Tribunal latest: AFL to argue ‘rough conduct’ against Adelaide Crow David Mackay after collision with St Kilda’s Hunter Clark
As the AFL delays David Mackay’s tribunal hearing in order to build a stronger case, the Crows are hoping one argument will save the veteran from a long ban.
Sport
Don't miss out on the headlines from Sport. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Adelaide will seek to argue David Mackay’s contact with Hunter Clark is reasonable in the circumstances as the veteran tries to avoid a lengthy suspension for breaking the Saint’s jaw.
AFL executive general manager of football Steve Hocking used his discretion on Sunday to send Mackay directly to the tribunal for the 32-year-old’s collision in the second quarter of the Crows-Saints game in Cairns on Saturday night.
Although the case was initially listed as not having a charge, the league said on Monday its counsel would argue Mackay carelessly engaged in rough conduct that was “unreasonable in the circumstances”, even if he was contesting the ball, bumping Clark or both.
Stream selected Fox Footy shows on Kayo Freebies completely free this June including AFL 360, On The Couch, Bounce & more. No Credit Card. No-brainer. Register Free Now
It was seeking a minimum three-game suspension, on the basis there was high contact and severe impact – Clark had multiple fractures in his jaw and was expected to miss between six and eight weeks.
The hearing has been delayed until Thursday night.
Mackay’s hopes of avoiding a ban will hinge on whether the tribunal deems his collision a “high bump” and if it thinks the 239-gamer’s action is reasonable for the circumstances.
Under the AFL’s tribunal guidelines, unintentional collisions with an opponent’s head or neck would be considered careless, unless the player was “contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way” or the contact was caused by circumstances outside of the player’s control.
Adelaide might argue Mackay’s action was reasonable because he was going for a loose footy, so he closed his body up at the last second to anticipate contact and the players got to the contest almost simultaneously.
Mackay appeared to get his outstretched hands on the ball, rather than ran through Clark while the Saint’s head was down over the footy.
The 20m distance Mackay ran before the point of impact would also be considered when covering “fact and degree”, but both sides could argue for their own case.
Adelaide might also suggest Mackay would have got to the ball first if it trickled further forward, instead of sat up for Clark, and it would be harsh to suggest he had time to think about it or pull out, when he did not know which way the ball would bounce.
The league would likely differ and argue Mackay had ample time – two or three seconds – to weigh up his options.
It also would be able to point to Mackay having turned his shoulder into Clark’s head and leaving the ground.
Those two factors in combination would count against Mackay’s defence.
Crows football manager Adam Kelly said Mackay had a “well-earned reputation for being a fair, ball player, across a long career”.
“We will contend that is the case here and he was contesting the ball,” Kelly said.
The league is cracking down on high contact to reduce the risk of head injuries, particularly concussions.
Concussion advocate and former player agent Peter Jess said Mackay should be suspended for the same length of time Clark was sidelined.
He said Mackay needed to foresee the potential damage he might have caused.
“You’ve got to respect the person that you’re going to run into,” Jess told The Advertiser.
“If we don’t draw that line, we will not be talking about playing our game in 15 to 20 years, our game won’t exist … it will be legalised out of existence.
“Whether it was deliberate or not doesn’t matter, we’re in a workplace.”
Jess said if Mackay was found not guilty, it would send all the wrong messages.
The Mackay-Clark collision came when the Crows were down 5.6 to no score.
Adelaide coach Matthew Nicks said it helped spark his side, which came back to win by six points.
“We don’t want to see anybody get injured,” Nicks said post-match.
“I thought both players were going for the ball.
“If you talk about a moment in the game for a senior player to stand up, we hadn’t scored at that point … and the way D-Mac attacked it, we ended up winning contested ball by 23 for the rest of the game, we scored nine goals to four maybe for the rest of the game.”
Mackay received a one-week ban for forceful front-on contact in September for a bump on GWS player Matt de Boer.
Earlier: AFL delays Mackay hearing
The AFL has given Adelaide two extra days to mount its defence for the unprecedented David Mackay tribunal hearing.
The 32-year-old Crow has been sent to the tribunal without a charge by league footy boss Steve Hocking following a sickening collision that left Saint Hunter Clark with a broken jaw.
The league will push for a minimum three-week suspension on the grounds that the contact was rough, high and severe.
The hearing, initially set for Tuesday night, will instead be heard on Thursday.
Debate has raged since the Saturday night incident at Cazalys Stadium in Cairns that Mackay was either going for the ball, making it an accident, or he had a duty of care to pull back and wait to tackle his St Kilda opponent.
Clark’s jaw was broken in two places and he will miss up to eight weeks.
In what is shaping as a landmark case, the decision making was taken out of the hands of match review officer Michael Christian and instead referred straight the tribunal.
Fox Footy commentator David King has been vocal in his push to stamp out headhigh contact.
“All head trauma in our game needs to be eradicated as much as possible,” King tweeted.
“Accidents happen but other contact must be stamped out, immediately.”
But Port Adelaide premiership player Kane Cornes has argued the collision was within the rules of the game.
The AFL released a statement on Monday night announcing the controversial hearing had been pushed back two days.
The league said Hocking had exercised his discretion to send the case straight to the tribunal.
The tribunal counsel, instructed by the AFL, will allege Mackay “carelessly engaged in rough conduct that was “unreasonable in the circumstances”.
“As such, the AFL will argue that, regardless of whether Mackay was (1) contesting the ball, (2) bumping Clark or (3) both, he still contravened the general prohibition on unreasonable conduct (including in contesting the ball),” the league statement said.
Originally published as Tribunal latest: AFL to argue ‘rough conduct’ against Adelaide Crow David Mackay after collision with St Kilda’s Hunter Clark
‘Disbelief’: AFL boss slams GWS Giants
The AFL has announced significant sanctions for a number of GWS players, following sexual and racial acts at a team function.
‘Supportive of him’: Boak close to decision on playing future
Travis Boak is expected to make a call on his future in the coming 24 to 48 hours, and MATT TURNER reveals he has an inkling as to if he wants to play on or call time on his career.