Danger elected to front end bump a player who had already disposed of the ball, yes it's a split second decision but he made the wrong one. There is no way he can claim he was protecting himself, he was the one who initiated the contact which resulted in a broken nose and a concussion. Would love to see 3 weeks but I think it will end up being two because of his "great" record.

 

 

Self-protection? He should get an extra week for telling porkies.

Can the Tribunal reduce a mandatory 3 week penalty?  Or is it 3 weeks (or more) if 'Appeal' is dismissed and if the 'Appeal' is upheld he gets zero weeks?  ie All or nothing?

Would be interested if anyone knows the Tribunal's powers in this regard.

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

1 hour 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

I’ve made it know I don’t like dangerdiver and this just confirms my distaste even more. He even swan dived after the incident, embarrassing and for a guy who spouts off on player safety he did a very poor interpretation of trying to protect old mate.

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:If you give Danger 4 then what do you give the guy who genuinely bumps high and goes straight through someone?

That’s exactly what the AFL want that guy thinking before he acts

Self protection line is [censored]. He got caught holding the ball got up and made a beeline for Kelly

8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Can the Tribunal reduce a mandatory 3 week penalty?  Or is it the 3 weeks (or more) if Appeal is dismissed and if the Appeal is upheld he gets zero weeks?

Would be interested if anyone knows the Tribunal's powers in this regard.

2019 TRIBUNAL GUIDELINES [the most recent publicly available ones]

 

2.1 THE REPORTING PROCESS

(D) TRIBUNAL HEARINGS

The Tribunal will hear a charge for which a Player has pleaded not guilty or has pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. The Tribunal may find the Player guilty of the original charge or lesser charge, or may find the Player not guilty of any charge. The Tribunal will determine the appropriate sanction for the ultimate Reportable Offence it finds a Player to have committed (if any).

[The above also applies to instances where the MRP has sent it straight to the tribunal]

...

4.4 PROCEDURAL AND OTHER MATTERS

(E) EXCEPTIONAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES

Where there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply financial or suspension sanctions that would usually apply to a particular Classified Offence, the Tribunal may impose any sanction it considers appropriate (as per Regulation 18.6(a)(ii)). Exceptional and compelling circumstances may arise where: (i) A Player has an exemplary record; (ii) A Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation; (iii) A Reportable Offence was committed in self-defence; or (iv) There are multiple Reportable Offences that arise from the same event or course of conduct.

(F) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

In determining the appropriate classification to be given to a Reportable Offence, the MRO will not take into account any provocation or whether a Player was acting in self-defence. However, while the Tribunal will generally apply the sanction corresponding to a particular offence, the Tribunal has the power in exceptional and compelling circumstances for the Tribunal to substitute another outcome if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so.

 

[Is it just me, or do sections E and F above contradict each other? re self defence]

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Can the Tribunal reduce a mandatory 3 week penalty?  Or is it 3 weeks (or more) if 'Appeal' is dismissed and if the 'Appeal' is upheld he gets zero weeks?  ie All or nothing?

Would be interested if anyone knows the Tribunal's powers in this regard.

They reduced Houli's penalty after a hearing, took in all the character witness stuff with a letter from the PM. Then the AFL appealed and got the penalty reinstated I believe.

So I think the tribunal got the message then not to go messing around with penalties. 

Dangerfield will argue for nothing and most likely fail.

Or he'll argue it was high impact not severe and could get 2 not 3 if he goes that route. 

If the tribunal finds him guilty on severe impact I'm confident it will be 3 or more.

5 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

[Is it just me, or do sections E and F above contradict each other? re self defence]

It looks like the MRO can't apply self-defence but the tribunal can.

In other words Chrisso grades the acts without any context and then the tribunal assess things such as compelling circumstances. 

I don't think that's what Danger is going for though. They are saying it isn't a bump similar to the Jack Viney incident. There's a fine line between brace and bump.

It's more lineball than Danger's one because the ball is in dispute but if this happened again next week would you call it a bump or brace? I'm genuinely on the fence.

 

Dangermouse will argue that it was in self defence and that no-one could possibly have foreseen a clash of heads and that he was only a little bit off  the ground and he was only a little bit not going for the ball and that he was exercising his duty of care in that he could have snapped Kelly in two or given him covid, and the tribunal will accept all that with a straight face.

1 hour 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

 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

 

And this maggot is the  president of the AFLPA!  Doesn't even take concussion seriously.

He should put his hand up for once, be a man and take a 6 week holiday.  The head is sacrosanct after all, or so the AFL keep telling us.

11 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

(E) EXCEPTIONAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES

Where there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply financial or suspension sanctions that would usually apply to a particular Classified Offence, the Tribunal may impose any sanction it considers appropriate (as per Regulation 18.6(a)(ii)). Exceptional and compelling circumstances may arise where: (i) A Player has an exemplary record; (ii) A Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation; (iii) A Reportable Offence was committed in self-defence; or (iv) There are multiple Reportable Offences that arise from the same event or course of conduct.

