1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Its time the AFL made an example of a 'name' player like Danger and not just the ANB's of the world.

In both cases the concussion occurred when the player's head hit the ground, after the infringement.  In both cases the optics were very bad.  In both cases the infringement was sent directly to the Tribunal.  ANB got 4 weeks.  Appeal rejected. 

Commentators said at the time that if ANB was  'name' player he wouldn't get the same treatment. 

Concussion is taken far more seriously now than as it should be.  Time for the AFL to set down the law.

LH In Your statement about concussion above iMO You have inadvertently left out  "yesteryear " or "previously " and I think it then sounds correct and  accurate of the situation today.

Yes we disagree on the mechanics of bumps damage and intent BUT not the human damage likely to occur if we don't stamp it out of our game.

Hanging is too good for him.  Three weeks minimum.

He’ll get 3. But I think it should be 2 weeks. Concussion and a broken nose isn’t a severe injury. It happens in AFL and will always happen.

We’ve had concussions for decades and we’re finally monitoring them and treating them properly, that doesn’t mean the game has to jump at shadows.

You can’t ask players to chase as hard as possible and then throw the book at them when a collision occurs. Danger’s adapted at the last minute not to tackle and not to bump high. The next step is to not bump at all and just pull up or make minor contact, that’s what’s required, but it’s all split second. 

If you give Danger 4 then what do you give the guy who genuinely bumps high and goes straight through someone?

Kelly is out for 12 mandatory days due to an avoidable bump causing a concussion. (And he missed the rest of the game)

The starting point for suspension has to be that surely. How can the concussed played be required to miss more game time that the deliberate bump infringer?!  

2 minimum. 3 right length (and message). 4 if the players involved were reversed. 

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, 58er said:

Sorry Kev he DID NOT LEAD the tackle   with his head. That was the accidental part so no malice was intended.

Your comment re Brixton is entirely erroneous as many AFL  tackles and completely accidental collisions end up with head clashes with / without Blood/ etc or concussion.

As he Decided  to bump Like Williams of Carlton did and some damage  occurred then he has to defend the reason why he bumped as aggressively as he did ( That's Danger  always at top pace) 

The differences in my opinion with Willisms  is that he DID NOT NEED  to bump was late and with less Damage occurring but we want to cut that out of our  game.

With  the Danger bump it's legal in the play but if he scores any head damage he has to accept the consequences but no malice intended! 

And for that he may get 2/3 weeks but unlike Williams who did bump IMO with intent (malice) late and more "dangerously".

It was demonstratively late in my view

Perhaps I missing something but the rule is if the impact is severe it’s a 3 match ban. There’s no leeway or discretion or discount. It’s 3 games. End of. If there was malice involved (which I don’t think there was) then additional games are added.

2 minutes ago, Kent said:

It was demonstratively late in my view

Nowhere near as Williams not really IMO.

 

6 minutes ago, Kent said:

It was demonstratively late in my view

Late and he lined him up with intent

1 hour ago, 58er said:

Sorry Kev he DID NOT LEAD the tackle   with his head. That was the accidental part so no malice was intended.

I think, that as an elite sportsman he is totally aware of where all parts of his body are going.

Super proprioception is gained by being totally body centric.

As a mug sportsman, I even know where my body, including my head will kind of end up in a collision. In fact being such an important part of my anatomy which I protect. I can run through very small gaps, and know where my head will hit or not.

He had a good idea what was going on.

He did hit with his shoulder and I believe the head clash was not incidental, but inevitable and calculated.

He thought if he doesn't leave the ground/jump at the player, then it is a legal hit and covers his duty of care.

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by kev martin

32 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The next step is to not bump at all and just pull up or make minor contact, that’s what’s required, but it’s all split second. 

They are making split decision all the time.

Should have bent his body down and put it into Kelly's torsos, keeping all parts of himself away from the head.

It's a duty of care action and should be judged as malicious. 

1 hour ago, 58er said:

completely accidental collisions end up with head clashes with / without Blood/ etc or concussion.

Usually when both players are going hard at "it" or are team mates competing for the same ball, with eyes on the ball, or in flight and cannot change the direction, the accidental "head clash" occurs. Two or more unpredictable people and circumstances make for those sickening collisions. 

Kelly was completely open, could not brace and his movement was predictable. 

It was in the Dangers control, only.

Ran through the bloke with an intention to bring the hurt.

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by kev martin

17 minutes ago, kev martin said:

I think, that as an elite sportsman he is totally aware of where all parts of his body are going.

Super proprioception is gained by being totally body centric.

As a mug sportsman, I even know where my body, including my head will kind of end up in a collision. In fact being such an important part of my anatomy which I protect. I can run through very small gaps, and know where my head will hit or not.

He had a good idea what was going on.

He did hit with his shoulder and I believe the head clash was not incidental, but inevitable and calculated.

He thought if he doesn't leave the ground/jump at the player, then it is a legal hit and covers his duty of care.

Some interesting comments Kev

You don't really know where your head will end up if a collision is imminent as your instinct is to avoid the collision!! Therefore damage to your head and self preservation are mostly the guide we use to try and avoid contact to our most precious body part but are unable to be sure of the correct reaction.

As for putting your head through small gaps that is more luck more than good management !!!

Football  is based upon competitive contact and skill with the ball your object not running around playing games with your brain and your head trying to be clever.

we all have instincts and they guide us yes but we cannot predict the sort of damage we will always receive as we don't know when the collision or body contact is coming.

