Too late to the intersection: Why Jackson Archer had to be banned

Watching Kangaroo Jackson Archer’s leg collide with Luke Cleary, as the Bulldog was attempting to gather the footy on Saturday night, the immediate thought was not about whether Archer should or would be suspended.

It was whether Cleary had suffered a spinal injury.

Jackson Archer and Luke Cleary collide.Credit: Fox Footy

Like others, I was relieved to learn that Cleary had “only” been concussed and to see him move his arms as he was carted off.

The collision was awful and distressing to watch. While Archer clearly did not aim to injure the Bulldog, his reckless actions were unusual and, contrary to the predictable fulminations of several ex-players, warranted suspension.

One way to understand this unfortunate, yet illuminating collision is to consider players moving to and from contests as like vehicles entering intersections.

In this case, Cleary was the player first in the contest, and therefore, had what I would consider right of way.

Archer, conversely, was speeding from further back – his approach must have been from close to 20 metres away and he was travelling at a speed that would make any contact dangerous, despite his genuine attempt to slow.

By the time Cleary had hands on the ball, Archer was maybe five metres away – such was the pace he gathered from afar.

The onus was on him to pull up some metres earlier than he did. As the tribunal found, he had slowed “too little, too late”.

In traffic terms, Archer did not have right of way. What could he have “reasonably” done (“reasonable” being the active word in disputed AFL judicial cases)? I would venture that most players do slow down when they’re in Archer’s position. If he did not run a red light, then it was about to flash red as he approached the Cleary intersection.

It is telling that Archer’s explanation to the tribunal was not that he was contesting an up-for-grabs footy. It was that he was seeking to make an effective tackle.

“When he starts to pick up the ball, I’m starting to slow down enough where I can make a fair tackle. It’s not until his knee hits the ground that I realise he’s chosen to go to ground,” Archer said.

The notion that Cleary caused this collision because he was low, or that Archer deserved a free for below the knees contact, is utter nonsense.

There is no rule against going low, or even to ground, to pick up the ball (the below-the-knees rule was not devised to protect the player cannoning in).

If the AFL had introduced a rule mandating players stay upright, as applies in less brutal Gaelic football, then the onus of responsibility would be different between the two players.

But it is not. Cleary was first to the football, and his rights – as the ball-playing player – supersede those of the would-be tackler. You can argue the length, but Archer’s ban had to stand.

Had Cleary been in a slightly more upright position – genuinely bending over the ball – and been contacted by Archer at that speed, a severe spinal injury would have been a genuine, horrendous possibility.

This incident is useful in clarifying how players can and should move into such intersections, and, in fairness to Archer, such calls are difficult to make in a handful of seconds.

That said, it is difficult to remember a similar collision in which the prospective tackler (he was too late to apply one) has come from so far away at such velocity and collected an opponent high with his leg. Typically, players slow sooner than Archer did.

When Steve Hocking was the AFL’s football czar, he intervened over a gruesome collision between Adelaide’s David Mackay and Saint Hunter Clark in 2021, sending the case to the tribunal and overriding the match review officer, who had found Mackay had no case to answer.

Hocking, looking at the incident – a fearsome bump as both players converged on the ball – wanted to recalibrate how players approach contests, for safety’s sake.

But the tribunal essentially backed Mackay’s version of events: that he had every right to attack the ball at speed because it was genuinely in dispute. Implicitly, the tribunal accepted Mackay had a serious play on the ball.

Hocking’s own intentions were right. He just chose the wrong incident.

Archer-Cleary is a much better collision and case on which to educate players – and coaches, officials and even parents – on the right of way.

It is not the kind of incident anyone, least of all parents, wish to see at any level, irrespective of intentions.

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.