Thanks.

From the Age article it seems Danger is relying on the self-defence exception to get off.

13 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

It's more lineball than Danger's one because the ball is in dispute but if this happened again next week would you call it a bump or brace? I'm genuinely on the fence.

It is a tough one. Basically the situation is, if you elect to bump, and there's head contact, tough bickies. It's on you.

But wait!

4.3 REPORTABLE OFFENCES (D) FORCEFUL FRONT-ON CONTACT Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that opponent has his head down over the ball is a Reportable Offence. Unless Intentional, such actions will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or » The bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not reasonably be foreseen.

 

It looks in the video as if Viney bumped Lynch and the head contact was with the other Melbourne player ... which Viney most likely wouldn't have anticipated. You can see it going either way but the decision to let him off was probably right. (Don't ask me how I would feel if it was Danger and some Geelong player sandwiching Clarry or Tracc.) The rules were different back then but the Trengove principal still applied which is why Viney was charged at all.

1 hour ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

Self protection line is [censored]. He got caught holding the ball got up and made a beeline for Kelly

?

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE RULES 19 March 2020

41. Disciplinary Tribunal

41.18 Public Comment and Criticism

a) A person subject to the AFL Rules and Regulations shall not publicly comment on: (i) the contents of a Notice of Charge prior to the conclusion of any determination by the Disciplinary Tribunal, as the case may be: (ii) a Notice of Investigation and any matter touching upon or concerning an Investigation under the AFL Rules and Regulations, until completion of such investigation and relevant determination by the Disciplinary Tribunal.

(b) Where a person contravenes Rule 41.18(a)(i), the person’s Club shall also be liable to a sanction unless the person establishes to the reasonable satisfaction of the General Counsel that such public comment was not intended to influence or affect the conduct of the Disciplinary Tribunal hearing or the process of the investigation, as the case may be

Sanction: Maximum 20 Units

[1 unit = $1000]

29 minutes ago, Demonland said:

?

That is condemning vision - hadn't seen that in mainstream media.

He lined him up from a fair way out, picked up speed as he got closer then lunged at Kelly, deliberately!.  He clearly had the option to tackle.  Chose not to.  So much for his defence of split second decision making.  He had plenty of time (10 steps) to assess the options.

Kelly was following his line and at no time deviated toward Danger nor used his body in any sort of attacking or blocking motion.   Can't see any evidence of the need for self defence.

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is condemning vision - hadn't seen that in mainstream media.

He lined him up from a fair way out, picked up speed as he got closer then lunged at Kelly, deliberately!.  He clearly had the option to tackle.  Chose not to.  So much for his defence of split second decision making.  He had plenty of time to assess the options.

Kelly was following his line and at no time deviated toward Danger nor used his body in any sort of attacking or blocking motion.   Can't see any evidence of the need for self defence.

Surely this evidence sinks any defence Dangerfield puts up. Must get 3 or more otherwise the whole system is a joke which we all know it already is.

6 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is condemning vision - hadn't seen that in mainstream media.

He lined him up from a fair way out, picked up speed as he got closer then lunged at Kelly, deliberately!.  He clearly had the option to tackle.  Chose not to.  So much for his defence of split second decision making.  He had plenty of time (10 steps) to assess the options.

Kelly was following his line and at no time deviated toward Danger nor used his body in any sort of attacking or blocking motion.   Can't see any evidence of the need for self defence.

Option 2. He could have tried to smother the hand pass release.

5 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Surely this evidence sinks any defence Dangerfield puts up. Must get 3 or more otherwise the whole system is a joke which we all know it already is.

All the stars are aligning for a fine and eligibilty for the Brownlow

23 minutes ago, Demonland said:

?

Yep, he accelerates into the contact. No apparent thought of smothering the handball.

A telling part of this episode happens seconds prior to the hit, if anyone can find the vision. Dangerfield is brought down in a vigorous tackle as he motors through the centre with the ball. As a result he was fired up and angry, and Kelly was the next target to present on his radar.

17 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Option 2. He could have tried to smother the hand pass release.

So in summary:

• Had 10 steps to assess options (2 - 3 seconds)
• Chose not to tackle
• Chose not to smother
• Chose to bump
• Picked up speed to reach Kelly
• Contact was late
• No evidence of self-defence

It is a compelling case to find him guilty.

There is no evidence to get him off - except for the AFL's 'secret herbs and spices. 

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

If he does get let off, rest assured the next Alex Neal Bullen type who does similar will get six weeks to make up for it.

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by america de cali

8 minutes ago, america de cali said:

If he does get let off, rest assured the next Alex Neal Bullen type who does similar will get six weeks to make up for it.

This. 

53 minutes ago, Demonland said:

?

That vision is even more damning!! Should get 8 weeks He instigated the contact. Actually make it 10 weeks 

54 minutes ago, Demonland said:

?

He had a choice to tackle... what a guy.