Dangerfield on Kelly

[Shadow89]

I love that Danger's also being crucified, when Kelly is actually a good mate of his (no-one of course has mentioned this, because the main board is just a place that people air their grievances/bias against a certain player because they dislike certain players and see an opportunity to drive the nail in):

Crows great Mark Ricciuto backs Patrick Dangerfield as AFL Tribunal date looms for brutal bump

‘Don’t agree with this at all’: Crows footy director defends Dangerfield over ‘bad luck’ bump

www.foxsports.com.au

“I think it’s important to note that those two are really good mates. Things happen on the football field. I am pretty sure Patrick, there wasn’t any malice or malicious intent in the action as such but there was head contact and the laws are clear around that.

“The AFL or the tribunal have a decision to make. Good mates who met each other on the football field, Patrick’s actions were understandable because you want to put pressure on a player but there was a head clash and there were repercussions from that, so I suppose we all sit and watch for the tribunal to validate the laws that have been put in place and to what level.”

***********************************************

Don't let the outrage get in the way of actual reasoned, impartial thinking, hey. Deserves two or 3 weeks by the letter of the law and the grading, but the lynch mob in here commenting how Danger is 'such a flog', aren't really doing themselves any favours when it comes to making any sort of point. You may think he's a flog, it doesn't mean his action weren't reasonable/unreasonable given the circumstances - as his persona is not relevant when it comes to the incident/his intent behind the action.

 

[Shadow89]

Pity Kelly didn't destroy Dangerfield's manhood while he had the chance.

Classy.

 

[Seeds]

For the billionth time, you cant have an 'accidental head clash' when you elect to bump a player.

If you elect to bump another player, and are careless enough that your head canons into theirs, its rough conduct.

They can say that in the rules all they want. But it’s still an accident. the law can’t change human intention.


the afl wants to ban the bump cos of concerns about head injuries but they know the backlash will be too big so they simply don’t and write ridiculous rules that claim a persons intention is different from what it actually is.

they need to grow some balls and just ban the bump and deal with the backlash. The current law is unjust.

 

[BF Tiger]

Because it was not just that incident that saw him miss the Brownlow (ineligible or otherwise), it was also a 32 disposal (24 contested possessions), 12 clearance, 2 goal performance, with him kicking the match winning goal when the contest was on a knife's edge. Didn't even get one vote, which basically showed that the AFL didn't want to get their hands dirty once he'd already became ineligible - so the umpires glossed over what would be a 3 vote performance for any player on any day. Whether or not you find the Kreuzer suspension fair is inconsequential - he still would have 'won' the Brownlow, albeit, been ineligible to receive it.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

"PATRICK Dangerfield was judged best afield against Collingwood in Round 22 by many astute judges.
But did the umpires ignore the star after he had already been deemed ineligible? Or perhaps they simply overlooked him.

Dustin Martin took out the 2017 Brownlow Medal and was a deserved and worthy winner.

However with Martin well clear of his eligible rivals in the final rounds, attention on Brownlow night quickly turned to whether the Tigers star would poll more than last year’s winner.


Dangerfield was ruled out of Brownlow calculations following an MRP ban from the Round 19 clash with Carlton.

Late in Monday’s count it looked as though Dangerfield might pip, or at least equal, Martin as he surged.


That day, in a lacklustre clash, the Cats champ gathered 32 disposals (24 contested), had 12 clearances, laid five tackles and booted 2.2 — including a long bomb from 55m in the final quarter — to help his side scrape home by 11 points.

But he failed to catch the attention of the umpires.


Dangerfield was awarded three votes by Herald Sun reporter Sam Edmund.

He was also predicted to receive maximum votes in the AFL’s official Brownlow tracker.

Notably, he was also awarded the maximum 10 votes from both Chris Scott and Nathan Buckley.

Umpires awarded Cat Mitch Duncan (32 disposals, five tackles and seven inside 50s) three votes, Sam Menegola two votes (28 disposals and two goals) and Pie Taylor Adams received one vote for his 26-possession, 12-tackle game.

After polling a record 35 votes to win last year’s Brownlow, Dangerfield on Monday night -became the first player to record 30 or more votes in consecutive seasons.

It was also the sixth straight season Dangerfield had polled 21 or more votes.

He averaged 30 disposals this season and kicked 38 goals from 21 games.
https://www.odds.com.au/odds/australian-rules/
Dangerfield polled votes in 13 games, including seven matches where he collected three votes.

He stormed home after recording just six votes to Round 8.

Martin admitted in his acceptance speech that it “would have been a bit awkward” if Dangerfield had polled more votes than him and there were some nervous moments late in the count that that could happen, but in the end there were sighs of relief all round as Martin saluted by three votes."

