Dangerfield on Kelly

Remove this Banner Ad

Just going to quote myself from the Williams thread for posterity in this thread.

If he does indeed get suspended, I expect a high profile player playing against us later in the season to do the same thing and be let off.

Not against us, but the point remains...

Mark Robinson getting totally and disproportionately outraged over this on 360. [He] is a disgrace and a gronk. There is 0% chance he carries on like that if it's Zach Merrett as the offender. He is so obvious in his intentions and so utterly sh*t at his job.

Cannot wait to hear Robinson lambast Danger.

I am pretty confident that at some point in the season, there will be a high profile player who gets a different grading despite doing something comparable to Williams which is the real crux of the problem. At least try to be consistent and transparent, we have neither at the moment.

Couldn't agree more that the MRO/tribunal strive to give themselves 'wiggle room' and operate in the grey areas, it's how they can contrive results to suit whatever it is the AFL desires in particular instances. It's neither consistent nor desirable IMO.

We all know what the AFL would like in this instance, they will already be busy on the phones and emails. Let's see if they can disgracefully manipulate this one. Will be watching with extreme interest.

If the Williams bump is worth 1 week, Danger needs to get 3+ taking everything into consideration.
 
All depends if graded severe impact or high impact. 2 or 3 weeks.

Kelly was out cold and needed to be stretchered off, that should be viewed as severe.
He'll probably get 2 weeks. Everyone should know the rules changed the season after Shaun Higgins was knocked out from a bump, and couldn't remember he'd become a father that day.

Going by the grading system He should get 3 - giving his opponent a head injury, that requires him to be stretchered off, and miss a mandatory minimum 12 days is the definition of severe impact.

But they'll try to find a way to downgrade it to 1 or 2.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It’s a sad state of affairs when ppl are baying for blokes to get suspended for a head clash and the bump is straight up the middle. Zach Williams a lot worse, later and jumped in the air

You must work for the AFL spin department... Your post is utter rubbish.

Clark played on and was near BOG btw. Williams got a week based on what he could have 'potentially' done to injure. What happened to Kelly? Hospital?

1616232965554.png

Danger late and in the air... Please take your blinkers off and stop talking shit. Dangerfield deserves so much more than Williams.

1616232870004.png
 
Last edited:
You must work for the AFL spin department... Your post is utter rubbish.

Clark played on and was near BOG btw. Williams got a week based on what he could have 'potentially' done to injure. What happened to Kelly? Hospital?

View attachment 1081820

Danger late and in the air... Please take your blinkers off and stop talking sh*t. Dangerfield deserves so much more than Williams.

View attachment 1081818
Spare me, Williams clearly jumps in the air to pick the bloke off well after acceptances. They aren’t running in the same direction pretty much at each other, Williams comes in at right angles cheaply, not front on.
The outcome shouldn’t come into it, aesthetically Williams was way worse and had potential to cause a lot more damage as it was shoulder to head, where all the force is.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Reckless, high contact, severe impact

3 weeks

rexkon this is what he will get

only reason he is being suspended though is a worry about insurance policies and future lawsuits - not an act of malice on the field
 
Spare me, Williams clearly jumps in the air to pick the bloke off well after acceptances.

Dangerfield leaves the ground too. Kelly had also already disposed of the ball.

They aren’t running in the same direction pretty much at each other, Williams comes in at right angles cheaply, not front on.

In the same direction at each other? What does that even mean?

Dangerfield from front on hey?

1616238655602.png

Try again. Cheap by your own definition.

The outcome shouldn’t come into it

Bad luck, it does. Even 'potential' to cause an outcome comes into it, as we saw with Williams.

... aesthetically Williams was way worse and had potential to cause a lot more damage as it was shoulder to head, where all the force is.

"Aesthetically" :$. You do work for the AFL spin department.

I also love the different language you're trying to use in some inane attempt to convince people. When it's Williams is "pick off" and "cheaply" but of course Dangerfield is an angel who should totally get off. Dreaming.
 
rexkon this is what he will get

only reason he is being suspended though is a worry about insurance policies and future lawsuits - not an act of malice on the field
Spot on. The current rule interpretation means he should get 3.

TEDDY24INC - not baying for blood, but just stating what the AFL rules have turned into. They do want a lawsuit like the NFL, so have basically outlawed the bump. Danger had no intention to injure his opponent, but he did. And the AFL will argue he had a choice, and by electing to bump he loses the benefit of accidental contact, and therefore grade it reckless.
 
Put blokes to sleep in consecutive games. He's either very good at "bumping", or very bad at it.
It's all just 'accidental'. He just accidentally does it repeatedly.

Now on the suspension, if Kelly did the exact same to Dangerfield and Danger was stretchered off, Kelly would get 3-4 weeks right?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Dangerfield on Kelly

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top