Dangerfield on Kelly

[SSSSSS]

Only the most delusional Cats supporters (of which there are plenty) could defend something like this.

 

[Tygrys]

That should be easy to believe but the way tiger fans flock to anything danger related tells a different story.

Or perhaps we have a certain interest in this thug being at least temporarily put out of action because of a certain incident that happened at the beginning of last years grand final. Again as an actual 'player' I can't imagine anyone we feel less threatened by.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

hahaha what's the talk about Danger protecting himself? From what? A guy handballing to a teammate?

This is actually incredible.

Stop over thinking it.
Stop measuring how many steps he accelerated for, or where his eyes were looking.

It's really simple - a dude delivered a regulation handball to a team mate and ended up getting stretchered off.

Is the AFL okay with this?

 

[Neale4brownlow]

Behind the goals footage of Patrick protecting himself after running 5+ m to put pressure on Kelly.

Firstly he speeds up as he approaches Kelly which is fair enough, you'd want any player to do that.

But he never once gets himself in a position where he is contemplating a tackle or a smother, he almost immediately starts to tuck his left arm in.

Also just before contact his body angle changes as he prepares for the impact.

Fact of the matter is he knew he had an opponent in the cross hairs and given they were struggling at the time was looking to make a statement to get his team mates up and about.

Had Patrick come out and said "Yep I chose to bump, but in doing so I caused injury to an opponent and I'll wear the consequences of that action", I don't think anyone would be that annoyed. But given he hasn't I think that is what has got people outraged.

Yeah my stance is his comments are that of a flog, but the action itself I don't really have a problem with (deserves weeks for the outcome though as it was his choice to do it).

He had to apply pressure. Can't just let a player waltz by unimpeded. Tackle not really an option when you're running at each other. Smother not really an option or Kelly just sells him some candy and side steps around him. Bump probably the right call as it 100% forces the ball to change hands and someone else further down the line can try and contest it.

Flog of a comment to say he was protecting himself though. He caused the contact. He chose to bump. He knocked out Kelly. Deserves 3-5weeks.

I heard a comment in the media (not sure who by) but it was fairly accurate: Players need to have more respect for one another on the field. If you choose to do something like that then you wear the consequences.

 

[Whiskers]

Or perhaps we have a certain interest in this thug being at least temporarily put out of action because of a certain incident that happened at the beginning of last years grand final. Again as an actual 'player' I can't imagine anyone we feel less threatened by.

Stop lying to yourself. You’re more threatened by Zac Guthrie are you?
You’re obsessed by everything Dangerfield, not just this incident.
Let it go.

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

I mean the statistics would favour that as being rational. How much media coverage is there including/of Dangerfield comparatively compared to other Geelong players?

It would probably be weirder to have an obsession with Jed Bews wouldn't it?

Stop lying to yourself. You’re more threatened by Zac Guthrie are you?
You’re obsessed by everything Dangerfield, not just this incident.
Let it go.

 

[Obeanie1]

Shouldnt go... just a footy collision

but all the nanas and dangerfield haters will be baying for blood

keep turning the game into soccer and netball

You can clean up a player with a bump and not break their nose and not knock them out cold.

You see that every week.

That is not soccer or netball at all.

Need to protect the head from foreseeable high impact collisions. Like what happened in this case.

Danger could have gone lower with his bump, he could have dived and attempted to smother the handball. But in that instant he elected to bump with his shoulder and at time of impact both feet were off the ground. So he made a poor choice and executed poorly and a player was knocked out cold with a broken nose.

It is as simple as that mate. Still plenty of ways to lay bumps etc but you need to execute properly and simply avoid head contact, even head to head contact as it is foreseeable.

 

[Obeanie1]

And why is it that others in the media steadfastly stick to a specific and identical language on the issue, and who is feeding the group-speak?

I refer both to Whateley on the same show and THE AGE, refusing to use the word 'bump' and describing the incident as a 'collision'.

Thank god for the likes of Dunstall calling the dead-set obvious spade a spade.

Another incredibly disappointing episode for THE AGE sports journos..'independent always'..if it is the byline of your masthead, actually try to live up to it.

Whateley is a Cats supporter isn't he?

If he could Whateley would have babies with Dangerfield.

 

[Obeanie1]

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

So you think it should be thrown out then?

Because a good mate of Dangerfield who was the opposing captain either doesn't know or doesn't agree with the actual rules? Because from Sloan's comments he obviously doesn't understand the rule on bumping and head clashes.

 

[Bjchan13]

If you choose to bump then you are responsible for the outcome, accident or not.

Cant be much clearer than that.

The fact that Danger is the player’s union rep makes his defence even more laughable.

I already said he gets 3 weeks minimum as that's the rules. I just dont like the rules. The contact that occurred we see plenty of times a game and id hope we continue to see. The accidental head clash is unfortunate and we dont want to see that. Danger will be suspended for the outcome rather than the action which is what i have a problem with.

