SEN on the Dangerfield tackle.

[Felix 92]

Listening to SEN today, some fool was yapping on about the Dangerfield's injury from the Demons tackle, and how players should be fined or suspended for performing tackles that cause injury. He was going on and on about this for a while, just made me sick. However, I did not hear any of this 'talk' when Jurrah & Bell were taken down by and "Adelaide" player, or the bump on Sylvia that has had him out for about 6 weeks now.

The Dangerfield tackle was a fair and legal tackle, he was wrapped up by three demons and taken in a fair tackle. I do wish Dangerfield all the best and a speedy recovery.

Thoughts & Opinions...

[Brettmcg 24]

Let them huff and puff.

The MRP haven't seen fit to take any action over it. I care about the whole situation as much as the football public seemed to care about Col Sylvia's harsher treatment. To me it reinforces the fact that the AFL "say" they protect the head, but when it comes to the crunch (pardon the pun) are as weak as the proverbial.

[Daz's Dee's 113]

Listening to SEN today, some fool was yapping on about the Dangerfield's injury from the Demons tackle, and how players should be fined or suspended for performing tackles that cause injury. He was going on and on about this for a while, just made me sick. However, I did not hear any of this 'talk' when Jurrah & Bell were taken down by and "Adelaide" player, or the bump on Sylvia that has had him out for about 6 weeks now.

The Dangerfield tackle was a fair and legal tackle, he was wrapped up by three demons and taken in a fair tackle. I do wish Dangerfield all the best and a speedy recovery.

Thoughts & Opinions...

I heard this also some people instead of enjoying the game want to change everything about it.... as for the Sylvia "Bump" it was talked and debated about for days especially on SEN was the main focus for a day or two there....

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

Most of the people that ring SEN are insane so I really wouldn't worry about it.

[Supermercado 2,797]

Good thing it wasn't on a player from a Victorian club or we'd never hear the end of it.

Having said that if it happened to one of our players there'd be people trying to lynch the guys who did it accidentally or not.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Listening to SEN today, some fool was yapping on about the Dangerfield's injury from the Demons tackle, and how players should be fined or suspended for performing tackles that cause injury. He was going on and on about this for a while, just made me sick. However, I did not hear any of this 'talk' when Jurrah & Bell were taken down by and "Adelaide" player, or the bump on Sylvia that has had him out for about 6 weeks now.

The Dangerfield tackle was a fair and legal tackle, he was wrapped up by three demons and taken in a fair tackle. I do wish Dangerfield all the best and a speedy recovery.

Thoughts & Opinions...

Dangerfield's fine. Bit sore but otherwise no damage. You're a caring soul, Sturmann!

What do these idiots want, a sterile game with no contact? It's not a game for woosies. I think our tackling has been ferocious and great. Loving every one. Makes a big difference to how we've been brushed aside for years. We won't win a premiership until we're stronger and tougher than the next best team (think Hawks in 1988).

And remember we've been belted mercilessly by these stronger sides for years and now we're starting to give a bit back. As it should be!

[Kiss of Death 747]

Great tackle on Dangerfield. Unfortunate that he was injured, but we're not talking about some kind of run down tackle that results in a face-plant, we're talking about agressive intent at the ball carrier with an unfortunate result.

Completely endorse the actions of the boys and hope to see plenty more of it in the future.

All the best to Dangerfield from me as well, wish him well.

[joeboy 3,163]

Great tackle on Dangerfield. Unfortunate that he was injured, but we're not talking about some kind of run down tackle that results in a face-plant, we're talking about agressive intent at the ball carrier with an unfortunate result.

Completely endorse the actions of the boys and hope to see plenty more of it in the future.

All the best to Dangerfield from me as well, wish him well.

It was pure luck for everyone concerned that Dangerfield escaped with relatively minor injuries .

The tackle was not illegal but the consequences could have been so much more dire but for luck and a fit body .

[Sir Why You Little 36,971]

It was pure luck for everyone concerned that Dangerfield escaped with relatively minor injuries .

The tackle was not illegal but the consequences could have been so much more dire but for luck and a fit body .

Yes, i thought he had a broken neck when i saw it on the scoreboard-He is a lucky boy. But anybody wearing thjat "insipid" Clash jumper Adelaide had on yesterday deserved a bit of treatment!

Damm i hate clash jumpers.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Most of the people that ring SEN are insane so I really wouldn't worry about it.

That's true. The SEN fills its time with adds and dumb arsed callers who have parodied by the Coodabeens for the past 30 years.

What do these idiots want, a sterile game with no contact? It's not a game for woosies. I think our tackling has been ferocious and great. Loving every one. Makes a big difference to how we've been brushed aside for years. We won't win a premiership until we're stronger and tougher than the next best team (think Hawks in 1988).

And remember we've been belted mercilessly by these stronger sides for years and now we're starting to give a bit back. As it should be!

