3 minutes ago, picket fence said:

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

Yes, that vision is damning!

The side-on also shows acceleration, drive off right leg to enact a slight change in direction, and feet actually off the ground even though body remains low  -  the more I look at it, the more it's a deliberate spear on an unprepared player without the ball

16 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

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

We cross now to Tribunal Chairman David Jones relaxing in a green chesterfield chair in his wood-panelled study, drumming his fingertips together and cackling softly to himself.

Watch Dangerfield get 2 weeks for this and then May next week will get 4 weeks for the same if not lesser bump. The tribunal have been put on the spot with this; Danger chose to bump, the player is badly concussed, but he's a star of the game and is seen as a "good guy". 3 weeks is right, 4 weeks sends a message, I can really see the tribunal rolling over for 2 weeks.

I think it is a bigger picture than suspension,

If Kelly develops any brain injury further down the track, he should be able to sue both the AFL and Danger.

Make the head sacrosanct. 

Middle and older ages are great to live. He shouldn't be denied that because of the actions of Danger.

 

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by kev martin

Anyone else think it is very poor for Adelaide Crows Director (and good mate of Dangerfield) Mark Ricutto to come out and support Danger over the welfare of one of his own very young players.  What message is that sending to his club and parents of current and future players.

"Adelaide legend Mark Ricciuto believes Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield shouldn’t be suspended for longer than one game for an incident of “bad luck” with Crows defender Jake Kelly"

-mark-ricciuto-comments-how-many-weeks-tribunal-hearing-jake-kelly

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

1 hour ago, america de cali said:

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

make that option 1 and i'd agree

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Anyone else think it is very poor for Adelaide Crows Director (and good mate of Dangerfield) Mark Ricutto to come out and support Danger over the welfare of one of his own very young players.  What message is that sending to his club and parents of current and future players.

"Adelaide legend Mark Ricciuto believes Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield shouldn’t be suspended for longer than one game for an incident of “bad luck” with Crows defender Jake Kelly"

-mark-ricciuto-comments-how-many-weeks-tribunal-hearing-jake-kelly

Where was Nibbler's "bad luck"? A tackle, a legal execution of a skill of the game ended with bad luck where the victim hit his head on the ground. No instead the Adelaide medical staff threw Nibbler under the bus.

That's disgraceful from Ricciuto and a clear star player bias.

So honestly folks - if it was Oliver in Dangers shows, how long would you think he should get for This? an accidental head clash  

if the shoulder hits the head, throw the book but this is a head clash. I think zero weeks or 1 week max. 

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

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. 

But isn’t it legal to bump a player shoulder to shoulder? Forgive my naivity here, not my wheelhouse.
So he is not guilty of the act, just the outcome as they incidentally clashed heads?

Edited March 22, 20214 yr by DubDee
Can’t spell

12 minutes ago, DubDee said:

So honestly folks - if it was Oliver in Dangers shows, how long would you think he should get for This? an accidental head clash  

if the shoulder hits the head, throw the book but this is a head clash. I think zero weeks or 1 week max. 

 

 

 

Fair Bump.  Play on.

8 minutes ago, DubDee said:

So he is not guilty of the act, just the outcome as they incidentally clashed heads?

The AFL has been punishing outcomes over acts for 5 years or so now... (except when they don't for a protected species)

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

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. 

He had no option to tackle - the ball was gone. And no option to smother - the video shrinks distance down, he wasn't realistically going to smother a handball. 

Nor did he have 10 steps to decide what to do. He's corralling and protecting the corridor, likely thinking a tackle is the option until Kelly goes to handball, in which case at the last minute he bumps to stop Kelly's run.

It's a late bump that's unfortunate and shouldn't have been so forceful. If you're going to check a guys run you can do that just by blocking the space in front of them. 

He bumped and it went wrong, that's about all that the video shows. There doesn't need to be extra sinister motivations added to it.

44 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

He had no option to tackle - the ball was gone. And no option to smother - the video shrinks distance down, he wasn't realistically going to smother a handball. 

Nor did he have 10 steps to decide what to do. He's corralling and protecting the corridor, likely thinking a tackle is the option until Kelly goes to handball, in which case at the last minute he bumps to stop Kelly's run.

It's a late bump that's unfortunate and shouldn't have been so forceful. If you're going to check a guys run you can do that just by blocking the space in front of them. 

He bumped and it went wrong, that's about all that the video shows. There doesn't need to be extra sinister motivations added to it.

