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 (yes, the below the knees rule is a complication).
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.
This incident is useful in clarifying how players can and should move into such intersections, and, in fairness to Archer, such calls are difficult 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.
Loading
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.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