We have to break a few more necks dont we to be successful dont we.

Any time a players head or neck is subject to injury there should be due concern and investigation. There was no malice or intent in the actions of MFC players but the head,neck and spine must be protected at all times regardless

Would you have been so tackless if he had ended up in a wheelchair?

Think about it. No truly this time think about it.

[MrMoose 262]

Firstly, I can't believe that it was actually looked at by Match review Panel.

Secondly, did this count as 1 tackle (3 blokes tackling 1 bloke = 1 act of tackling) or 3 tackles (3 blokes performing a tackle = 3 tackles)?????????

Not that i really care - it was sensational! (Not the injury, just the tackle)

Edited April 12, 2010 by MrMoose

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Firstly, I can't believe that it was actually looked at by Match review Panel.

Why not?

They review all matters post the round.

If a guy is stretchered off in a neck brace and is then sent by ambulance to hospital, why wouldn't they look at it?

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,778]

Having seen the O'Keefe /Sachse neck-breaking incident(on TV), I couldn't help feeling that our skipper should have checked on Dangerfield as he was lying, motionless after the clash, and the whole game was stopped. It looked pretty serious.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that it was completely accidental(in no way a "spear tackle"). It would be good sportsmanship for Junior to give Dangerfield a ring to see how he is.

I fully expect to be pilloried for this post, but it's what I believe.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

We have to break a few more necks dont we to be successful dont we.

Any time a players head or neck is subject to injury there should be due concern and investigation. There was no malice or intent in the actions of MFC players but the head,neck and spine must be protected at all times regardless

Would you have been so tackless if he had ended up in a wheelchair?

Think about it. No truly this time think about it.

You're right, if someone got seriously (mean, seriously as in ending up in wheelchair) injured in a game of footy, most (likely all) of us would be sickened. I'm not sure what rule changes could be considered though to prevent what happened to Dangerfield. Actually, I'm amazed with some of those nasty 'accidents' on the field that we haven't had the serious situation you allude to. Any such incident with malice should obviously attract a severe penalty.

I remember being sickened when King broke White's face with his reckless (imo) kick. Think he got off scot free but there should never be any reason to have one's leg that high. But I'm not sure that the MFC tackle on Dangerfield was reckless.

My meaning wasn't that we have to break any necks to be successful (horror of horrors). Rather, we have to be physically strong to not be brushed aside like the Hawks constantly do to us, but able to tackle strongly and hold our own physically. Fortunately MFC doesn't have a reputation for thuggery and hopefully will keep it that way.

[btdemon 482]

Having seen the O'Keefe /Sachse neck-breaking incident(on TV), I couldn't help feeling that our skipper should have checked on Dangerfield as he was lying, motionless after the clash, and the whole game was stopped. It looked pretty serious.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that it was completely accidental(in no way a "spear tackle"). It would be good sportsmanship for Junior to give Dangerfield a ring to see how he is.

I fully expect to be pilloried for this post, but it's what I believe.

Whether you call it a 'spear tackle' or not, three blokes grabbing one bloke, holding his arms and ramming him head first into the turf is only designed to do one thing, hurt him. I noticed that was the approach to Dangerfield throughout the game, and was a very effective tactic. However, if Paddy Dangerfield had been made a quadraplegic, he, his family and the three blokes who effected the tackle would all have to live with it for the rest of their lives. I think the AFL has to look at it immediately before we have a tragedy. Also the 'pigeon tackle' and the 'chicken wing' need to be scrutinized ASAP. Just remember guys, a whole lot of us have written all week about about Guerra's dirty tactics. I love the new toughness of our players but I don't want to see a tragedy.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

It would be good sportsmanship for Junior to give Dangerfield a ring to see how he is.

I fully expect to be pilloried for this post, but it's what I believe.

I hope you're not.

I was relieved to read this in the Age today "Dangerfield cleared of neck fracture", and sent the link to my Adelaide Crows colleague (who was impressively quiet all day):

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/adelaide-crows/dangerfield-cleared-of-neck-fracture-20100412-s1a4.html

Fortunately there was nothing malicious in the Melb tackle, and like you say, Junior and others from MFC contacting Dangerfield would show decency and respect, which thankfully are values of our club.

[hardtack 10,514]

Firstly, I can't believe that it was actually looked at by Match review Panel.

Of course they would have to review it... there was the potential for a very serious injury.

Secondly, did this count as 1 tackle (3 blokes tackling 1 bloke = 1 act of tackling) or 3 tackles (3 blokes performing a tackle = 3 tackles)?????????

Are you one of those people being talked about in this discussion that phone into SEN? ;-)

In "On the Couch" tonight it was discussed very briefly and it was simply suggested that the players need to be aware of what they are doing and to understand the possibility is there to do a serious injury. It was suggested that this is a sign of a new tougher Dees as a reaction to their first round drubbing.