He charged Kelly like bull to a red rag. To the letter of the law still worth 3 weeks suspension despite your opinion. 

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

So honestly folks - if it was Oliver in Dangers shows, how long would you think he should get for This? an accidental head clash  

if the shoulder hits the head, throw the book but this is a head clash. I think zero weeks or 1 week max. 

Pretty sure that says it all. Oliver wouldn't be in his shoes, Oliver is a tackler and a fierce one like Viney. I've seen many more instances where Danger tries to line someone up for the big bump that leaves the oppo player "dazzed".

27 minutes ago, america de cali said:

He charged Kelly like bull to a red rag. To the letter of the law still worth 3 weeks suspension despite your opinion. 

If they say severe impact it's 3. Personally I'd call it high impact and leave severe for more forceful collisions and worse injuries, but whatever. 

I don't think he charged Kelly. He's running slower than the Adelaide player who receives the handball. He really is surveying his options until the last couple of steps.

Every coach in the league would want their players to do exactly what Danger did until the last 2 steps. Which is where he should've slowed up, followed the ball and if possibly checked Kelly's run rather than barreling in to him.

Making it sound like it's the 1980's and he's running off the square doesn't help anyone. It's irrelevant to the suspension because bumps are never graded as intentional. But the idea that Dangerfield is some kind of sniper is crazy. 

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

But isn’t it legal to bump a player shoulder to shoulder? Forgive my naivity here, not my wheelhouse.
So he is not guilty of the act, just the outcome as they incidentally clashed heads?

No, some people are missing the fact that the Crows player had handpassed the ball. Dangerfield was late, the ball was gone. If he still had the ball at impact it becomes a different argument. He was concentrating on giving off a handball and was open when Dangerfield cleaned him up. Late. He has to take responsibility for that. It moves from accidental, towards it being a vicious act. You can argue that its not in Dangerfields nature but he chose to do it and didn't execute within the rules of the game. He has to take responsibility for that. 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

He had no option to tackle - the ball was gone. And no option to smother - the video shrinks distance down, he wasn't realistically going to smother a handball. 

Nor did he have 10 steps to decide what to do. He's corralling and protecting the corridor, likely thinking a tackle is the option until Kelly goes to handball, in which case at the last minute he bumps to stop Kelly's run.

It's a late bump that's unfortunate and shouldn't have been so forceful. If you're going to check a guys run you can do that just by blocking the space in front of them. 

He bumped and it went wrong, that's about all that the video shows. There doesn't need to be extra sinister motivations added to it.

He had no legal option full stop, he was getting to the play late and so whatever action he was doing it was going to cause a free-kick. I don't think there was malic in it but it wasn't a slow-down bracing contact, it was a bump which he chose to enact. The AFL made a ruling years ago that choosing to bump and causing head high contact regardless of it being intentional or malicious was going to earn you weeks on the sidelines, and they have a long history (with us) of punishing the result not the intent.

If they are to be consistent then he should be gone to 2-3 weeks. Perhaps his good record gives him the benefit of a week, but to make it clear to the competition that they're taking concussions seriously I think 3 weeks is right.

Sloane, another Dangerfield great mate but also Kelly's captain is saying Kelly "... ran into a guy with a rock-hard melon. I've ran into that bloke, Danger, a couple of times and you certainly do come off second best normally."

I wouldn't be too happy if my captain said it was my fault after the injuries I sustained.  It is salt into the wound after Ricutto yesterday said it was 'bad luck'.

Isn't Kelly's father Craig Kelly, a senior AFL Player Manager.  I wounder if we will hear from him. 

tbh I find it quite unsavoury that Ricutto and Sloane are batting for a mate rather than one of their own kids.  imv if they can't support Kelly they should  keep quiet and stay out of it.

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Sloane, another Dangerfield great mate but also Kelly's captain is saying Kelly "... ran into a guy with a rock-hard melon. I've ran into that bloke, Danger, a couple of times and you certainly do come off second best normally."

I wouldn't be too happy if my captain said it was my fault after the injuries I sustained.  It is salt into the wound after Ricutto yesterday said it was 'bad luck'.

Isn't Kelly's father Craig Kelly, a senior AFL Player Manager.  I wounder if we will hear from him. 

tbh I find it quite unsavoury that Ricutto and Sloane are batting for a mate rather than one of their own kids.  imv if they can't support Kelly they should  keep quiet and stay out of it.