*****************

Dusty absolutely deserved the Brownlow, but eligible or ineligible, Danger deserved to receive 3 votes for that game (or even 1 vote if we're being completely honest) - which would have tied him with Dusty. I watched that game, and Danger literally dragged us back from the brink, while kicking the match winning goal. It was a 3 vote performance - as was agreed upon by the Brownlow predictor, both head coaches, most footy commentators, and pretty much most people within the footy community.

Nothing wrong with saying that the Kreuzer incident was justified, but it's not incorrect to state that Danger was best on ground in the aforementioned game, and was not acknowledged at all for it - which conveniently saved the AFL a lot of headaches after the fact.

The fact is he was eligible for votes and didn’t get any. You’re running with a whole lot of subjective opinions saying he should have got votes, but want to deny a whole lot of opinions saying he is a protected species, a flog and played dirty in this instance. Which way do you want it?

And I can argue Dusty should have got more votes in round 5 v Melbourne or round 20 v Hawthorn or round...

 

[Nostradumbass]

This is a very poor take by Danger and thought he was better than this. Kelly was disposing of the ball, why would Danger need to protect himself against him?

What an idiot.

 

[Cactus_]

I actually think Dangerfield should be fined for his comments today. He should not be publically pressuring the tribunal in that way. He is abusing his position of power to well be abusive really

10k fine if you ask me

I agree with this.

He’s basically trying to drum up some sympathy from the public in the hope that fans will pressure the tribunal on his behalf.

Hey Danger, how about you try a bit of sympathy for the bloke you concussed instead?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

FMD, don't feign shock and horror! Where did Dangerfield say anything about not giving a f#$% about head trauma?

PSA. Get out of here.
The morons baying for blood are out in force. Staggering lack of intelligence on display.

 

[Hoges64]

Lost some respect for Danger after his comments today

Lost some respect for Danger after his comments today

I like that you posted this twice, so I can like it twice.

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

 

[Del165198]

I agree with this.

He’s basically trying to drum up some sympathy from the public in the hope that fans will pressure the tribunal on his behalf.

Hey Danger, how about you try a bit of sympathy for the bloke you concussed instead?

His "good mate" that he left unconcious on the ground and jogged off, leaving another Geelong player to alert the umps

 

[Thedeftouch]

It appears that Dangerfield’s views regarding head injuries have changed since 2019....

“The Geelong star noted that some of the money from match review fines goes to concussion research. Dangerfield backs what the game is doing in terms of concussion, but added there was still plenty to learn about the issue.

“It’s a difficult one, because there’s only so much research that’s gone into it and there is still so much that’s unknown,” he said.

“We have to make sure as a code, as a players’ association, as clubs, that we’re providing the ultimate care for our players and making sure we take a no-risk approach. I’m confident the clubs, AFL and AFLPA are doing [that].

Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield happy to give brain to concussion research

Geelong star and AFLPA president Patrick Dangerfield said he would donate his brain for concussion research

www.theguardian.com

 

[Shadow89]

The fact is he was eligible for votes and didn’t get any. You’re running with a whole lot of subjective opinions saying he should have got votes, but want to deny a whole lot of opinions saying he is a protected species, a flog and played dirty in this instance. Which way do you want it?

And I can argue Dusty should have got more votes in round 5 v Melbourne or round 20 v Hawthorn or round...

How is it subjective opinion, when the only party that didn't see him as BOG, within the AFL that didn't agree he should have gotten max votes - or any votes for that matter - was the umpires themselves? It's not my opinion, it's a quoted source that I've provided.

The opinions of people on big footy or the cesspool of social media, do not even register, when compared with those of people who are actually involved with the game itself, and who are actually qualified to offer their reasoned evaluation - head coaches of the two teams playing being a key example. I provided you quotes and evidence as to why, you just said 'people think he's a flog' - that's not a substantiated argument lol.

I'm not getting into it though, because you're drawing a long bow with these arguments, and you're probably already wedded to your opinion/hate him as a person.

Catch.

 

[fairfooty]

I had no probs with Danger heading to the cattery - but I lost a lot of respect for him today. For opening his big mouth when his matter is in front of the Tribunal he should get an extra week. Idiot - never did learn to keep his trap shut.

 

[Wilbur23]

May as well just bump the ban now if accidental head to head contact is going to result in missing probably 3 or more matches. Then when a couple tackles result in accidental head to head contact we'll have to ban that too. I've seen accidental head on head contact in marking contests as well. Have to ban that as well. No guarantee going to tackle doesn't result in a head to head clash, so really, might need to change it to oztag style soon. Although I've seen an accidental head clash in oztag as well. What do we do ? Maybe covid is a sign. Stay 1.5 metres away from everyone on the field.

 

[Shadow89]

It appears that Dangerfield’s views regarding head injuries have changed since 2019....

“The Geelong star noted that some of the money from match review fines goes to concussion research. Dangerfield backs what the game is doing in terms of concussion, but added there was still plenty to learn about the issue.

“It’s a difficult one, because there’s only so much research that’s gone into it and there is still so much that’s unknown,” he said.

