Dangerfield Stages

[Redleg 41,712]

Should Dangerfield be reported for staging.

Having now viewed the incident again several times, it is clear he staged for a free. That is against the rules and a punishable offence.

He throws his arms out before any contact with Brayshaw and when he is nowhere near the throw in or ruck contest. He runs into the back of Brayshaw who is stationary, just in front of him, wildly waving his arms as if he is being held back by two sumo wrestlers. He has clearly staged to get a free kick. 

The AFL MRP looks at consequences of an act. This resulted in a goal that changed the result of the game. 

What will Michael Christian or his boss the former Cats player and footy manager and now AFL footy manager Steve Hocking do, absolutely nothing. 

[Mach5 4,768]

Best of luck with this one.

[Redleg 41,712]

Just now, Mach5 said:

Best of luck with this one.

My last two words in OP state what will happen. 

[buck_nekkid 6,054]

He is one of the ‘chosen ones’.  Nothing will happen.  They Wuv him too much.

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

He should be, but won't be. He also dove over the boundary line looking for a free. It's a blight on the game. 

Did anyone see what he did after he got the Bs free paid against Brayshaw? He kicked the goal and then looked at DUCKWOOD and pointed to his head with the index finger as in 'how smart was that'. To me that is a clear indication that he knew he had outsmarted the umpires and milked one. 

[Redleg 41,712]

1 minute ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

He should be, but won't be. He also dove over the boundary line looking for a free. It's a blight on the game. 

Did anyone see what he did after he got the Bs free paid against Brayshaw? He kicked the goal and then looked at DUCKWOOD and pointed to his head with the index finger as in 'how smart was that'. To me that is a clear indication that he knew he had outsmarted the umpires and milked one. 

Saw that. Pretty poor from a player who is the head of the Players Association. 

[Moonshadow 17,678]

Smart play by Danger. Dumb effort by the umpire who got sucked in and should've called play on. Clearly Danger had no intention of going for the ball and at that point lost his right to the free. It was a set up, the ump was played like a guitar, we fell for it too and paid the price.

If this rule and the 'protected zone' rule isn't changed, it will make the game a joke.

On the other hand, how did the umpire not pay a free when Nev ran into the Cat forward front on with his eyes not on the incoming ball? A blind mole would've paid that.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

Something will happen Redleg. Bernie will get fined for saying what we all know to be true.

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

I'm more concerned with Hawkins getting weeks for his dog act on Fritsch. 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

Nothing wrong with what he did, the rule is the problem. he definitely didn't stage, he through his hands in the air at the blatantly obvious free as anyone else would. The umpire clearly called "Max and paddy" (not that Gus could have heard) Danger could have kept his hands behind is back and the free would have been payed because Gus was in between him and the contest. It has nothing to do with the player its just the ([censored]) rule.

Hell, Jesse stages every week, Jetta and Spargo both drop the knees in tackles all the time. and while the booing seemed a little unnecessary, that Max bump did look pretty soft. Besides we have much bigger problems to worry about than whether 1 particular opposition player stages...

[Ethan Tremblay 31,165]

Exploited a loophole, not guilty. 

[daisycutter 29,795]

1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Exploited a loophole, not guilty. 

legal cheating

bad look for the game

bad look for the rules committee

spilt milk now

[deelete my account 1,194]

Didn't Gawn stage for one when he got knocked off the ball and went down like he'd been shot? Both free kicks were there. Win some lose some.

Edited July 22, 2018 by John Demonic

[deanox 10,023]

23 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Smart play by Danger. Dumb effort by the umpire who got sucked in and should've called play on. Clearly Danger had no intention of going for the ball and at that point lost his right to the free. It was a set up, the ump was played like a guitar, we fell for it too and paid the price.

If this rule and the 'protected zone' rule isn't changed, it will make the game a joke.

On the other hand, how did the umpire not pay a free when Nev ran into the Cat forward front on with his eyes not on the incoming ball? A blind mole would've paid that.

I thought that about the Nev one until I saw the replay. He was chasing a player who was also not watching the ball.  Just because the player chose to turn and prop doesn't mean Nev has to stop running. It is different from when a player is standing or leading towards the ball and you run front on into them to stop the mark. 

[Call Me What You Will 751]

The Hawkins - Fritsch one is symptomatic of a major blight on the game. Once a maggot has paid a free it seems OK for some players to grind a head into the ground, double jumper punch the chest or other physical afterthoughts against the player penalised (or in Fritsch’s case the recipient)of the decision made. Classic Hawkins behaviour.

