Dangerfield Stages

[Deemania since 56 6,654]

On 7/22/2018 at 10:40 AM, Redleg said:

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. 

They will do absolutely nothing about it! It was definitely staged free, for which the Geelong team - as one of quite a few clubs in this regard - is so adept at 'pulling' in some annoited opinions of some equally annointed umpires. It has now become a standard part of the game for which the 'lesser' teams of recent footballing history pay dearly. This game last Saturday against Geelong had 'constructed' victory written all over it with several, highly obvious umpiring decisions 'shaping' rules violations to the distinct advantage of a Geelong win. It is impossible to believe that a selected umpire or two, working in tandem, did not see or evaluate or be concerned of a rule violation where a legitimate penalty would apply (had it not been Geelong playing against the MFC); key evidence of confirming examples of this wilful rules abuse to the advantage of Geelong in the last quarter of this game include:

• the penalty against Gus with a staging Dangerfield, and its outcome
• the kicking in danger of Harmes' hand and wrist for a goal (Ablett?)
• the penalty against Harmes for running into the protected zone on a Geelong mark despite indicating clearly that he was already located in that position at the time of the mark and was moving carefully outside that zone in compliance with the rules of the game, and its resulting goal.

An official review is essential although now, nothing can be done to right these wrongs, and Geelong know it.

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by Deemania since 56

[Deemania since 56 6,654]

2 hours ago, Pates said:

Wouldn’t surprise me if you randomly see midfielders nominate for the ruck in sneaky ways similar to how Dangermouse did. 

Well, why not? Errors permitted lead to acceptable stains on the game. The precedent has been set by Dangerfield! All approved. 

[Demon_JB 1,385]

What [censored] me off the most with the Dangerfield ruck nomination incident, is when after he kicked the goal and celebrated, he ran to his team mates and pointed to his temple to infer "Look how I just outsmarted the opposition to milk a free kick and goal."

Clearly did it to exploit a rule and in turn, create an easy shot at goal and important momentum killer for them. For a rule that allows a player to do that is a blight on the individual and the game.

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by juzzk1d

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

25 minutes ago, juzzk1d said:

What [censored] me off the most with the Dangerfield ruck nomination incident, is when after he kicked the goal and celebrated, he ran to his team mates and pointed to his temple to infer "Look how I just outsmarted the opposition to milk a free kick and goal."

Clearly did it to exploit a rule and in turn, create an easy shot at goal and important momentum killer for them. For a rule that allows a player to do that is a blight on the individual and the game.

 

Here’s the funny part. I was driving home from work last night and was listening to SEN. Of course they had the ‘ Melbourne’ hour. A lot of Dees rang through and gave their take, some good, some bad. 

One of the callers was a Hawks fan and gave his opinion on Dangerstager. The caller basically referenced the pointing to the head part, “ I’m so smart and all that” and labelled Danger an arrogant individual to which the host responded “ Well that’s how smart he is and kudos to him” or something to that effect.

A couple of calls later a Geelong fan rings through to complain about Max staging from the off the ball collision that resulted in a goal for us. The caller continues with his rant and goes on to label  Gawn a ‘girl’ on air. The host of course does not defend Max or cut that caller off immediately but I’m glad the next two callers were Dees fans and defended our great Max while letting the host know about the bias. 

[MT64 1,144]

6 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Here’s the funny part. I was driving home from work last night and was listening to SEN. Of course they had the ‘ Melbourne’ hour. A lot of Dees rang through and gave their take, some good, some bad. 

One of the callers was a Hawks fan and gave his opinion on Dangerstager. The caller basically referenced the pointing to the head part, “ I’m so smart and all that” and labelled Danger an arrogant individual to which the host responded “ Well that’s how smart he is and kudos to him” or something to that effect.

A couple of calls later a Geelong fan rings through to complain about Max staging from the off the ball collision that resulted in a goal for us. The caller continues with his rant and goes on to label  Gawn a ‘girl’ on air. The host of course does not defend Max or cut that caller off immediately but I’m glad the next two callers were Dees fans and defended our great Max while letting the host know about the bias. 

