Adelaide midfielder David Mackay has been found not guilty of rough conduct by the AFL tribunal over the collision that left St Kilda’s Hunter Clark with a jaw broken in two places.
A jury of former players David Neitz, Paul Williams and Richard Loveridge on Thursday night found Mackay was within his rights to contest the ball with Clark during last Saturday night’s match in Cairns.
In doing so, they rejected AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson’s argument that Mackay could have foreseen injuring Clark as he charged in at high speed and should have held back to tackle his opponent.
Mackay is now free to play in Adelaide’s next match, against Carlton on June 27.
“It was not unreasonable for Mackay to go for the ball,” the jury said in a statement of its findings, concluding a three-hour hearing.
“Both players got to the contest at virtually the same time and both were seeking to collect the ball.
“In those circumstances, Mackay’s conduct was not unreasonable.”
Many high-profile football figures are relieved with the decision after widespread fears during the lead-up to the hearing that a suspension for Mackay would have changed the way players attack loose balls.
Adelaide’s legal counsel Andrew Culshaw called three witnesses – Mackay, Crows data analyst Chris Sheedy and biomechanics expert Dr Robert Crowther – in an attempt to prove the player’s actions were not unreasonable.
“You have two incredibly brave players going full tilt at a loose ball,” Culshaw said.
“This was a 50-50 ball. There is nothing unreasonable about a player going hell-for-leather for a 50-50 ball.”
Mackay, 32, repeatedly stated he believed he would beat Clark to the ball “right up until point of collision”.
“At no stage did I take my eye off ball,” the 239-game veteran said in his evidence.
Mackay rejected Gleeson’s argument that he knew Clark would get to the ball first and said he did not choose to bump the St Kilda player.
Gleeson did not suggest Mackay was attempting to break Clark’s jaw, but argued contesting the ball is not a licence to cause injury to another player.
“This wasn’t an accident in the sense that it was unforeseen,” Gleeson said.
“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.
“Then it was not only possible but it was likely that high contact would occur, and if high contact occurs at that speed in that way, injury is likely.”
On behalf of the AFL, Gleeson argued Mackay’s bump should be classified as careless conduct, high contact and severe impact.
Those classifications would ordinarily bring about a minimum three-match suspension under the AFL tribunal guidelines.
Gleeson dismissed the notion put forward by many key voices in the industry – including current and former players and coaches – that a suspension for Mackay would change the game dramatically.
He said Mackay had the chance to make a decision that players make regularly during matches by waiting to tackle Clark.
“We see it all the time – players stop short,” Gleeson said.
“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, but also consciously, ‘I’ve got to stop here, I’ve got to change’.”
Mackay was initially sent to the tribunal without a charge from match review officer Michael Christian, with the AFL clarifying on Monday that head of football Steve Hocking had made the call to pursue a charge of rough conduct.
The method prompted an unusual late submission by the AFL Players Association that the league had not followed its own guidelines in bringing the matter before the tribunal.
The AFLPA wanted Mackay’s case thrown out but the tribunal rejected that suggestion.
Clark, 22, is expected to miss six to eight weeks of football after having surgery to the two fractures in his jaw.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Heck of a surname for someone trying to play clean.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
He'll get the decision passed by a whiska
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
So DoC when hip'n'shoulder but not so much when doing a speccy?
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
Yeah. Was gobsmacked. It's his league to manipulate as he sees fit. Dread to think of how things end up if he's in charge for any length of time. I'm quite staggered he hasn't received more push back but then again he would neither care nor take notice. Seems to be the 'digging his heels in' type who will only double down if questioned.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Did you see his interview? He just said he'll change the rules surrounding intent next year, must be nice to wield that sort of power.
1dog
Roar Rookie
Plowman wants his 2 weeks back
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Mackay was 0.04 seconds later to the contest, not 0.5 seconds. Secondly, his lawyer argued the second Crows player nudged Clark in the back, which likely attributed to the difference in 0.04 seconds, something Mackay could not have anticipated. Either way, the Tribunal's own wording was that Mackay contested the ball at 'virtually' the same time as Clark, i.e. a split second difference, whether he was nudged or not. I suggest you read the Tribunal's finding on this matter.
