And sadly for the first time since he first arrived at our Club, I'm beginning to agree.
Dangerfield on Kelly
- Thread starter james Dean
- Start date
- Tagged users None
And sadly for the first time since he first arrived at our Club, I'm beginning to agree.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,507
- 28,842
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The AFL prosecutor is going to push for 5 you’d think. The impact doesn’t get much worse but the level of intent is pretty low.
I think the biggest part of this is him saying i was protecting myself hahahaha full of it he tried to bump him , own it set an example, people respect truth " i tried to bump him accidental head clash" if that's a week or two thats it, but "I didn't try to bump him protecting myself" accidental head clash should never play again for having such an arrogant high and mighty attitude to the situation
Last edited:
- Jan 3, 2012
- 47,598
- 97,779
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
Dangerfield defends bump ahead of Tribunal
Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield says he was trying to protect himself in the collision with Jake Kelly that left the Adelaide player concussed and with a broken nose.
so Kelly was going at him needed to protect himself a pig and a liar, 10 weeks
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,345
Weird comment this
If he is talking about himself (i.e. I had to bump to protect myself from a collision) then it still doesn't make much sense because he has gone into a bump with his head pretty much fully exposed which is terrible technique.
He had only to bend slightly at the hips and he gets in lower which rules out any hit to the opponents head, and by default that should have his own head tucked in a bit behind his shoulder protecting himself more.
I don't think anyone doubts the head clash was an accident, but when you go the bump, you take on the consequences of any head injuries to your opponent, and the includes having the right technique for that particular bump.
Is he talking about Kelly? If so, not sure how he was supposed to protect himself a split second after given a handball.
If he is talking about himself (i.e. I had to bump to protect myself from a collision) then it still doesn't make much sense because he has gone into a bump with his head pretty much fully exposed which is terrible technique.
He had only to bend slightly at the hips and he gets in lower which rules out any hit to the opponents head, and by default that should have his own head tucked in a bit behind his shoulder protecting himself more.
I don't think anyone doubts the head clash was an accident, but when you go the bump, you take on the consequences of any head injuries to your opponent, and the includes having the right technique for that particular bump.
What a peanut. The due diligence carries no weight in circumstances where you elect to engage in an act that presents a risk to another. Like a drunk driver saying that to mitigate the impact of the collision with an oncoming vehicle he swerved to the side which resulted in the rear of the car instead making impact with the oncoming vehicle.
Bradesmaen
TheBrownDog
Surprised Dangerfield didn't come out with a neckbrace today, already had the bandage on the head (which didn't come from that hit)
- Oct 29, 2017
- 22,499
- 44,151
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Im starting to think 5-6 is reasonable.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 22,755
- 29,519
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
He elected to bump.
He has no case and will rightly have the book thrown at him.
The guy’s a clown.
He has no case and will rightly have the book thrown at him.
The guy’s a clown.
Elects to bump, lined the bloke up and deviated his running pattern to hit him. Therefore it isn't a "brace for protection". He never had any other intention than to clean him up. Sure he didn't mean to clean up his face... But he lined him up to hit when he had 100 other choices.
He has form for running through blokes and balls. The way he plays the game gets praised as being heroic, but the narrative is shifting. It's reckless and dangerous.
Play the ball and not the man, and maybe you won't knock a bloke out every second week.
Plenty of times our blokes attempt the bump when they should be tackling/smothering (Pickett in round one, and stack previously comes to mind) and they are berated by our fans when the possession gets away. So it's not like we as fans actually enjoy this action as part of the game/spectacle anyway. Just stop it Paddy.
He has form for running through blokes and balls. The way he plays the game gets praised as being heroic, but the narrative is shifting. It's reckless and dangerous.
Play the ball and not the man, and maybe you won't knock a bloke out every second week.
Plenty of times our blokes attempt the bump when they should be tackling/smothering (Pickett in round one, and stack previously comes to mind) and they are berated by our fans when the possession gets away. So it's not like we as fans actually enjoy this action as part of the game/spectacle anyway. Just stop it Paddy.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 22,755
- 29,519
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
Had to post this one last thing:
Sloane - Jake Kelly's captain and also his mate -, his opinion/perspective overrides all you Danger haters in here:
Sloane defends 'incredibly unlucky' Danger over bump
'I think you're making too much of this'wwos.nine.com.au
"Adelaide captain Rory Sloane has gone in to bat for ex-teammate Patrick Dangerfield after he was referred directly to the AFL Tribunal for a bump on Jake Kelly.
Dangerfield is facing a suspension of at least three weeks as he awaits the Tribunal's verdict, due to the fact that Kelly was left with a broken nose and a concussion from an inadvertent head clash.
Despite the fact that his own teammate came off second best in the collision, Sloane refused to be drawn into whether Dangerfield should be suspended in an attempt to eradicate the bump from the game.
"I think you're making too much of this, really," Sloane said in response a question regarding the incident on 3AW's Sportsday.
"That one was just completely unlucky. You could see Danger was hardly going for a bump. In the end, it was just a head clash really.
"It was a head clash and it was completely accidental and something that is just a part of footy. You can't control those, that's something I certainly feel for Paddy for."
