is guilty, there would be a further discussion about penalty.

The jury will now deliberate. About 6.35pm SA time
 
What has made me smile a few times when reading these tribunal hearings. or discussion is the media, is that people say a player jumped because his feet have left the ground and there is vision of his feet off the ground. If you watch lot of athletics, you know that a normal part of your stride when you are spriting, is that for a split second, both your feet are off the ground.

It's why race walkers get disqualified. Remember Jane Saville at the Sydney Olympics??

I know we only have a summary of what the biomechanist said, so he could have been more detailed, but if I was Mackay's lawyer, I would be stressing this point, and asking the biomechanist to explain it further to the panel and have vision from athletics where the camera picks up the running motion, more than TV footy coverage does of a players stride.
 
Last edited:
this isnt about right or wrong, this is about legal liability, the AFL are prosecuting any player that gets injured because they want to be able to say in the future if anyone tries to sue them that they took every action they could and they also want to be able to say that if a specific incident is brought up that they did the right thing and suspended that player. It a kangaroo court and they are just going through the motions
 
Two observations from the above

Do Adelaide have legion of budding film makers independently filming every inch of every game ?
It seems that every time there’s a controversial incident they got independent footage to dispute it

Everybody from the Adelaide side all seemed to have the same defence nearly word for word
Aren’t independent experts supposed to be independent
Sounds like a lot of back room collusion going on
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Similar threads

Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Showdown 56
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
527
Views
21K
Portmagpies36
Portmagpies36
El Zorro
  • Locked
Game Day Game Day Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
75 76 77 78 79
Replies
2K
Views
47K
philreich
philreich
RangaInTeal
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
865
Views
32K
Addy23
A
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for 2024 Preliminary Final vs Sydney @ SCG
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
859
Views
29K
Buget
Buget
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 24, 2024 vs Fremantle
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
428
Views
15K
Dutchy5150
Dutchy5150
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 21 vs Sydney
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
8K
PowerLil
PowerLil
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 22, 2024 vs Melbourne @ MCG
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
261
Views
10K
Expat power
Expat power

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top