I'm looking forward to all the (up to) $20,000 fines for commenting on a matter before the tribunal. So far it's Danger, Sloane, Riciutto, and Scott. It's clear the AFL are deadset keen as mustard when it comes to enforcing their own rules.

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.

 

Add in that the AFL are already ducking and weaving re the CTE problems they have already. The only to stop these events is to suspend players for long periods. 3-4 weeks on this occasion will not cut it IMO. 8 weeks will start to change play actions and show the AFL is serious about CTE.

I'm sure it's been mentioned earlier in this thread but clearly a 3 week suspension would be ideal given we play them in round 4.

The other thing about this action by Dangerfield is that it was clearly “retributional” in that the ball and contest for the ball had left the area, and Dangerfield’s action was about intimidation and inflicting injury, NOT on competing for the ball. 

A low blow, with the same malice, intent and effect as a king hit behind play. Disguised as a last second boo boo...

He’s a thug, and weasel. 

 

7 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I'm sure it's been mentioned earlier in this thread but clearly a 3 week suspension would be ideal given we play them in round 4.

Handy indeed! Especially adding in Cameron and Menangola potentially 

18 hours ago, Demonland said:

?

He lined him up...

knew exactly what he was doing

56 minutes ago, loges said:

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

In terms of action: the same bump but with a shoulder or elbow straight through the head. 
 

In terms of outcome: neck or facial fractures 

Concussions and broken noses are pretty standard footy injuries. Obviously all attempts should be made to prevent them but alone they aren’t severe. 

39 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

The other thing about this action by Dangerfield is that it was clearly “retributional” in that the ball and contest for the ball had left the area, and Dangerfield’s action was about intimidation and inflicting injury, NOT on competing for the ball. 

A low blow, with the same malice, intent and effect as a king hit behind play. Disguised as a last second boo boo...

He’s a thug, and weasel. 

 

You must really hate Pickett and May if you think this about Danger. 

I think it is unfair to say he lined Kelly up.. yes he ran at him, but his first intention would have been to tackle, then when the ball left the area, he decided he couldn’t tackle- so elected to bump. That was his error. 

Does he deserve a suspension, under the rules, yes he does. But not sure he was malicious. 

40 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

The other thing about this action by Dangerfield is that it was clearly “retributional” in that the ball and contest for the ball had left the area, and Dangerfield’s action was about intimidation and inflicting injury, NOT on competing for the ball. 

A low blow, with the same malice, intent and effect as a king hit behind play. Disguised as a last second boo boo...

He’s a thug, and weasel. 

 

i agree

i thought dangerfield executed the bump with a fair degree of malice, driving in hard, leaning forward, and intended to knock kelly into next week. no doubt he was motivated by the crows giving the cats a lesson and wanting to "make a statement" to lift his side

i'd also point out that it was not a classic side-on shoulder to shoulder bump. danger was actually in front of kelly and coming in on an angle (see overhead video shot shown earlier) such that the impact was not to kelly's shoulder but his right hand chest area  increasing the odds of a head hit and why his nose was broken rather than his ear squished.

all this and being late and hitting player clearly after disposal and defenceless

danger's claim that he bumped with a duty of care to kelly is just laughable

6 minutes ago, SPC said:

I think it is unfair to say he lined Kelly up.. yes he ran at him, but his first intention would have been to tackle, then when the ball left the area, he decided he couldn’t tackle- so elected to bump. That was his error. 

Does he deserve a suspension, under the rules, yes he does. But not sure he was malicious. 

Not unfair at all, he lined him up and executed 

Watch the wide shot video

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

...

i'd also point out that it was not a classic side-on shoulder to shoulder bump. danger was actually in front of kelly and coming in on an angle (see overhead video shot shown earlier) such that the impact was not to kelly's shoulder but his right hand chest area  increasing the odds of a head hit and why his nose was broken rather than his ear squished.

....

Those defending the action as a reasonable bump with an unlikely/unlucky outcome should reflect on the above.

The most important thing you are all forgetting is that this is Dangerfield, and he plays for Geelong.

Protected species down there lads, he will get off on some sort of technicality, cant have the "Golden Boy" not playing.

Shouldnt be play now anyway after what he did in the GF last year. 

