MRP / Trib. 2024 MRO & Tribunal discussion

[Munich]

Really....and I've travelled extensively across nearly every state and territory, even the Outback.

Go figure.

Where do you live?

 

[Cataholic]

Game isn't dead yet!

This!

Sure, Danger wins, but the biggest winner is the game itself.

 

[cats_09]

Really? Schnitz is everywhere

There's 3 in the Geelong region alone

It's such a commonly known place in Vic, that it seems weird that it's not necessarily a nation wide place

 

[catempire]

Game isn't dead yet!

This would have to be one of the best tribunal decisions in recent memory for the spirit of the game. Bravo.

 

[Cataholic]

Where do you live?

I have followed work over a good cross-section of Oz. Even worked in remote indigenous communities.

In Tas atm....

 

[STPer18]

Tribunal reasons:


Dangerfield pinned both of Walsh's arms and the forward momentum of both players contributed to Walsh's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Dangerfield conceded that he did not release either arm throughout the tackle, and that he could’ve done so.

The pinned arms placed Walsh in a vulnerable position with little, if any, opportunity to protect himself from having his head hit the ground.

It will be a rare, even exceptional case where a player who tackles with significant forward motion, who pins both arms and who could have but does not release one or both arms will not have engaged in rough conduct. This is such a case.

Although not immediately apparent and not truly apparent until all angles and vision and still shots had been carefully considered, the evidence is clear here Dangerfield immediately swung his legs beside and forward of Walsh, and pulled back with considerable force to attempt to prevent Walsh being driven into the ground.

Vision shows Dangerfield managed to pull him back so that at one point Walsh's torso was almost vertical.

Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.

The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so.

From the considerable care that Dangerfield went to in a short space of time in a fast moving piece of play to do what he could to avoid or minimise injury to his fellow player, we find that this was not rough conduct.

 

[Munich]

There's 3 in the Geelong region alone

It's such a commonly known place in Vic, that it seems weird that it's not necessarily a nation wide place

That's actually a lot, unless you're including the coast?

 

[CHAWKTS]

Queue to melts right over the whole of AFL media

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Not heard of it either, but I guarantee I'll crack the schnitz if they uphold the ban.

Boom! Boom!

 

[CHAWKTS]

Tribunal reasons:


Dangerfield pinned both of Walsh's arms and the forward momentum of both players contributed to Walsh's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Dangerfield conceded that he did not release either arm throughout the tackle, and that he could’ve done so.

The pinned arms placed Walsh in a vulnerable position with little, if any, opportunity to protect himself from having his head hit the ground.

It will be a rare, even exceptional case where a player who tackles with significant forward motion, who pins both arms and who could have but does not release one or both arms will not have engaged in rough conduct. This is such a case.

Although not immediately apparent and not truly apparent until all angles and vision and still shots had been carefully considered, the evidence is clear here Dangerfield immediately swung his legs beside and forward of Walsh, and pulled back with considerable force to attempt to prevent Walsh being driven into the ground.

Vision shows Dangerfield managed to pull him back so that at one point Walsh's torso was almost vertical.

Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.

The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so.

From the considerable care that Dangerfield went to in a short space of time in a fast moving piece of play to do what he could to avoid or minimise injury to his fellow player, we find that this was not rough conduct.

Expect AFL to appeal on the basis that it makes too much sense to truely reflect the current state of the game

 

[Zouz Kitty]

 

[catempire]

Tribunal reasons:


Dangerfield pinned both of Walsh's arms and the forward momentum of both players contributed to Walsh's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Dangerfield conceded that he did not release either arm throughout the tackle, and that he could’ve done so.

The pinned arms placed Walsh in a vulnerable position with little, if any, opportunity to protect himself from having his head hit the ground.

It will be a rare, even exceptional case where a player who tackles with significant forward motion, who pins both arms and who could have but does not release one or both arms will not have engaged in rough conduct. This is such a case.

Although not immediately apparent and not truly apparent until all angles and vision and still shots had been carefully considered, the evidence is clear here Dangerfield immediately swung his legs beside and forward of Walsh, and pulled back with considerable force to attempt to prevent Walsh being driven into the ground.