Edited April 12, 2010 by hardtack

[MrMoose 262]

Why not?

They review all matters post the round.

If a guy is stretchered off in a neck brace and is then sent by ambulance to hospital, why wouldn't they look at it?

Rhino, they don't review 'all matters' at all.

You might remember an incident in Round 1 - Melbourne Vs Hawthorn - where Brad Green was "stretchered off in a neck brace" but he didn't go to hospital. According to your 'theory' it should have been reviewed. Or because he didn't go to hospital, that's makes a difference and the incident was OK and didn't need reviewing?

I have included a copy of the link to prove that it wasn't looked at by the MRP - http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/91255/default.aspx

There was never ever anything in this incident that needed reviewing.

[DaveyJones'sLocker 647]

i think it was just abit of a freak accident..

mcdonald did really well not to fall into his back and give away a freekick...

Rhino is correct, the AFL should /would look at all incidents where there is potential for serious damage, that being said u would think they would be quick to dismiss any wrong doing by bartram, mcdonald and (Newton?)

i was at the game but i think it was SEN i was listening to at the time, and one of the comentators didnt seem to impressed by the tackle.

Edited April 12, 2010 by DaveyJones'sLocker

[Redleg 40,833]

Whether you call it a 'spear tackle' or not, three blokes grabbing one bloke, holding his arms and ramming him head first into the turf is only designed to do one thing, hurt him. I noticed that was the approach to Dangerfield throughout the game, and was a very effective tactic.

What do you mean by that comment? Are you saying he was rammed into the turf on several occasions by multiple blokes with his arms pinned? You say you noticed that was the approach we took, when did you notice it and to what incidents did it relate?

I hope you are not referring to Hentchel's bruised knee, Bock's strained hamstring or Tippet's sprained ankle.

If you can't back it up, it is pretty poor to suggest we went out there to deliberately hurt players.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Redleg

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Rhino, they don't review 'all matters' at all.

Where the incident is derived from a tackle on a player, they look at it

You might remember an incident in Round 1 - Melbourne Vs Hawthorn - where Brad Green was "stretchered off in a neck brace" but he didn't go to hospital. According to your 'theory' it should have been reviewed. Or because he didn't go to hospital, that's makes a difference and the incident was OK and didn't need reviewing?

I have included a copy of the link to prove that it wasn't looked at by the MRP - http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/91255/default.aspx

You're slow on the uptake, Moose. Green's incident was a collision injury in the play not a consequence of one players intended or actual action on another player. You might also get an inkling of how things work by the fact they did not review the Jordan Lewis collision. Hmmmm now what does that tell you?

There was never ever anything in this incident that needed reviewing.

How would they know unless they look at it. Ugh!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

What do you mean by that comment? Are you saying he was rammed into the turf on several occasions by multiple blokes with his arms pinned? You say you noticed that was the approach we took, when did you notice it and to what incidents did it relate?

I hope you are not referring to Hentchel's bruised knee, Bock's strained hamstring or Tippet's sprained ankle.

If you can't back it up, it is pretty poor to suggest we went out there to deliberately hurt players.

Agree Redleg. Unfortunately terrible incidents are too often a soapbox for the ridiculous assertions made.

[mauriesy 7,261]

I just thought the only intention of the Melbourne players was to go out there and tackle ... very, very hard.

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

i think the AFL should seriously look at how tackles are executed. The three Melbourne players each individually did nothing wrong. Their weight of numbers overwhelmed him. Perhaps there should be the two man rule for tackling. Third man in gets pinched. The way the game is going there will be serious injuries from gang tackling in the future. The tackled player has no chance to protect himself. Players don't have time to think. They pounce on conditioning and instinct. If they dare reflect or back off from their efforts to the contest they risk fury as seen at Bennell's treatment after his one bad effort against the Pies. This is an issue that can be more easily resolved than the heavy collision problem that also occurs in the ultra fast modern game.

Edited April 12, 2010 by america de cali

[e25 5]

i think the AFL should seriously look at how tackles are executed. The three Melbourne players each individually did nothing wrong. Their weight of numbers overwhelmed him. Perhaps there should be the two man rule for tackling. Third man in gets pinched. The way the game is going there will be serious injuries from gang tackling in the future. The tackled player has no chance to protect himself. Players don't have time to think. They pounce on conditioning and instinct. If they dare reflect or back off from their efforts to the contest they risk fury as seen at Bennell's treatment after his one bad effort against the Pies. This is an issue that can be more easily resolved than the heavy collision problem that also occurs in the ultra fast modern game.

Really? How often does it really hurt a player?

One on one tackles can still do as much damage.

The problem is with the inherent danger due to the nature of our game in that it is a contact sport and tackles are coming from every direction.

This will not change unless you drastically tinker with the rules and turn it into netball on grass.