We have before us the most captivating tribunal case in many a year.
A collision that has prompted deep and passionate analysis for the moment of impact and the long-term ramifications.
Some would have the game on trial. Hyperbole, after all, is the language of sport.
I fully expect tonight’s tribunal to return a not guilty verdict.
From a certain point of view, it will be the least interesting aspect of the case.
Tonight, we will learn specifically what the AFL believes David Mackay did wrong and what the league thinks his alternative course of action should have been.
And that will light the way for the future direction of the game.
Mackay for his part will need to convince three former players his sole intention was the ball and that he didn’t hurtle into Clark to clear him out of the contest.
If his action is deemed a bump a suspension is mandatory.
Every contact sport in the world is grappling with the paradox of how to make a dangerous endeavour incrementally safer.
Concussion and head trauma are undeniable realities. The consequences of which are being progressively revealed.
Peter V’Landys – the straightest talking sports administrator in the world – has put it on record in his own inimitable fashion. If he doesn’t reform rugby league there will be no rugby league.
It’s a fair bet that thought resides in the minds of his contemporaries in relation to the sports they govern.
Tonight before the AFL tribunal we have a living breathing case study.
An action previously thought perfectly reasonable, on trial as unreasonable.
I’m not entirely sure it’s within the jurisdiction of the three sitting members tonight to reach a guilty verdict as it would rewrite the laws of the game.
An independent tribunal isn’t there to make the rules.
Adelaide’s defence advocate has all manner of angles to attack quite separate from whether Mackay reached the ball simultaneously to his opponent.
But the starting off point for tonight’s case will be a graphic medical report detailing the horrific facial injuries suffered by Hunter Clark.
That’s why this case has been sent adjudication.
And it’s why the quest for change won’t end with tonight’s verdict.
There have been many thoughtful contributions throughout this week from all different angles.
The vast majority coming from a position of profound care for the game. I’ve enjoyed the debate immensely.
But it all boils down to this:
Was Mackay’s collision with Clark careless? Was the manner of his approach to the contest unreasonable? And was there an alternative?
Mackay had an alternative method on Saturday night, one that would not have left Clark eating through a straw.
For the majority that alternative is unpalatable.
The real value of the week has been in the discussion.