Choose to mark and cause a head clash, pay the price ?
Choose to tackle and cause a head clash, pay the price ?
Where's the consistancy ?
Dangerfield on Kelly
- Thread starter james Dean
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Choose to tackle and cause a head clash, pay the price ?
Where's the consistancy ?
- Aug 15, 2015
- 38,675
- 92,402
Ok, Kelly got a broken nose and concussion from whiplash. Got it.
- May 5, 2011
- 2,143
- 2,133
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Oh dear
If Kelly turned his head, which he had time to do, no broken nose and probably no concussion. He could have disposed of the ball earlier or hurried it to reduce contact. Kelly did the right thing and disposed correctly and expected the hit.
If you're not allowed to run at a person who has the ball, what sport am I watching? If you're not going to get there in time, you just have to stand still and let them run past in case they get rid of it and then run into you?
from an accidental head clash. Get facts right.
Some people just have an anti Dangerfield agenda here. I'm no Geelong supporter but I'm an AFL supporter. Bumping is part of the game. He didn't bump him high, it was a shoulder to shoulder bump. You grew up being taught to bump shoulder to shoulder. Hip and Shoulder no ?
All you faux outraged people, seriously, answer me this:
'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'
**************
'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'
**************
eldorado
Thought Ninja
- Moderator
- #410
I think some people have ignored all the updates of the last 10 years.
Yes, bumping is part of the game...when the ball is in dispute, or shepherding.
When a guy has possession of the ball, your first option is then to tackle. You may still bump, but you are now liable for any head contact.
If the player has got rid of the ball, you are expected to attempt the smother. i.e. the ball is your target, not the player. If you want to 'make him earn it' with a bump after disposal, you are liable for head contact.
I don't think anyone sees this as anything more than a late hit to 'make him earn it'...but please, don't give me this guff about 'bracing for contact' or 'trying to protect himself'
It was just a late bump, that had the worst possible consequences...but it was very avoidable, and very much a choice. Anyone who has played or watched the game has seen this sort of late hit a million times...but without the heads smashing together.
Yes, bumping is part of the game...when the ball is in dispute, or shepherding.
When a guy has possession of the ball, your first option is then to tackle. You may still bump, but you are now liable for any head contact.
If the player has got rid of the ball, you are expected to attempt the smother. i.e. the ball is your target, not the player. If you want to 'make him earn it' with a bump after disposal, you are liable for head contact.
I don't think anyone sees this as anything more than a late hit to 'make him earn it'...but please, don't give me this guff about 'bracing for contact' or 'trying to protect himself'
It was just a late bump, that had the worst possible consequences...but it was very avoidable, and very much a choice. Anyone who has played or watched the game has seen this sort of late hit a million times...but without the heads smashing together.
Will Geelong even miss him that much with such poor disposal, the bloke could couldn't hit the side of a barn with a fistful of wheat.
Bradesmaen
Bradesmaen
TheBrownDog
COnsidering he had 6 turnovers in 13 disposals in the first half. Not really. Most overrated player to have played the game. Excitement seems to outweigh ability.
Reports today that Kelly hasn't recovered and is still concussed. The Tribunal medical report will be a doozie.
gingernuts
binlicker
I am hearing you brother. fooking disgrace. different set of rules
But it wasn't body contact - he clearly got him head high. Regardless of whether it's careless or not, if Hanrahan hadn't got up from that very same action of Cox's, then he'd be looking at 4 weeks+. So seriously, what are we adjudicating on? Action, or outcome? Because if it's outcome, it goes back to what I said before - we are literally saying that if you bump someone who's tough enough to take it, its ok. If you bump someone that can't take it and ends up concussed - or worse- then it's not ok.
I'm genuinely confused over this, and no-one can seem to give me a straight answer? How is the AFL saying anything but 'we want to stamp out concussion and head high contact, but only for those that are unfortunate enough to end up being affected by it.' It's basically the Titanic and the lifeboats situation all over again - we'll fix the issue after we see there's a bad result from the incident - not stamp out the action itself.
I would be fine if all of Astbury, Daniher and Cox all got a week, and Danger got at least 3 then. That would show the AFL's intent to make structural change. As it stands, we wait to see if the medical outcome is bad for the defendant, and then we punish him based on that - and nothing else.
eldorado
Thought Ninja
- Moderator
- #418
I don't know what Cox has to do with this though.
Are people arguing that Cox has no case to answer? Both of them are facing consequences for doing the wrong thing, aren't they?
I do agree that the 'consequences' earning the penalty rather than the action gets very murky, but we've known this for years now. It may cause angst, and see the same act get different punishments, but we've know that for years.
If you get lucky, and the player gets up, you get less punishment. If the player is more hurt, you get more.
Whether that is right or wrong is a debate for a different thread.
- Apr 8, 2006
- 42,794
- 44,611
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys and Texas Longhorns
How long has the hearing been going for?
Of course you can run at someone. Let's look at what actually happened. Kelly disposed of the ball and then Dangerfield ran into him, deliberately. I'm all for hard bumps but do it within the rules. Dangerfield braced for impact but lunged into Kelly instead of slowing and bracing. Kelly had a right to believe that's what should have happened and shouldn't have needed to turn his head anywhere.
One - Nik Cox - gets a slap on the wrist because Hanrahan wasn't more injured from the bump itself - a fine. The other- Dangerfield -, gets a trial by media and a guaranteed 2 weeks minimum (more likely 3), because Kelly was severely injured.
A simple hypothetical:
What if the roles were reversed? What if Cox's exact same bump resulted in Hanrahan having a broken nose, and being concussed and stretchered off the field? Does Cox then face the Tribunal?
Conversely, what if the exact same incident with Danger results in a clash, and Kelly gets a 50m penalty, kicks the goal and then shows no lingering effects of the collision/is cleared by the medico during and after the match? Does he then get off with a low impact, rough conduct fine of $2,000?
How is that anything other than the toughness of your opponent dictating the outcome?
eldorado
Thought Ninja
- Moderator
- #422
It's been made abundantly clear that contact to the head is regarded as inherently different to contact with the body.
This is not unreasonable, in light of what we now know about the devestating consequences of concussion, something seen as trivial only 15 years ago.
Anyone who has ever played footy knows that when you go half-hearted you get hurt. Had he slowed and not gone through, it could have been Kelly jumping into him.
I don't doubt he'll get weeks, I'm just saying that you can't have a rule which punishes good bumps and claim you haven't banned the bump.
If this was McCartin or Ebert who laid this bump would they get weeks even though they knocked themselves out too?
So if “people actually involved with the game” suspend him for five weeks you’ll be ok with that and not on the “cesspool of social media”? Great.
Catch