Sloane shared a locker room with Dangerfield between 2009 and 2015, and said he was no stranger to heavy collisions with the bulldozing 2016 Brownlow Medallist.
"He doesn't mean to headbutt Jake in the head and unfortunately for Jake, Paddy has got quite a stiff head," he said.
"He ran into someone with a rock-hard melon and I've ran into that bloke a couple of times and you do certainly come off second-best normally."
Dangerfield will front the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night, as he looks to avoid a major suspension to start the season."
********************
Do what you will with it, but recognize that as captain of the football club in question, Sloane's perspective holds far more weight than my perspective, your perspective, or any obviously partisan poster in here - who just wants to see Danger burn or hates him for whatever reason
What utter bullshit. Sloane is simply abiding by the player’s code and going in to bat for his mate. In many ways Sloane’s is the least objective viewpoint of all.
However, the footage is there for all to see. Dangerfield made the conscious choice to bump. It was not an accidental head clash and he will get exactly what is coming to him.
He also has form which doesn’t exactly play to his advantage.
Also for what it's worth Paddy, reviewing footage in 30fps actually doesn't make it any easier to pick out errors/incidents.. because thats actually a faster frame rate than most of the content we watch and definitely not slow motion
So that was a good bump? Dangerfield was knocked out? Kelly wasn't running towards Dangerfield. C'mon man, your argument's rubbish.
Here's an analogy for you: a guy is speeding in his car, loses control and runs over and kills someone walking on the footpath. You reckon he should only get a speeding ticket? He didn't mean to run over the pedestrian afterall...
PS. I'm starting to wonder if Dangerfield's a squib. He's knocked out two guys two games in a row apparently trying to protect himself and reckons it's his duty of care. How about your duty of care to others instead of yourself Patty? Extra week for that.
Last edited:
I've seen tackles leading to accidental head clashes. I've seen marking contests leading to accidental head clashes. I've even seen accidental head clashes in oztag just going for the blokes tag. Better ban everything. Bring the covid rule into Footy. 1.5 metres from each player at all times.
If we are banning people for causing accidental head clashes now, this game is screwed. Accidental head clashes have and will happen from tackles and marking contests and just going for the ball two players at once in general. Let's eliminate anything that can cause an accidental head clash and have them, like I said above, remain 1.5 metres away from each other at all times. Carry a pillow out there just in case and a feather duster so they can tickle the other player with it.
Cut and copy example of how you were taught to bump. Fair hip and shoulder. Shoulder to shoulder contact. Either remove the bump completely or use some common sense and realize accidental head clashes will happen just like they will during tackles, marking contests etc etc. Either ban everything that can cause an accidental head clash or play the game.
Is the bump banned or not ? Make it clear. If you bump and are lucky enough to not cause an accidental head clash you are fine. If you bump and unluckily cause an accidental head clash you aren't. Absolutely ridiculous. Get your crystal balls out players. Zac Williams gets a week for bumping a guy in the head. Dangerfield will get 3 or more for bumping a bloke shoulder to shoulder and causing an accidental head clash. Great message, aim for head = one week, aim for shoulder = 3+.
Accidental head clashes aren't banned, but running full bore at someone (who's pretty much defenceless), jumping into them (late) and clashing heads is.
It's already clear.
- Oct 1, 2014
- 5,477
- 11,577
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Yeah, he should get at least 3 weeks for hitting Dangers head. Danger didn't even have the ball!
Lip Gallagher
Club Legend
- Nov 11, 2020
- 1,498
- 1,680
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #497
No you don't pay the price if you choose not to bump.
Last edited:
- Jul 23, 2018
- 7,016
- 8,418
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I dont particularly like Danger. But that was an accidental head clash during regulation contact. Very unlucky but its a contact sport. Without the head clash its play on. Was barely late if at all and i shouldn't even be a free kick, if one was paid, without the headclash. The way the rules a written and interpreted means he'll get 3 weeks minimum. Because the MRO bases their decisions on outcomes. They are reactive. They will never get rid of actions we dont want to see (Williams jumping bump) unless they give the MRO an overhaul. It needs to be dangerous actions that are punished more severely if its dangerous actions the AFL wants stamped out. Dangers was not a dangerous action.
He is going to get weeks - maybe 4 I would think.
IT was acidental - but as has been made clear, if you choose to bump rather than tackle or smother, then the consequences of any outcome fall to you. A head clash IS a forseeable outcome, and you are responsible for it.
Unfortunately for Kelly, the consequences of Danger's bump are pretty significant ... so the penalty is going to be considerably more.
As for what he said - not the best response. I would have thought the media training he has been given would have made him think harder about what to say.
IT was acidental - but as has been made clear, if you choose to bump rather than tackle or smother, then the consequences of any outcome fall to you. A head clash IS a forseeable outcome, and you are responsible for it.
Unfortunately for Kelly, the consequences of Danger's bump are pretty significant ... so the penalty is going to be considerably more.
As for what he said - not the best response. I would have thought the media training he has been given would have made him think harder about what to say.
Brendan Krummel agrees
