Dangerfield on Kelly

[Shadow89]

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.

But Cox did make contact to the head? You haven't answered my previous question at all? If roles were reversed and Hanrahan/Kelly end up with each other's prospective injury outcomes, do the same penalties apply, or are they flipped to reflect the severity of the result?

Astbury also made contact to Plowman's head, with his swinging intentional elbow to the head - he also received a fine too? If he had of flattened Plowman and concussed him from the very same action, does the grading then change?

There is really is no other conclusion to reach than, 'you better hope your opponent can take a punch - otherwise you're screwed'

 

[Saint]

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.

If this goes for weeks, then bumping when the ball is in dispute and shepherding is also gone from the game, it's only a matter of time. The AFL has made it clear they don't care about intent or what you're trying to do. They just want to stop people getting head injuries in a contact sport. Without compulsory helmets, there's no chance of that.

 

[fairfooty]

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.

Hallelujah! Finally someone talks sense. Man there are so many wallies here - if I had my way neuro injuries (brain, spine) would be under a completely different medically assessed penalty system.

 

[eldorado]

But Cox did make contact to the head? You haven't answered my previous question at all? If roles were reversed and Hanrahan/Kelly end up with each other's prospective injury outcomes, do the same penalties apply, or are they flipped to reflect the severity of the result?

Yes!

Obviously! I answered it perfectly well. If Cox gets Hanrahan in the temple, and causes a concussion, unconsciousness, or a stroke, Cox gets more punishment!

I specifically adressed the issue of consequences determing outcome in my post which you quoted, deleting any reference to it. This is NOT a new thing. Have you only just found out that consequences determine punishment?

 

[Shadow89]

Yes!

Obviously! I answered it perfectly well. If Cox gets Hanrahan in the temple, and causes a concussion, unconsciousness, or a stroke, Cox gets more punishment!

I specifically adressed the issue of consequences determing outcome in my post which you quoting, deleting any refernce to itThis is NOT a new thing. Have you only just found out that consequnces determine punishment?

Lol. No I haven't, I just think it's ludicrous that our entire MRP system is based on outcome rather than intent. I.e. when Burgoyne sling tackled Danger's head into the turf in 2019 with both arms pinned, but received nothing more than a fine because Danger showed no ill effects. Yet, we had all been told that a sling tackle with that amount of force to the head/propensity to cause injury, would result in an automatic 1 Week suspension.

If you don't see something wrong with that, then I just find that odd.

 

[OniAu]

I hate how smug he looks with the explanation

Have some respect for the guy you just collected in the head because you couldn't make the right choice to lay a tackle.

Add to that the disgusting behaviour of the footage from down field. Where he just walks away from Kelly. Yet another Geelong player went to check on him.

2-3 weeks

 

[eldorado]

Lol. No I haven't, I just think it's ludicrous that our entire MRP system is based on outcome rather than intent.

If you don't see something wrong with that, then I just find that odd.

I also stated that the question of whether consequences rather than intent should determine punishment was a philosophical debate best left for another thread.

Whether we see that as right or wrong is irrelevant to this thread, and posts on that issue will only derail this one, which is on a specific incident under current rules.

 

[OniAu]

Lol. No I haven't, I just think it's ludicrous that our entire MRP system is based on outcome rather than intent. I.e. when Burgoyne sling tackled Danger's head into the turf in 2019 with both arms pinned, but received nothing more than a fine because Danger showed no ill effects. Yet, we had all been told that a sling tackle with that amount of force/propensity to cause injury, would result in an automatic 1 Week suspension.

If you don't see something wrong with that, then I just find that odd.

If its based on intent. Hes gone also. He intended to bump , whether contact was accidental or not. He chose to bump , hit the head.

Reverse the situation if Kelly did same to Danger and im sure you would want him done for 4 weeks.

 

[Shadow89]

You do realise outcome has a far greater penalty than intent for the majority of violent crimes? This isn’t a violent crime, but you’re posting like this is a unique law to the AFL.

You say that, but intent plays a HUGE part in a judge deciding outcomes for defendants. I.e. (Numbers used for examples are only estimated figures for the purpose of the exercise):

- If you had a pre-meditated intent to murder someone by hitting them with your car, then that's 20 to life.

- If you decided in the heat of the moment after a bout of road rage, to hit someone with your car and they die from injuries, it becomes unintentional murder - or murder in the second degree with a sentence of 10-15 years.

- If you hit someone due to drink driving and you kill them, it becomes manslaughter and you get 5 years.

- If you unintentionally hit someone due to no fault of your own, after they run out in front of your car, and they die from injuries, there's no sentence and you walk free.

Intent plays the largest part in any legal system, so I would strongly disagree with the idea that outcome plays a larger part than intent.

 

[fairfooty]

Lol. No I haven't, I just think it's ludicrous that our entire MRP system is based on outcome rather than intent. I.e. when Burgoyne sling tackled Danger's head into the turf in 2019 with both arms pinned, but received nothing more than a fine because Danger showed no ill effects. Yet, we had all been told that a sling tackle with that amount of force to the head/propensity to cause injury, would result in an automatic 1 Week suspension.