 

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,820]

7 minutes ago, Call Me What You Will said:

The Hawkins - Fritsch one is symptomatic of a major blight on the game. Once a maggot has paid a free it seems OK for some players to grind a head into the ground, double jumper punch the chest or other physical afterthoughts against the player penalised (or in Fritsch’s case the recipient)of the decision made. Classic Hawkins behaviour.

 

That was a definite 50m, if not a report, with Hawkins' record.

[McQueen 17,867]

6 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

That was a definite 50m, if not a report, with Hawkins' record.

I know, wasn’t it pathetic! You get a 50 from a slightly late contact in a marking contest but none for whacking a bloke on the ground after he’s taken the mark?

Just so frustrating the double standards in this game.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,820]

14 minutes ago, deanox said:

I thought that about the Nev one until I saw the replay. He was chasing a player who was also not watching the ball.  Just because the player chose to turn and prop doesn't mean Nev has to stop running. It is different from when a player is standing or leading towards the ball and you run front on into them to stop the mark. 

 

40 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Dumb effort by the umpire who got sucked in and should've called play on. Clearly Danger had no intention of going for the ball and at that point lost his right to the free. It was a set up, the ump was played like a guitar, we fell for it too and paid the price.

If this rule and the 'protected zone' rule isn't changed, it will make the game a joke.

On the other hand, how did the umpire not pay a free when Nev ran into the Cat forward front on with his eyes not on the incoming ball? A blind mole would've paid that.

Quoting Moonshadow....."Smart play by Danger"

Yeah.

Someone should try it at every stoppage near the goals. Really good football to watch.

If the umpire had the "feel" for the game, he would have noted that it was extremely unusual for Danger to ruck against a guy a foot taller( thus taking himself out of the scramble for the ball near the goals). He should have made sure all players involved knew who was nominated for the ruck. It is noticeable that players don't hear the ump call "play on" when they're on the mark, though TV viewers hear it clearly from their microphones.Brayshaw had no hope....though he should cut bigger "ear-holes" in his helmet.

Dangerfield does sometimes ruck, but against the "stand-in" ruckman.

[Big Carl 333]

56 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Saw that. Pretty poor from a player who is the head of the Players Association. 

Agree. Filled with self importance and BS.

[Redleg 41,712]

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

 

On the other hand, how did the umpire not pay a free when Nev ran into the Cat forward front on with his eyes not on the incoming ball? A blind mole would've paid that.

Probably the same way the mark/ free wasn’t paid to Hogan in the goal square when his arm was grabbed and pulled down, the same way Jeffy didn’t get a free in the goal square for being thrown to the ground without the ball or the same way holding the ball was paid instantly against us and not against them even after trying to break 2-3 tackles.

[dazzledavey36 55,453]

[censored] Dangerfield.. nothing but an arrogant self righteous [censored].

There needs to be a complaint into Cameron Ling commentating on Geelong games. I haven't seen a more bias supporter of the game in the commentary box! To see him carrying on like he'd won the grand final with Duckwood and Ablett last night was borderline pathetic!

[Davos 923]

Smart players use the rules to their advantage. 

[Redleg 41,712]

1 minute ago, Davos said:

Smart players use the rules to their advantage. 

That’s fine but he staged. He put his arms out before the contact that he initiated. He staged. End of story. It will be the end because nothing will happen. 

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,820]

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

Smart play by Danger. Dumb effort by the umpire who got sucked in and should've called play on. Clearly Danger had no intention of going for the ball and at that point lost his right to the free. It was a set up, the ump was played like a guitar, we fell for it too and paid the price.

If this rule and the 'protected zone' rule isn't changed, it will make the game a joke.

On the other hand, how did the umpire not pay a free when Nev ran into the Cat forward front on with his eyes not on the incoming ball? A blind mole would've paid that.

Have another look.

Jetta turned to look back at the ball just before he made contact. I think that is why he got the benefit of the doubt. Lucky, but the only luck we got, apart from the Gawn bump off the ball, where I'm sure  ?Blitzas accidentally ran into him, and Max sure made the most of it, though it took him by surprise.

Two lucky ones to us. At least 5 to them.

"umpires don't affect the results"......phooey!

[Fidelista 39]

53 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

That was a definite 50m, if not a report, with Hawkins' record.

I agree, he got away with a lot with that particular dog act. There should be a thorough review of umpiring. Even though there's more umpires there's a lot that they either don't see or don't bother to officiate on.