No intent to head high contact was in this as why would you want to hit heads with almost certain damage/ concussion a probability is a mystery.

But some want to nail Danger no matter What comment they come up with!!

53 minutes ago, 58er said:

You don't really know where your head will end up if a collision is imminent as your instinct is to avoid the collision!!

You are right, after the impact we have no idea.

Though at impact I kinda know where the points of contact will be.

It is why I called it a "Brixton kiss". You can hit anothers head with yours without damage to the perpetrator. 

Danger also said he was in self preservation mode. The collision and subsequent head clash was calculated to not cause damage to himself. 

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by kev martin

23 minutes ago, 58er said:

Football  is based upon competitive contact and skill with the ball your object not running around playing games with your brain and your head trying to be clever.

Body IQ and body memory, is based on proprioceptive responses which are not immediately self-conscious. Brain can become aware after the fact. Action, before the the recognition of the thought.

It is a calculated response that may not involve the conscious brain. Therefore,  they need to know that they cannot hit the head with any part of the body. Much the same as they know the other rules, and the body action is on the right side of the fine line between what can occur and what can't.

It is why and how they develop over time. It all becomes instinctual and within that persons control. 

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by kev martin

Dangerfield saying he did nothing wrong and pleading self protection. He’s giving heads up to the tribunal to what their decision must be. 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/you-ve-got-to-look-after-yourself-as-well-dangerfield-claims-no-realistic-alternative-20210322-p57cwt.html

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by america de cali

 

He left the ground bracing to bump the Crows kid, and left him concussed with a broken nose.

As clear cut case for suspension as the AFL likely to get this year, need to set an example.

7 hours ago, dee-tox said:

Should have received weeks after the grand final for raising his forearm on Vlastuin.

They might give him a week  but Cats will appeal to try and have it overtuned.

As an aside, Danger (and family) have many influential mates in the media.

Can't appeal I dont think if it goes straight to the tribunal. Also I think its mandatory 3 weeks given severity of charge. Throw the book at him with 6 weeks and make an example of him! If you look at the video he does momentarily leave the ground just before impact, and this constitutes an even graver scenario

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by picket fence

1 hour ago, Better days ahead said:

Perhaps I missing something but the rule is if the impact is severe it’s a 3 match ban. There’s no leeway or discretion or discount. It’s 3 games. End of. If there was malice involved (which I don’t think there was) then additional games are added.

You are correct they changed the rules so if the player that’s hit gets concussed it’s automatically deemed as severe impact he cannot fight that, so minimum will be 3 weeks if the tribunal thinks it’s intentional then will add a week or 2 but he won’t get under 3 weeks IF the rules are followed 

2 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

He left the ground bracing to bump the Crows kid, and left him concussed with a broken nose.

As clear cut case for suspension as the AFL likely to get this year, need to set an example.

The ground is now perfectly laid for another breathtaking, inexplicable "AFL special" decision. (Take particular note of the tribunal chairman's remarks.)

8 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

They can’t let their little darling off a week after changing the concussion rules to protect players because they’re concerned about player welfare.

Remember that May got a week for a bump and he wasn’t even moving. He has to get scrubbed.

It would be an outrage if Danger was not heavily penalised for an avoidable collision particularly in the light of some decisions in the recent past, and from the MFC point of view, that penalty awarded to May who was stationary at the time of impact because he was occupying territory desparately wanted by a panicking player whose ball possession could be ended. 

38 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

He left the ground bracing to bump the Crows kid, and left him concussed with a broken nose.

As clear cut case for suspension as the AFL likely to get this year, need to set an example.

I agree he left the ground and simultaneously clearly lunged toward Kelly well after he had disposed of the ball and who had stopped moving.forward so there was no need to bump into him at all.  And it wasn't 'self-protection' as he is claiming.

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

14 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

from the MFC point of view, that penalty awarded to May who was stationary at the time of impact because he was occupying territory desparately wanted by a panicking player whose ball possession could be ended. 

OK, but put yourself in the shoes of the MRP and you'll see that May was completely to blame as he (a) isn't a "name" midfielder (ii) doesn't have a Brownlow or wasn't in contention for it (iii) hasn't played in a recent flag (iv) isn't fawned over by footy journos. Open and shut case. It's known in football judiciary circles as "the Trengove principle", although in recent changes to the tribunal guidelines, it was updated to "the ANB principle".

42 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Dangerfield saying he did nothing wrong and pleading self protection. He’s giving heads up to the tribunal to what their decision must be. 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/you-ve-got-to-look-after-yourself-as-well-dangerfield-claims-no-realistic-alternative-20210322-p57cwt.html

What happened to the AFL rule that coaches and players are prohibited from public comment on MRP decisions.  I'm sure the AFL love the 'click bait' but he shouldn't be allowed to do this.

He is even saying previous cases should be ignored.  He knows he is in strife.

That he is (player) President of the AFLPA makes it even more important that he is not seen to be 'above the law' so should get the mandatory 3 weeks that goes with direct referral to the Tribunal.

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

7 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

What happened to the AFL rule that coaches and players are prohibited from public comment on MRP decisions.  I'm sure the AFL love the 'click bait' but he shouldn't be allowed to do this.

He is even saying previous cases should be ignored.  He knows he is in strife.

That he is President of the AFLPA makes it even more important that he is not seen to be 'above the law' so should get the mandatory 3 weeks that goes with direct referral to the Tribunal.