 

16 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not unfair at all, he lined him up and executed 

Watch the wide shot video

I agree, he runs at him, but I don’t believe his original intention was the bump. 

Just now, SPC said:

I agree, he runs at him, but I don’t believe his original intention was the bump. 

He wasn’t going to get the ball, he was too far away. 
he was angry after the previous play

He went straight at him with full force

4 hours ago, DubDee said:

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

I saw no element of concern or care for Kelly in anything Sloane or Ricciuto said. 

They could have simply said - it is up to the Tribunal - our focus is on Jake's welfare and recovery.

Or just:  'no comment'.

Edited March 23, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

49 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

You must really hate Pickett and May if you think this about Danger. 

Huh? 
please explain..?

I think the comments from Ricciuto and Sloane are all part of the culture of bravado and the code whereby players never call for other players to be suspended for bumps and similar. It’s a wonder Kelly himself hasn’t been rolled out to say Danger shouldn’t be suspended.

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I'm sure it's been mentioned earlier in this thread but clearly a 3 week suspension would be ideal given we play them in round 4.

 

But I wanna see Jack Viney iron him out

6 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

I think the comments from Ricciuto and Sloane are all part of the culture of bravado and the code whereby players never call for other players to be suspended for bumps and similar. It’s a wonder Kelly himself hasn’t been rolled out to say Danger shouldn’t be suspended.

“Yea nah evryfing is fine maaaatteee, just part of the game.”

 

1 hour ago, PaulRB said:

Huh? 
please explain..?

2 players who enjoy aggression and rightly so. May’s crossed the line before, Kozzie’s game is built on getting to that line, hunting down opponents and crunching them. 

Danger’s overwhelmingly a ball player. It’s silly to compare a bump that wasn’t even deliberately high to a king hit off the ball. If he wanted to hammer him he would’ve used his shoulder not his own head.  

Yeah it was aggressive and fast, it’s AFL footy, it’s always aggressive and fast. 
 

 

6 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

2 players who enjoy aggression and rightly so. May’s crossed the line before, Kozzie’s game is built on getting to that line, hunting down opponents and crunching them. 

Danger’s overwhelmingly a ball player. It’s silly to compare a bump that wasn’t even deliberately high to a king hit off the ball. If he wanted to hammer him he would’ve used his shoulder not his own head.  

Yeah it was aggressive and fast, it’s AFL footy, it’s always aggressive and fast. 
 

 

I’m a fan of aggressive play, body work, etc in the contest to win the ball. However, if they breach the rules of this contest (ie hit them high) and hurt the player in the process, they’ve breached their duty of care and should be suspended. 
In addition, I Totally disagree that collecting players after they’ve cleared the ball is ok, and if the players been hurt (especially concussed) under this scenario, the AFL should throw the book at the offending player. I.e. Dangerfield. 

Edited March 23, 20214 yr by PaulRB

1 minute ago, PaulRB said:

I’m a fan of aggressive play, body work, etc in the contest to win the ball. However, if they hurt the player in the process, they’ve breached their duty of care and should be suspended. 
In addition, I Totally disagree that collecting players after they’ve cleared the ball is ok, and if the players been hurt (especially concussed) under this scenario, the AFL should throw the book at the offending player. I.e. Dangerfield. 

Yes

Patrick had no chance of getting possession of the ball, he was angry ? 

Even this deer avoided collision.

From the threads and other media, it seems there is no grey area, it is or it isn't a malicious attack. 

One lot see the bump, using controlled aggression, part of the game. Though concede the rules stipulate that there will be a mandatory suspension, based on the outcome.

The other see it as an aggressive act that shouldn't be tolerated, especially when performed with undue care to the recipient.

I  believe they should do all in their power to protect the players brain.

The game is in trouble when there are so many opposite views of the incident.

It is very difficult to protect the players from themselves.

Seems, head trauma will remain a problem into the foreseeable future. We need to change the culture of old school, aggressiveness. 

Hoping soon we unite and see that controlled incidences that cause a hit to the head, should not be part of the game.

The tribunal and administration will be dammed with whatever the decision is.

Hope in the future we can get on the same page.

 

Edited March 23, 20214 yr by kev martin