Vision shows Dangerfield managed to pull him back so that at one point Walsh's torso was almost vertical.

Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.

The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so.

From the considerable care that Dangerfield went to in a short space of time in a fast moving piece of play to do what he could to avoid or minimise injury to his fellow player, we find that this was not rough conduct.

I still think the reasons are wrong. If you tackle someone who has forward momentum it shouldn’t be up to you to reverse that momentum and save their head. As long as you don’t contribute to or exacerbate forceful head contact you should be clear.

 

[Cataholic]

Tribunal reasons:


Dangerfield pinned both of Walsh's arms and the forward momentum of both players contributed to Walsh's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Dangerfield conceded that he did not release either arm throughout the tackle, and that he could’ve done so.

The pinned arms placed Walsh in a vulnerable position with little, if any, opportunity to protect himself from having his head hit the ground.

It will be a rare, even exceptional case where a player who tackles with significant forward motion, who pins both arms and who could have but does not release one or both arms will not have engaged in rough conduct. This is such a case.

Although not immediately apparent and not truly apparent until all angles and vision and still shots had been carefully considered, the evidence is clear here Dangerfield immediately swung his legs beside and forward of Walsh, and pulled back with considerable force to attempt to prevent Walsh being driven into the ground.

Vision shows Dangerfield managed to pull him back so that at one point Walsh's torso was almost vertical.

Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.

The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so.

From the considerable care that Dangerfield went to in a short space of time in a fast moving piece of play to do what he could to avoid or minimise injury to his fellow player, we find that this was not rough conduct.

Commonsense judgement.

The last paragraph hits the nail on the head.....well, actually, best it doesn't cos we don't want the nail being concussed now do we, but you get my point

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Really? Schnitz is everywhere

Only Sydney, NSW South Coast + Hunter Valley, will take 10 years to get to New England

Had my first parmi in Victoria, took two years to hit pubs here

We're more into gourmet food here

 

[Cataholic]

I still think the reasons are wrong. If you tackle someone who has forward momentum it shouldn’t be up to you to reverse that momentum and save their head. As long as you don’t contribute to or exacerbate forceful head contact you should be clear.

Agreed, but the AFL has deemed all the onus to avoid head contact as being on the tacklers.

If there's head contact the tackler is immediately guilty in their eyes.

That's why it was important for the game that Danger was cleared tonight.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

There's 3 in the Geelong region alone

It's such a commonly known place in Vic, that it seems weird that it's not necessarily a nation wide place

Schnitzel is one of my favourites, I'm very disappointed

 

[unfollowed]

So, still a better than average chance for his 2nd Chas. I like those odds.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Queue to melts right over the whole of AFL media

Twitter is about to explode

 

[cats_09]

Twitter is about to explode

Doubt it

There was a lot more support for Dangerfield being cleared compared with the 1 game suspension the MRO gave him

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Dangerfield won't be getting this reduced. I think they've already given him the good bloke (and AFLPA President) reduction when they graded it 1 week. Initial thoughts was 2-3 when it happened.

Yeah good onya Mate

 

[Footy Smarts]

The people going around saying "but he pinned his arms" are so stupid. Every tackle attempts to pin the arms.

The issue is pinning the arms and then actively driving it slinging the player into the ground. Clearly Danger tried not to do that.

 

[Orange crush]

This would have to be one of the best tribunal decisions in recent memory for the spirit of the game. Bravo.

This one and Hogan being cleared for whacking that Carlton sook in the mouth

 

[STPer18]

whacking that Carlton sook in the mouth

No one should ever be reprimanded for that level of community service.

 

[Play it Sam]

Here's a Zero hanger precis (a bit shorter than fox) of Danger going apeshit on their asses.

Love your work Patrick.

AFL Tribunal: Geelong captain Patrick Dangerfield learns fate for dangerous tackle

The Cats skipper fronted the Tribunal on Tuesday night.

www.zerohanger.com

 

[unfollowed]

My little brother is an Essendon supporter and I’m really very touched about how genuinely happy he sounds over this decision.