Key footy figures weigh in on Archer ban as Roos prepare to challenge

North Melbourne has confirmed that Jackson Archer’s three-match ban will be challenged at the AFL Tribunal.

The 22-year-old defender was charged by Match Review Officer Michael Christian who deemed his collision with the Western Bulldogs’ Luke Cleary as careless with severe impact and high contact.

Archer attacked the contest with vigour and as Cleary was pushed forward his knee struck the head of the Dog who was concussed in the sickening incident.

It has sparked plenty of debate in footy circles with experts all over the place having varying opinions.

Port Adelaide great Kane Cornes believes Archer might have been unlucky not to have been given a free kick for being taken below the knees by the oncoming Cleary.

“I could argue that he (Archer) should have won a free kick for that,” Cornes said on SEN Breakfast.

“Cleary went to ground - he may have been pushed into it - but what’s Jackson Archer going to do? Three weeks?

“If you leave your feet, go to ground and make contact with an opposition player below the knees, that should be a free kick.

“That’s what the rules say. I don’t care that a player has been concussed, that happens all the time. A player can be concussed by his own teammate or running into the fence or with a knee to the head in a marking contest.

“He is running at full speed and his sole intention is to try and win that football or press the opposition. His opponent goes to ground, ducks in, and he’s going to get three weeks.”

North Melbourne champion David King, who played with Jackson’s father Glenn in the club’s halcyon days, feels that MRO Christian simply had to make the decision by offering a suspension.

From there, he is happy to see it go “upstairs” for the Tribunal to assess more clearly.

“It’s like a car accident, sometimes they’re 50-50 responsibilities,” said King.

“It’s such a unique case that we need to know what the game thinks about it.

“He (Christian) can’t be ‘the game’ and say, ‘No, that’s fine because of that’. No one may agree with that.

“So send it up and get a panel of ex-football people to work out whether it is or isn’t.

“I don’t think he’ll get three weeks. I just think Chrisso has done the right thing and sent it up.”

Gerard Whateley and Nathan Buckley also discussed the incident on SEN’s Whateley.

Whateley is of the belief that this was a complete accident and to the letter of the law, Archer should also have been awarded a free kick.

“My view is if everyone stands up in the aftermath and all is fine, I truly think it’s a free kick for forceful contact below the knees,” said Whateley.

“I think it’s Archer’s free kick because the game asks Cleary not to go to ground.

“There’s all sorts of reasons why Cleary ends up after the ball at ground level, they’re coming head on at each other.

“This is just really unfortunate and completely unavoidable. If I’m going to the Tribunal I’m arguing strenuously that this is Archer’s free kick.

“This is the way the laws have been constructed around this. I don’t think there’s any reckless abandon, that ball is loose and while Cleary arrives at the ball first, he doesn’t gather the ball first, it is still in dispute at moment of impact.

“It just looks like a complete accident to me.”

While Collingwood great Buckley did suggest that Archer hit the contest too savagely.

However, he couldn’t work out how a player can almost win a free kick but also be banned for three weeks in the same breath.

“I love the kid but I don’t know what he was thinking coming in at that pace,” said Buckley.

“He’s coming into that contest hot, that’s what I think the AFL will argue. They will argue that there was a reckless attitude to the way he approached that contest.

“There wasn’t enough duty of care for yourself or for the potential contact that was going to occur. That’s where the AFL can go and will go.

“There’s plenty of options that Jackson Archer had. There’s plenty more that Luke Cleary had as well.

“The (only) way that he will get cleared is if it’s just a football act that has gone wrong or did he have options that he didn’t use. That will be the crux of the hearing.

“Now we have players that actually get injured because they stand up and allow a player to hit their legs because they know they’re going to get a free kick. Players are dumb and not thinking about their long-term health, they’re thinking about what can I do in this moment to win this contest with the rules that are in play.

“I can’t believe we’ve actually come to this position where you can look at that contest, and Archer probably could have got a free kick - and 90 per cent of the time would have - but he could also go for three weeks.

“How can that be the case?”

The Tribunal case for Archer will be heard on Tuesday night.