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
This is another example of Steven Hocking playing God. It's his AFL. Mackay wasn't cited by Christian so in steps the all powerful Steve and demands it go the tribunal. Not happy with the result either, is Steven. Virtually threatening to change the rules. He is THE biggest threat to the game we know and love that I've ever seen.
Kick to Kick
Roar Rookie
Don’t agree it was a good decision. If you look at the video - Yes McKay was going for the ball but was late and he horribly misjudged it. Half a second late according to his own lawyers. In elite sport half a second is an eternity. The difference between first and no medal in a sprint final. A tennis player who swung half a second late would not hit a single ball. So second to the ball Mackay took out Hunter Clark high, breaking his jaw while Mackay got no finger to the ball himself - except maybe incidentally hitting it with his arm as it bounced dislodged by the hit. The fact that he didn’t get touch the ball shows he had no real chance of winning possession, but there was a very real chance of the high hit. In the rugby codes taking out a player head high in a contest even accidentally is a red card. In soccer it’s the equivalent of a tackle where the intent is not to hurt but which is misjudged, taking out the legs of a player while missing the ball altogether. A send off offence. I’ve no doubt the AFL will change the rules to clarify the situation and bring risk evaluation within the game into line with other sports. The legal and long term medical realities will ensure that. One of the strengths of Australian Rules is its quirky esoteric nature outside the mainstream of world sport. But the game is sometimes foolishly insular in monitoring rule changes and developments in other codes. In the meantime several decisions this year show the AFL Tribunal (and many ex-player commentators) are stuck in a romantic but anachronistic and dangerous view of sports injury. The Tribunal in its current form really should be abolished.
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
Sanity prevails though it should never have even gone to the tribunal. Match Review Panel needs to remember that AFL is still (for now at least) a contact sport and these sorts of injuries and knocks will occur. Intent of the player's actions need to be given far more weight when they are making assessments.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Think of the 'specky' clause. You can do whatever you want, providing you take the mark. Why? Because it adds value and entertainment to the product. The AFL doesn't want the 'high-fly' out of the contest for this reason. It comes down to the Laws of the Game Committee. There are core tenants that cannot be changed that uphold the very essence of the game. The mark is one of them. Secondly, it's political. We know that concussion is a serious issue for the players, but it goes much deeper from a business perspective. The AFL knows full well that its primary competitor is soccer — at the junior level anyway. So it must make the game safer to compete with the mums & dads who often decide upon what sports their children play. It's very complex, which is why I'm hoping this case acts as a catalyst for a much-needed debate on the issues mentioned above. So in answer to your question, it's easier to remove this collision type without hurting the overall spectacle of the game than a dangerous yet spectacular marking contest. Of course, it's not always about eliminating risk either, but we can mitigate such risk better.
Danny
Guest
Good decision. I think in his favor was almost 250 games unblemished and I can't remember D Mac ever showing aggression and that was probably the hardest he hit a contest in his career and was the turning point in the game. I agree with your assessment of where this is headed. But if such a duty of care is imposed why should it not also apply to the marking contest? Recklessly running back with the flight...is it an act of courage or an act destined to cause injury to oncoming players? Some in the media are calling for the duty of care to apply to the Mackay type incident but not for marking contests but I haven't heard their reasoning for drawing the distinction.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
A great outcome. He did nothing wrong within the current Laws of the Game. However, I do believe this type of act will be removed from the game at some stage. One simple rule I would implement to help in this instance. Mackay had a line of sight to both the ball & Clark. Clark only had line of sight on the ball. You could see Mackay adjust his posture for the impending collision. Nothing wrong with this, but he does (in my opinion) owe Clark a Duty of Care in this instance. The speed, for me, is not the issue, but if you want to hit at that type of speed, then the Duty of Care firmly lies with the player who can make a better judgement. We see it all the time from players. Just because you can make a contest does not mean you should. If the AFL wants to clean the game up, it must make it clearer to players on what their Duty of Care is in this type of incident. For example, Mackay had infinitely more information and awareness of the situation. Therefore, the onus is on him to make a 'reasonable' judgement on the potential damage caused when hitting his opponent at high speed. A great outcome with a great debate — it's not the last we will hear of this. Finally, all the best to Clark in his recovery.