Scotty's Bro, from the Bombers, ex AFL Official, has no problem with Mister Dangerf. escaping suspension. 

Sure, let's focus on May's Academy nomination, and accept that if  Geelong, Carlton, or Collingwood player commits a crime, why, ipso facto, they must be innocent.

Read this in relation to my post about the Real state of the Game...

So if Dangerfield is innocent, shouldn’t Walsh be cited for ‘acting’ ?

8 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Scotty's Bro, from the Bombers, ex AFL Official, has no problem with Mister Dangerf. escaping suspension. 

Sure, let's focus on May's Academy nomination, and accept that if  Geelong, Carlton, or Collingwood player commits a crime, why, ipso facto, they must be innocent.

Read this in relation to my post about the Real state of the Game...

I distinctly remember players being given a week(s) years ago on the grounds that ‘both arms were pinned’ and therefore players can’t protect their heads from hitting the ground. So it’s a ‘dangerous tackle’ categorically and one in which the AFL was super keen to get rid of because:

The tackler has to take the health and safety on board of the oppo player. 
 

But maybe only danger can do dangerous tackles. 
 

No consistency yet again.

The problem is that the AFL did actually suspend the bloke. The tribunal is seemingly very easily swayed by the better players in our game.

The AFL does also sometimes seem to operate like a bush league when it comes to punishments. They always make a scapegoat out of a lesser player or smaller club (ie Nibbler 4 weeks for a sling tackle) and usually find a way to get their golden boys at Collingwood/Carlton/Richmond off.

This thread prompted me to watch something I would have had no interest in otherwise.

My observations are:

1. The Essendon player hit his head on the ground as a result of the forward momentum of the passage of play; and,

2. The Geelong player endeavoured to arrest the momentum and hold the Essendon player up.

I'm prepared to suspend my conspiracy theory tendency. On this one.

1 minute ago, BoBo said:

I distinctly remember players being given a week(s) years ago on the grounds that ‘both arms were pinned’ and therefore players can’t protect their heads from hitting the ground. So it’s a ‘dangerous tackle’ categorically and one in which the AFL was super keen to get rid of because:

The tackler has to take the health and safety on board of the oppo player. 
 

But maybe only danger can do dangerous tackles. 
 

No consistency yet again.

'Dangerous tackle' is often heard in the umpires' mics as the reason for a free kick. Is it a basis for a financial or games penalty, however, without other criteria being met?

Turn it up. Absolutely no case to answer. What else could he have done? 

1 minute ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

'Dangerous tackle' is often heard in the umpires' mics as the reason for a free kick. Is it a basis for a financial or games penalty, however, without other criteria being met?

I was going to write a whole thing to respond but I worked 13 hours today and I’m stuffed. Dangerous tackles are a category for suspension as far as I know (could be wrong).
 

I don’t reckon Danger has a case to answer to be honest, but I’d bet a lot of money, that if this was a no-name player from say, St Kilda, that this 1 week suspension would be upheld. If nothing else, to show as an example. 
 

It isn’t the rules I have a problem with, it’s the inconsistency of application. 

43 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

This thread prompted me to watch something I would have had no interest in otherwise.

My observations are:

1. The Essendon player hit his head on the ground as a result of the forward momentum of the passage of play; and,

2. The Geelong player endeavoured to arrest the momentum and hold the Essendon player up.

I'm prepared to suspend my conspiracy theory tendency. On this one.

While I'd concur with both your points here (though Kynan Brown showed that it is possible to do more to avoid a player pitching forward in a not dissimilar tackle), the compelling element for me was that Dangerfield locked both of the player's arms, so he couldn't protect himself from that forward momentum towards the ground.

No way should Danger have been suspended

10 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

No way should Danger have been suspended

If I was arguing the AFL case at the Tribunal I would have showed the footage of a first gamer's tackle in the same round. Kynan Brown takes a bigger man down in a textbook tackle (pulling him back so there was no risk of the tackled player's head making contact with the turf). He showed a duty of care - and  received the free kick. That was the option open to Dangerfield, an experienced player, that he did not take.

We could debate this forever. My ten cents worth? Right call in the end.

1 hour ago, Phil C said:

Turn it up. Absolutely no case to answer. What else could he have done? 

1. Held him up in the first place. Danger swung his legs under Walsh and was lucky not to swing right through the back of his ankles and give him a 6 week high ankle sprain. But at that stage he put all his weight on to Walsh who was then buckled forward. Chris Scott even said a few weeks ago he's telling players not take guys to the ground, why did Danger not heed that warning?

2. Turned him. This is the big one. Any time you tackle a player from behind in a chase down scenario you try to turn them side on so they land on their hips and shoulders.

3. Released him when it became inevitable that Walsh was going to fall forward and land at least part of his body face first in to the ground.

This was a very ordinary tackle that's been reframed by people in the media saying things like 'what else could he have done' and 'he held him up' when the actual biomechanics of the tackle aren't true at all.

Meanwhile Jack Higgins got 3 weeks for a gentle pull on Aliir's arm.

 

if this isn’t a suspension i don’t know what is 

head smashed on the ground, arms pinned

staggering he got off

Turn it up

Kade Chandler copped 2 weeks vs the Weagles for similar

Lol nothing in it.

11 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

This thread prompted me to watch something I would have had no interest in otherwise.

My observations are:

1. The Essendon player hit his head on the ground as a result of the forward momentum of the passage of play; and,

2. The Geelong player endeavoured to arrest the momentum and hold the Essendon player up.

I'm prepared to suspend my conspiracy theory tendency. On this one.

I thought he would get off and he did actually try to stop Walsh hitting the ground,  rather than driving him into the ground.

I think it is a fair call.

Agree with you, except he was a Carlton player.

4 hours ago, HarpenDee said:

Kade Chandler copped 2 weeks vs the Weagles for similar

It was different in that Kade drove him forward in the tackle, into the ground.

Kade's tackle could have been called perfect except, for the AFL wanting to stamp out head injuries.

Kade was very unlucky, but as a player from a smaller club and thereby using us to set the example, he was the guinea pig.