Who was the host?

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

14 minutes ago, MT64 said:

Who was the host?

He’s on from 7pm. Jack something.

[Redleg 40,946]

Brayshaw labelled the free as coming from an under 12’s footy game and basically said it was ridiculous. Luke Darcy and whole Talking Footy Panel ageeed it was a disgraceful rule and a blight on the game. The 50 m and goal against Harmes was as bad. Might have cost us finals and certainly the double chance.

[Willmoy1947 4,098]

What does Stringer and Dangerfield  have in common?

[Lord Travis 10,740]

4 minutes ago, willmoy said:

What does Stringer and Dangerfield  have in common?

They're both utter c\/nts?

[DemonOX 8,791]

The three stooges are the 3 best stages in the game. Ablett, duckwood and danger. 

[Willmoy1947 4,098]

6 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

They're both utter c\/nts?

Creative, but i was thinking more about domesticated "wheelans"

[Deemania since 56 6,654]

23 minutes ago, willmoy said:

What does Stringer and Dangerfield  have in common?

One likes to be seen to associate with footballers and showers them with soft-touch decisions, and the other likes to shower with footballers capable of deciding who is a soft touch.

[Willmoy1947 4,098]

55 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

One likes to be seen to associate with footballers and showers them with soft-touch decisions, and the other likes to shower with footballers capable of deciding who is a soft touch.

...not "touching" that.....

[Pates 9,660]

13 hours ago, juzzk1d said:

What [censored] me off the most with the Dangerfield ruck nomination incident, is when after he kicked the goal and celebrated, he ran to his team mates and pointed to his temple to infer "Look how I just outsmarted the opposition to milk a free kick and goal."

Clearly did it to exploit a rule and in turn, create an easy shot at goal and important momentum killer for them. For a rule that allows a player to do that is a blight on the individual and the game.

 

He’s definitely got that arrogance of “I’m the smartest guy in the room” about him. Interestingly I actually thought he was ok at Adelaide, just seemed to go about his business and do it very well. Since going to Geelong he very quickly got that superstar stink about him that seems to permeate from almost all Geelong players. 

I ligitimately feel like they think their [censored] doesn’t stink. 

[SFebes 4,884]

9 hours ago, Pates said:

He’s definitely got that arrogance of “I’m the smartest guy in the room” about him. Interestingly I actually thought he was ok at Adelaide, just seemed to go about his business and do it very well. Since going to Geelong he very quickly got that superstar stink about him that seems to permeate from almost all Geelong players. 

I ligitimately feel like they think their [censored] doesn’t stink. 

I think he's been put on a pedestal in the media, there's hardly a week or even day of late where he isn't in the media, radio, TV, fishing shows, hosting his own fishing talkback show, he's everywhere and it's gone to his head so I agree. At Adelaide he was hidden away a bit I'd say.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

On 7/24/2018 at 9:32 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

A player's previous record should have nothing to do with whether a player is reported by an umpire or cited by the MRO. But it should, however, be relevant to any punishment if found guilty.

If Bugg or Bernie did what Hawkins did tonFitsch, he would have got life!

The media would have made a big deal of it( because of previous instances)

Edited July 25, 2018 by Jumping Jack Clennett
Clarification

[Redleg 40,946]

I wonder what happened with our meeting with the umpiring bosses?

[SFebes 4,884]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I wonder what happened with our meeting with the umpiring bosses?

