Written by The Adelaide Crow’s David Mackay fronted a tribunal hearing over a rough conduct charge, and the fallout threatens to polarize the football community. In a game that is designed to have players contesting the ball and players committed to gaining possession, there must inherently be a certain amount of contact.
The Australian Football League insists, however that Mackay “carelessly engaged in rough conduct” that they deem unreasonable in the circumstances. General consensus however dictates that if the Tribunal fails to throw the case out that the game will have to fundamentally change. After all, how can a game that is based on repeatedly wrestling the ball from the opposition fail to incite contact and therefore the possibility of injury. Football purists insist that if players have to allow for accidental injury, that the game will not be the same and will not be playable.
This incident occurred during a game played in Cairns on June 12, in which Mackay and St Kilda Saints’ player, Hunter Clark collided badly because of the jump that Mackay made, and left Clark with a broken jaw. The AFL suggested the incident should be graded as “high contact” and “severe impact”, which should result in a three-game ban for Mackay.
The contentious issue is apparently the fact that this incident occurred as players contested the ball as opposed to during a tackle. So much focus had been placed on the rules of engagement during a tackle to prevent injury, particularly to the head, that there isn’t as much precedent on which to base a decision. Former Sydney Swans player Tadhg Kennnelly stated simply; “It was a fair crack at the ball. Unfortunately, someone got hurt. Are we going to start punishing players for speeding up to the contest? We want them to go after the ball.”
Although Match Review Officer, Michael Christian found no issue with the incident, AFL boss, Steve Hocking sent it straight to Tribunal. Adelaide coach Matthew Nicks maintained that Mackay’s actions ‘saved the game’ and that players were supposed to risk injury for the sake of the game. “If you talk about a moment in the game for a senior player to stand up, we hadn’t scored at that point … It was a real key moment in the turnaround. Guys regrouped and put their shields up and went to work. I’ve got no doubt when you see a teammate put his body on the line, which both players did, it gives you belief.” – Matthew Nicks
As it happens the Tribunal have cleared Mackay of any culpability in the matter. The ruling was arguably the tribunal’s most highly anticipated because of its “potential long-term ramifications for the game and the way players contest the ball amid renewed focus on head injuries in sport.” 22-year-old Clark has undergone surgery to remedy multiple jaw fractures since the incident and is tipped to miss six to eight weeks of the season. Regardless of this, Mackay’s lawyer Andrew Culshaw was successful in having the incident deemed a “pure football collision”, in which Mackay was protecting himself when his shoulder collided with Clark’s head.
Clearly there are still many grey areas around player safety and head injury despite the energy recently invested in improving the protocols. What stakeholders will need to come to terms with is how much of the traditional game they can handle seeing changed for the sake of their players safety. Conversely, how can they not handle it given the potential for such serious life-threatening injury. Even such a cultural icon as AFL must yield a little to move with the times.