If you don't see something wrong with that, then I just find that odd.

And how pray tell do you judge intent in sport? Player say so? "Sorry sir I only intended to bump behind the play, not hit his head into next week'. Don't be silly.

 

[Thedeftouch]

Are players allowed to be lobbying the Tribunal via the media?

 

[Shadow89]

If its based on intent. Hes gone also. He intended to bump , whether contact was accidental or not. He chose to bump , hit the head.

Reverse the situation if Kelly did same to Danger and im sure you would want him done for 4 weeks.

There's no argument from me over whether he should get the 3 weeks, I'm more discussing the idea that other similar incidents haven't elicited the same outrage, due to them not having as severe an outcome.

As I posted before, Kelly and Danger are good mates, there's no maliciousness in the incident, just like there wasn't when Sloane flatted Danger in the 2017 Prelim. I just want a bit of consistency within the discussion lol, that's more what I've been focusing on. But as eldorado has pointed out, it's derailing the thread a bit and it's for another time.

 

[Thedeftouch]

Would love to see you run the defence at the hearing:

1. THEY ARE MATES
2. Something about Cox???

 

[OniAu]

Would love to see you run the defence at the hearing:

1. THEY ARE MATES
2. Something about Cox???

What a mate. Leaving him on the deck after flattening him

 

[Shadow89]

And how pray tell do you judge intent in sport? Player say so? "Sorry sir I only intended to bump behind the play, not hit his head into next week'. Don't be silly.

Lol. Given that Christian did that whole 'capacity to inflict serious injury' last year and the year - I'm talking about punishing the action, rather than the outcome. Intent can play a part - such as Williams opting to leap off the ground and collect the opposing player high off the ball, but ultimately, it's the action coupled with the intent (in scenarios where it's pertinent to reference to it), that should be the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to a penalty given.

Danger should get 3 weeks this week, as he did commit the act and did commit injury. Just because Plowman, Hanrahan and the Sydney player weren't injured by Astbury, Cox and Daniher, respectively, doesn't mean the action couldn't have resulted in something a lot more serious.

 

[Shadow89]

Would love to see you run the defence at the hearing:

1. THEY ARE MATES
2. Something about Cox???

You really have no sense of nuance do you, lol?

 

[BACCS]

You say that, but intent plays a HUGE part in a judge deciding outcomes for defendants. I.e. (Numbers used for examples are only estimated figures for the purpose of the exercise):

- If you had a pre-meditated intent to murder someone by hitting them with your car, then that's 20 to life.

- If you decided in the heat of the moment after a bout of road rage, to hit someone with your car and they die from injuries, it becomes unintentional murder - or murder in the second degree with a sentence of 10-15 years.

- If you hit someone due to drink driving and you kill them, it becomes manslaughter and you get 5 years.

- If you unintentionally hit someone due to no fault of your own, after they run out in front of your car, and they die from injuries, there's no sentence and you walk free.

Intent plays the largest part in any legal system, so I would strongly disagree with the idea that outcome plays a larger part than intent.

I deleted my post because I didn’t want to get into a political debate and derail the thread, but appreciate your reply and will leave it there.

 

[Shadow89]

What a mate. Leaving him on the deck after flattening him

Sloane did the same to Danger in the 2017 prelim - left him for dead and they're best mates, lol. Where's the consistent outrage?

 

[Hird Is Scum]

Sloane did the same to Danger in the 2017 prelim - left him for dead and they're best mates, lol. Where's the consistent outrage?

Left him for dead you say? Didn't even lose consciousness.

 

[theyellowsash]

Btw, does danger realise that 30fps is the speed of TV cameras, ie real time speed?

 

[OniAu]

Sloane did the same to Danger in the 2017 prelim - left him for dead and they're best mates, lol. Where's the consistent outrage?

Probably because he faked like he was injured

 

[Shadow89]

Left him for dead you say? Didn't even lose consciousness.

He was on the ground for a good 30 seconds. I was being facetious when I said 'left for dead.' I just meant to say, that Sloane was more worried about the next contest - as he should be - rather than his best mate laying flat on his ass for 30 seconds after a brutal bump.

 

[Shadow89]

Probably because he faked like he was injured

You can't call him an uncaring brute and then also say he's weak/faking, doesn't work that way.

 

[OniAu]

You can't call him an uncaring brute and then also say he's weak/faking, doesn't work that way.

I can? In two different incidents. Go watch the footae of him walking off after he hit kelly

 

[Shadow89]

Anyway, as eldorado stated, the consistency/outcome vs action discussion is best left for another time and in another thread. He'll get 3 weeks min. and probably could get more. There's nothing really left to say, as the majority of you really seem to hate Danger. Like, passionate hate. Hope it's worth seeing the worst in people.

Enjoy