We choked and went missing in the final minute and nobody turned up

[daisycutter 29,616]

16 hours ago, Redleg said:

Brayshaw labelled the free as coming from an under 12’s footy game and basically said it was ridiculous. Luke Darcy and whole Talking Footy Panel ageeed it was a disgraceful rule and a blight on the game. The 50 m and goal against Harmes was as bad. Might have cost us finals and certainly the double chance.

what did you think about harmes deliberate point and subsequent gifted goal to cats, red?

my understanding was it was legitimate to rush a point if under pressure and surely in the very act of being tackled is pressure

another introduced rule where no-one knows the exact interpretation and the penalty is too harsh

i personally have never been in favour of the rule. if a team wants to concede a point so what

[Redleg 40,946]

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what did you think about harmes deliberate point and subsequent gifted goal to cats, red?

my understanding was it was legitimate to rush a point if under pressure and surely in the very act of being tackled is pressure

another introduced rule where no-one knows the exact interpretation and the penalty is too harsh

i personally have never been in favour of the rule. if a team wants to concede a point so what

The rule is ok as it is there to stop a team wasting minutes when they are ahead by deliberately giving away points like Hawks did in a GF a while back. 

The problem is the interpretation, it was wrong as were many frees and resultant goals to the Cats like the ruck free, the Harmes 50 and even the failure to pay Harmes the kick in danger and Brayshaw in the back in the last minute, the Hogan mark/ arm drag in the goal square and the Jeffy hold the man in the goal square when he was thrown down without the ball. Any of those gives us the win. 

[Clintosaurus 7,852]

26 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what did you think about harmes deliberate point and subsequent gifted goal to cats, red?

I thought that was against the Dogs? Was there another one on Saturday?

[daisycutter 29,616]

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The rule is ok as it is there to stop a team wasting minutes when they are ahead by deliberately giving away points like Hawks did in a GF a while back. 

The problem is the interpretation, it was wrong as were many frees and resultant goals to the Cats like the ruck free, the Harmes 50 and even the failure to pay Harmes the kick in danger and Brayshaw in the back in the last minute, the Hogan mark/ arm drag in the goal square and the Jeffy hold the man in the goal square when he was thrown down without the ball. Any of those gives us the win. 

if the rule is ok then the penalty is too severe. a bounce up at the top of the square (with/without the point being scored) would be better. Not to mention the definition/interpretation of the rule needs better clarification

[daisycutter 29,616]

6 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

I thought that was against the Dogs? Was there another one on Saturday?

now you have me thinking. i hope i'm not having a seniors moment - lol

maybe someone else can confirm

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,811]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

what did you think about harmes deliberate point and subsequent gifted goal to cats, red?

my understanding was it was legitimate to rush a point if under pressure and surely in the very act of being tackled is pressure

another introduced rule where no-one knows the exact interpretation and the penalty is too harsh

i personally have never been in favour of the rule. if a team wants to concede a point so what

It was another standard AFL over-reaction at the time caused partly by the tactics of Hawthorn in one game and Richmond's Joel Bowden in another. When kicking out, Bowden kept stepping back over the line after the umpire called played on thereby taking up time while allowing the opposition to score a point when they needed to score a bit more.

A better solution to the Bowden problem would be to require that every kick in from a behind to be at least 15 metres. A free kick would be paid at the top of the square if the umpire deemed the kick to have been shorter than 15 metres or if the defender deliberately backed over the line without kicking the ball. (It would also stop the defender kicking the ball to himself and then playing on, but I don't see this as particularly problematic.)

I would actually like the kick to be more than 15 metres, but given that number is already in use for determining whether a mark should be paid, it would be better to leave it at the same number so umpires don't have to estimate another distance. 

[sue 9,107]

53 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

if the rule is ok then the penalty is too severe. a bounce up at the top of the square (with/without the point being scored) would be better. Not to mention the definition/interpretation of the rule needs better clarification

True, but it's hard to see any rule changes that limit the number of easy goals purely for commercial reasons. 

 A prize to anyone who can tell me why a mark anywhere in the goal square is taken from directly in front.   Doesn't save much time and no skill is involved whatsoever.  Or why the space given to players kicking from the boundary is so big (doubtless related to the farcical 10m exclusion zone) so that players now hardly ever miss.  Sometimes the umps are slack about enforcing it and players sneak in to within 7 metres and then there is some real pressure on the kicker.  Much more interesting but fewer ads I guess.