Redefining the Footy Accident: Duty of Care in the Modern Game and the AFL Tribunal’s Ruling on the Jackson Archer/Luke Cleary Collision

With seven minutes remaining in the fourth quarter, Round One's Saturday night clash between the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne was brought to a halt following a stomach-churning collision between North Melbourne's Jackson Archer and the Western Bulldogs' Luke Cleary.

The collision, which left Cleary instantly motionless and Archer clutching at his leg in pain, occurred when Archer’s knee made heavy, accidental contact with Cleary’s head while both players contested a loose football. The incident resulted in Cleary being stretchered off the field and entering concussion protocols after scans confirmed that the Bulldog player had fortunately avoided serious spinal damage.

Although escaping injury himself, Archer’s conduct was graded by the Match Review Officer (MRO) as careless, high contact, and with a severe impact, leading to a 3-week suspension that was ultimately upheld by the AFL tribunal.

This suspension unsurprisingly polarised the football world, with AFL supporters, greats, current players, and coaches of the respective teams alike weighing in on the ruling, the precedent it sets within the context of an increasingly concussion-conscious game, and the AFL Tribunal’s evolving role in shaping the sport to meet these demands.

The Ruling: Duty of Care to Protect the Head Is Paramount

The Tribunal’s ruling sends a clear message to players: there is a duty of care to protect the heads of other players, and this duty is paramount above all others.

Many argued that Archer should not bear sole responsibility for the collision, pointing out that under current rules governing below-the-knee contact, as well as past adjudication decisions, Cleary too could have been held responsible for endangering Archer’s welfare. [1]

However, in a climate where the horrific long-term consequences of head-knock injuries on athletes are being uncovered daily, and where the AFL, its clubs, and representatives are being held legally responsible for negligent concussion management protocols, the AFL Tribunal is unequivocal. Players owe a duty of care to take necessary precautions to prevent head injuries to others on the field, and this duty surpasses all others, including the duty Cleary potentially owed to stay on his feet and avoid causing leg injury to Archer.

Agreeing with the MRO, the tribunal found that Archer’s actions were careless and that he had not taken the necessary precautions, thereby breaching this paramount duty of care. Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson stated that “Archer’s duty of care required him to slow more appreciably and earlier to give himself the opportunity to avoid or minimise head-high contact.” In essence, Archer approached the contest too late and too fast, “giving himself no reasonable opportunity to avoid harmful contact with Cleary in the circumstances that foreseeably arose.” [2]

The Dissent: The dangers of over-policing footy

Australian rules football is a fundamentally high-contact, fast-paced sport in which a high level of physicality is expected and encouraged. In his response to the AFL’s submission to the tribunal regarding Archer’s carelessness, North Melbourne’s legal counsel, Justin Graham, characterised the incident as “an unfortunate accident” involving “two brave footballers.” [3] This rhetoric echoes concerns raised by supporters, players, and coaches alike that suspensions of this kind risk creating a game style in which players shy away from “brave” and risky acts in favour of caution, ultimately degrading the quality of contests and the hard physical style of play characteristic of AFL football.

When questioned post-game, Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge labelled a possible suspension of Archer as “unfortunate and unlucky,” stating that the tribunal’s decision, either way, would not change the way he coaches his own players to attack the ball aggressively. “We’ve still got to play the game,” he argued, “If it means, from time to time, we’re in these situations where maybe our players are being looked at for an incident... you’ve just got to cop that.” [4]

For many, accidents of this nature are part and parcel of the risk that one voluntarily assumes when playing AFL football at an elite level. By shifting the onus onto players to make split-second decisions to take evasive action—potentially risking injury themselves—the AFL is not merely changing rules but fundamentally altering the game. This shift has left some “fearful” for the future of the sport. [5]

The Precedent: The Role of the Tribunal in Changing the Game
In reaction to the incident, former AFL player and St Kilda legend Nick Riewoldt acknowledged the possibility (but eventuality) of a suspension for Archer, arguing that the AFL “can’t legislate accidents out of the game.” [6]

While Riewoldt may be strictly correct, it cannot be denied that the AFL, through rule changes and the Tribunal’s disciplinary actions, has succeeded in minimising the occurrence of similar accidents by encouraging players and coaches to implement changes in their playing styles. As AFL legal counsel Andrew Woods successfully argued at Archer’s tribunal hearing, collisions of this nature between players are rare now because “players simply take more care in a situation like this.” [7]

Archer, with pure ball-winning intent and no design to harm Cleary, failed to demonstrate adequate discernment in his approach to the contest. This is a judgment call that is undeniably difficult to make in a split second but one that the AFL now expects of players. Within this framework, Archer unfortunately becomes the “subject of the latest learnings,” as the AFL wields its disciplinary muscle to establish the game as one in which legislation can work to minimise the reoccurrence of similar dangerous accidents [8]

The Future of AFL: Balancing Player Welfare and the Spirit of the Game

Jackson Archer’s suspension highlights the fine line the AFL must walk in its pursuit of player safety while preserving the essence of the game. The Tribunal's role in enforcing this balance will continue to shape the future of AFL as it navigates the challenges of reducing head injuries without sacrificing the physicality that makes the sport unique. Ultimately, the AFL has the difficult but necessary task of ensuring that its evolution prioritises both player well-being and the competitive spirit that defines Australian Rules Football.

Reference list

1.     Australian Football League, AFL Laws of Australian Football 2025, Rule 18.7.2(b), <https://play.afl/clubhelp/resources/laws-game#article-0>

2.     Chris De Silva, ‘AFL Kangaroos’ Jackson Archer's Tribunal Suspension Upheld’, ABC News (online, 8 March 2025) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-18/afl- kangaroos-jackson-archer-tribunal-suspension-upheld/105067578>.

3.     Ibid.

4.     AAP, ‘Alastair Clarkson on Jackson Archer Suspension: North Melbourne Kangaroos Still Learning How to Win’, AFL (online 18 March 2025) <https://www.afl.com.au/news/1282598/alastair-clarkson-on-jackson-archer-  suspension-north-melbourne-kangaroos-still-learning-how-to-win>.

5.     Dean Bilton, ‘The AFL's Jackson Archer Case Puts the 'Accident' on Trial’, ABC  News (online, 18 March 2025) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-18/the-afls-  jackson-archer-case-puts-the-accident-on-trial/105065304>.

6.     Ibid.

7.     Ibid.

8.     Fox Footy, ‘'Too little, too late' Archer Suspension upheld! | AFL 360’ (YouTube, 18  March 2025) < https://youtu.be/xOIxRXGJZP8?si=B2mssbuHIA7Gvg0s>.

Image: https://www.nmfc.com.au/news/1733300/roos-to-challenge-jackson-archer-ban