“We have to make sure as a code, as a players’ association, as clubs, that we’re providing the ultimate care for our players and making sure we take a no-risk approach. I’m confident the clubs, AFL and AFLPA are doing [that].

Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield happy to give brain to concussion research

Geelong star and AFLPA president Patrick Dangerfield said he would donate his brain for concussion research

www.theguardian.com

‘You have to look after yourself’: Danger claims he HAD TO bump ahead of AFL Tribunal showdown

‘You have to look after yourself’: Danger claims he HAD TO bump ahead of Tribunal showdown

www.foxsports.com.au

“It’s still a collision game,” the Brownlow Medallist said.

“I certainly appreciate and understand that looking after concussion and the head is extremely important.

“But as I said, you also have due diligence to protect yourself when you are in an environment and a game where you can collide with others … It’s a split moment decision to protect yourself with incoming opponents. That happens every week.”

The AFL updated its protocols regarding accidental head clashes after the 2018 season. Since then, any player who elects to bump has been deemed liable for injury caused, regardless of whether it’s a head clash or a shoulder to the head.

But Dangerfield’s answers on Tuesday indicate he will argue he never elected to bump and tucked his arm into his chest to protect himself in a split second decision.

“It’s a contact game but we also have to make sure we are looking after concussion and approaching that in the right way and respecting that,” he said.

“But it’s also a game that is played in 360 at high speed and it’s been a part of the game for a long period of time.”

******************************

... oh yeah he really doesn't care or address it at all, lol.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

Needs to go to jail.

 

[guruisatiger]

1 - VLAUSTIN
2- KELLY
3- ?????????

 

[Wilbur23]

Ridiculous. If this hadn't resulted in an injury or concussion, it wouldn't be anything. Players now need crystal balls before electing to do ANYTHING. Because accidental head clashes will always happen and can happen from anything in the game, be it bumps, tackles, marking contests etc. Let's just have all players on the field 1.5 metres from each other and play the game that way.

 

[Shadow89]

His "good mate" that he left unconcious on the ground and jogged off, leaving another Geelong player to alert the umps

Oh ok, so now he's not good mates with him. Pretty sure Ricciuto would know over you lol. Not to mention, it's pretty widely known that they're good mates.

But sure, let's just act like he's the worst person in the world - the outrage is so much easier than credible sources/reasoned opinion.

I remember when Sloane flattened Danger in the 2017 Prelim, he just jogged onto the next contest while the Adelaide crowd booed Danger as he lay on his back half out of it. But I guess Sloane hates Danger too and they're not best mates either.

 

[Wilbur23]

Goodbye to the Voss, Picketts etc of the game. Hello to tickle and pillow fights. Just give each player a pillow and be done with it. Tickle tackle can be the new tackle.

 

[Del165198]

Goodbye to the Voss, Picketts etc of the game. Hello to tickle and pillow fights. Just give each player a pillow and be done with it. Tickle tackle can be the new tackle.

People have said this every year for the last 20 years. You can still lay a good bump, just don't smash the head. Its that simple

 

[kingswood71]

They can say that in the rules all they want. But it’s still an accident. the law can’t change human intention.
the afl wants to ban the bump cos of concerns about head injuries but they know the backlash will be too big so they simply don’t and write ridiculous rules that claim a persons intention is different from what it actually is.

And thats why the charge is "careless" rather than "intentional"...No one is saying he intentionally smacked heads....Fyfe got 2 weeks for his election to bump resulting in a head clash and his opponent didnt get taken off on a stretcher.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

Ridiculous. If this hadn't resulted in an injury or concussion, it wouldn't be anything. Players now need crystal balls before electing to do ANYTHING. Because accidental head clashes will always happen and can happen from anything in the game, be it bumps, tackles, marking contests etc. Let's just have all players on the field 1.5 metres from each other and play the game that way.

Choose to bump and you pay the price, pretty simple.

 

[Thedeftouch]

Goodbye to the Voss, Picketts etc of the game. Hello to tickle and pillow fights. Just give each player a pillow and be done with it. Tickle tackle can be the new tackle.

yeah agree that Byron Picketts are being phased out of the game, I just think that’s a good thing

 

[Shadow89]

People have said this every year for the last 20 years. You can still lay a good bump, just don't smash the head. Its that simple

Choose to bump and you pay the price, pretty simple.

So why does Nik Cox get away with an intentional bump this weekend - where he clearly got him in the head? We penalize outcome not intent. It's not the action that people care about, it's how badly injured the player is.

Not one bit of outrage over Astbury's swinging elbow or Cox's bump on Hanrahan. Guess the AFL's message is 'bump/elbow people in the head who can take it...otherwise, we'll ban you'

 

[Wilbur23]

People have said this every year for the last 20 years. You can still lay a good bump, just don't smash the head. Its that simple

He didn't smash the head ?