They would have been asked what they think about Danger potentially getting three plus weeks for an accidental head clash and are giving their opinion. An opinion I share.

It doesn’t mean they don’t care for their teammate

12 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

He had no option to tackle - the ball was gone. And no option to smother - the video shrinks distance down, he wasn't realistically going to smother a handball. 

Nor did he have 10 steps to decide what to do. He's corralling and protecting the corridor, likely thinking a tackle is the option until Kelly goes to handball, in which case at the last minute he bumps to stop Kelly's run.

It's a late bump that's unfortunate and shouldn't have been so forceful. If you're going to check a guys run you can do that just by blocking the space in front of them. 

He bumped and it went wrong, that's about all that the video shows. There doesn't need to be extra sinister motivations added to it.

You tackle or corral using your arms, not your arm tucked in for a shoulder charge.

13 hours ago, DubDee said:

But isn’t it legal to bump a player shoulder to shoulder? Forgive my naivity here, not my wheelhouse.
So he is not guilty of the act, just the outcome as they incidentally clashed heads?

The guy had gotten rid of the ball and was looking downfield.

Danger came in from the side. He could have grabbed him, pushed him or done nothing as he didn't have the ball and wasn't expecting blind side contact.

Danger chose to bump. The one thing he shouldn't have done.

He broke the guys nose and knocked him out.

Graded as severe, as that is the only one available with those injuries.

Yes, the head bump was probably accidental, however that is exactly what they are trying to stop.

Danger knows that better than any other player,  as President of the Player's association.

They have been told countless times, bump and you are responsible for any head knock, deliberate or accidental.

No excuse whatsoever under the rules.

All hell will break out if he doesn't get the right whack, minimum 3 weeks.

ANB got 4 weeks in a 17 game season for swinging a player to the ground with one arm held. That player got concussed mildly.

This is a far worse injury, from an act that the AFL is telling players to avoid if possible.

Watch 60 minutes last sunday on CTE deaths and suicides.

 

12 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

If they say severe impact it's 3. Personally I'd call it high impact and leave severe for more forceful collisions and worse injuries, but whatever. 

I don't think he charged Kelly. He's running slower than the Adelaide player who receives the handball. He really is surveying his options until the last couple of steps.

Every coach in the league would want their players to do exactly what Danger did until the last 2 steps. Which is where he should've slowed up, followed the ball and if possibly checked Kelly's run rather than barreling in to him.

Making it sound like it's the 1980's and he's running off the square doesn't help anyone. It's irrelevant to the suspension because bumps are never graded as intentional. But the idea that Dangerfield is some kind of sniper is crazy. 

Honestly DS I shudder to think what type of impact you think is necessary to rate as severe.

I’ve never seen a player do so many media spots declaring his innocence or have so many public opportunities provided for him to plead his case.

Talk about a rigged system. Should give him an extra week for actively trying to subvert the conversation prior to the hearing.

Might be a decent player on the park but total FIGJAM [censored] off it

5 minutes ago, Kiss of Death said:

I’ve never seen a player do so many media spots declaring his innocence or have so many public opportunities provided for him to plead his case.

Talk about a rigged system. Should give him an extra week for actively trying to subvert the conversation prior to the hearing.

Might be a decent player on the park but total FIGJAM [censored] off it

Cats modus operandi. Scott always comments before the Tribunal.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

The guy had gotten rid of the ball and was looking downfield.

Danger came in from the side. He could have grabbed him, pushed him or done nothing as he didn't have the ball and wasn't expecting blind side contact.

Danger chose to bump. The one thing he shouldn't have done.

He broke the guys nose and knocked him out.

Graded as severe, as that is the only one available with those injuries.

Yes, the head bump was probably accidental, however that is exactly what they are trying to stop.

Danger knows that better than any other player,  as President of the Player's association.

They have been told countless times, bump and you are responsible for any head knock, deliberate or accidental.

No excuse whatsoever under the rules.

All hell will break out if he doesn't get the right whack, minimum 3 weeks.

ANB got 4 weeks in a 17 game season for swinging a player to the ground with one arm held. That player got concussed mildly.

This is a far worse injury, from an act that the AFL is telling players to avoid if possible.

Watch 60 minutes last sunday on CTE deaths and suicides.

 

Thanks for your perspective 

sounds from the above that the bump is gone from the game. Who would bump when unintended consequences can get you multiple weeks even when the bump is executed correctly