In Saturday night's game between the Saints and Crows up in Cairns, a big collision took place on the wing between Crows winger David Mackay and Saints young gun Hunter Clark.

A loose ball was hotly contested by the two players, with Clark getting to the ball a slight second before Mackay, which resulted in a big bump by Mackay on Clark.

The collision left Clark with multiple fractures in his jaw, broken teeth, nerve damage, and the rest of his season in jeopardy.

The incident was sent straight to the tribunal by the Match Review Officer, Michael Christian, and what has caused this case to be more unusual than any other case is that Michael Christian has left this incident as 'ungraded' and sent to the tribunal to determine the outcome, with Mackay unable to accept an early plea.

It has been a heavily debated topic in the media as to whether Mackay should be suspended for the bump, as analysts Leigh Montagna and David King have polar opposite opinions on the incident.

Montagna argued with King on Fox Footy's half-time show of the West Coast v Richmond game on Sunday night, claiming that Mackay shouldn't be suspended.

"Itโ€˜s a bit of a dogโ€™s breakfast. No-one has any idea now," Montagna said on Fox Footy.

"When I look at that incident, it was two players fairly contesting the ball, in my opinion. Thereโ€™s no reportable offence for what Iโ€™ve seen there; I donโ€™t know how you can get reported for contesting the ball fairly and causing an accident."

"He didnโ€˜t elect to bump, he went to the ball, unfortunately Hunter Clark came off second-best. He had no other alternative, David Mackay, and Iโ€™d be staggered if he gets suspended at the Tribunal."

King on the other hand, was strong on protecting the head and called for a lengthy suspension.

"I just think we need to coach that out of players, we need to suspend that out of the game, and Iโ€™m comfortable with this being three or four weeks. Because the price these players are paying post-career is well and above someone missing one or two weeks of football. Weโ€™ve got to change behaviour; weโ€™ve had this discussion 30 times in two years and nothingโ€™s changed."

Hear from our Zero Hanger team on their opinions regarding the incident:

Aidan O'Carroll:ย As a big Crows supporter, I'm trying to leave bias out of this, but I don't think he should be suspended.

It was a fairly contested incident which did result in a nasty injury, but it wasn't a nasty action, just two players going hard at the footy.

The De Goey incident on Clayton Oliver where De Goey got a week for taking his eyes off the ball and collecting Oliver in the head is a far more dangerous action.

If Mackay is suspended, then it is very inconsistent with similar incidents this season, such as the Jarrod Harbrow hit on Michael Gibbons, and the Tarryn Thomas hit on Changkuoth Jiang, which both got off.

The fact that this incident is 'ungraded' means that even Michael Christian doesn't know what to think of it, and suspending Mackay may cause a ripple effect in the game where players are not contesting the ball at pace due to fear of being suspended, and we don't want that in the game.

Jake Benoiton: He can't be suspended. He has made a play at the ball and because of that he made contact with Clark. Mackay doesn't come running with the intent to bump or hurt he runs to get the ball and he and Clark collide.

The game needs to have room for accidents like this one, players need to be able to attack the ball at full pace and know that their intent is all that matters, not the result.

By the time Clark gets the ball there is no time for Mackay to change path or do anything but brace for impact and we need to encourage players to protect themselves in that scenario if we are genuinely concerned about concussions.

Will Guthrie: As much as losing Clark for so long annoys me, Iโ€™m probably in the camp that he shouldnโ€™t be suspended.

I donโ€™t think thereโ€™s any intent there other than for the ball, you want players to be protected and not get injured but itโ€™s one of those 50/50 attack-on-the-ball contests.

Having said all that, rewatching it certainly looks like he elects to bump but what else is he supposed to do apart from lead with his head in that situation.

Nick Splitter: 2-3 weeks for me. I am in no way saying that David Mackay showed any intent or malice in his action. It's pretty clear he's not the type of guy to go out and injure the opposition.

In saying that, in a contest sport we make decisions and these decisions have consequences. Was it in contest for the ball? Yes. Did he choose to bump? Clearly, yes. You can see in the vision he is running front on at Hunter Clark.

As the ball is contest, Mackay arrives a split second later and turns his body, tucks his arm in and leaves the ground. He chose to leave the ground and brace for impact. Again, not maliciously, but there were other options. Clark had two hands arriving on the ball.

Mackay could have slowed and tackled. He could have stayed low. He chose to turn his body and lead with the shoulder. It is unfortunate that his shoulder then hit Clark high and not in his torso.

Had Mackay's shoulder impacted Clark's shoulder we're not having this conversation. But it hit Clark high. In the face. Resulting in multiple facial fractures, broken teeth and nerve damage. Mackay chose the action he took, and actions have consequences, intent or not.

Mitch Keating:ย I don't believe Mackayย shouldย be suspended, but i'm tipping he gets a couple of weeks.

There was no intent to cause damage to Clark, but the outcome alone places Mackay on the sidelines. Yes accidents happen, and in this case one player has come off much worse than the other, but that is how the MRO has judged a majority of cases this season.

I think it's pretty disappointing to see Michael Christian decide not to leave a grading for this incident. His position is to help the league and its fans better understand why these incidents should warrant suspensions, and in this case it has only made things more unclear.