 

[beema limapep]

We have our expert witness. Talk about utter garbage.

“Decided to take Kelly out with maximum force”.

4 or 5 steps back Kelly still had the ball. Danger had 0.56 seconds between Kelly disposing of the ball and the bump.

I suspect you are going to be disapointed with the likely sentence.

 

[_RT_]

That should be easy to believe but the way tiger fans flock to anything danger related tells a different story.

Hmm seen quite a few Cats fans flock to Richmond related threads over the last couple of years.

FWIW it wouldn't matter if it was Dangerfield or some rookie Gold Coast player people would be discussing a hit like this and what sort of suspension it would draw given the previous few weeks where plenty of focus has been on concussion and the impacts it has on the game.

What has made it more heated is the #FlogFromMogg putting up his piss poor excuses through the media before the tribunal to make it seem like he is the victim of the AFL cracking down on incidental head clashes.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I already said he gets 3 weeks minimum as that's the rules. I just dont like the rules. The contact that occurred we see plenty of times a game and id hope we continue to see. The accidental head clash is unfortunate and we dont want to see that. Danger will be suspended for the outcome rather than the action which is what i have a problem with.

Unfortunately if the AFL are not seen to be taking the high road and stamping this out do you realise how open they are for a player suing them for these things after they finish. Watching it LIVE I thought it was just unlucky but we've now all seen the "behind the goals" footage which is 10 times worse for Danger. Should get 6 week, but will probably get 4. My view is that his suspension should start when Kelly is back though (just a personal view).

 

[flyinghi64]

Is he still president of the AFLPA?

Prob should just cop this one on the chin. Pretty sure the AFLPA are all about protecting the head and ball carrier.

He obviously can't just roll over and needs to present some type of defence, for the club, but his comments did strike me as someone who feels he didn't do anything wrong.

 

[_RT_]

So you think it should be thrown out then?

Because a good mate of Dangerfield who was the opposing captain either doesn't know or doesn't agree with the actual rules? Because from Sloan's comments he obviously doesn't understand the rule on bumping and head clashes.

Think its a by product of the older footballers having had it repeatedly put to them that actions like Dangerfields are the norm in a game that involves 360 degree action.

Like a lot of things that were acceptable back in the day when they were being taught the game this too will be watered down to ensure player safety especially given the circumstances around Frawley and Tucks deaths from CTE related issues.
There is still a place in the game for great bumps, see Stack v Viney a couple of years ago. Was picked off clean, yet had they clashed heads Stack would have got weeks as well.

The sooner people understand that footy of yesteryear with crunching shirt fronts that knocked blokes out is not acceptable the better it will be.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

We're soon gonna have a situation where players will just jump out of the way, either than brace for contact or tackle (due to the possibility of momentum resulting in the opposing player getting concussion).

Danger is not a protected species...he literally lost a Brownlow due to getting done for a fair tackle against Kreuzer in 2017, where Kreuz lost his balance and fell forward and knocked himself out.

With this said, based on what Morris said the other day, re: adjudication of the rules as they are, incidental head contact from a bump, will result in weeks. I think it's a long bow to draw to say he was being malicious, as he keeps his elbow tucked in, his feet only leave the ground due to sheer force of the collision - and inertia - resulting in him bouncing backwards and causing slight elevation of his body. If you watch it at full speed, it's a very quick action and he really does brace for contact without trying to inflict extra pain.

It's inevitable though that he'll probably get 3 weeks, as that's how the grading schema will apply. While I don't diaagree with this, I find it odd that Astbury and Daniher can swing elbows, and that young Nik Cox can literally bump Hanrahan in the head with his elbows...as a decision...but because Hanrahan plays on, it's a fine and nothing to see here.

We can't play the outrage card, and then only react when there's actually an injury. It should be the act that does you in. I.e. -

Swinging elbow to the head, potential for serious injury but low impact - 1 Week

Hip and shoulder to the head with potential to cause severe injury, but low impact - 2 Weeks

I remember when Danger got absolutely turfed into the ground by Burgoyne with his both his arms pinned in a textbook tackle, and Burgoyne just got a fine in 2019 - due to the fact that it was considered 'neglible impact', as a result of Danger being a hard nut and just hopping up to take his kick.

It's a very broken system, and one that seems disingenuous in its cause of fighting concussion issues/stamping out dangerous acts, as all it really boils down to is - how tough is the opposing player on the end of the sling tackle/bump/elbow etc.

If we want to get serious about this, ban everyone who throws elbows at heads or bumps people's heads - and stamp out the actions, rather than rely on the result.

Danger will get 3 weeks - which he probably deserves given he had other options -, but seeing all of Cox, Daniher and Astbury all get nothing but fines when those were all deliberate actions, proves the AFL is all talk and no show.

I wonder looking back, if Brent Staker had of got straight up and taken his kick, would Hall of just been fined instead of receiving a record ban at the time - in this current system. I shudder to think...

Dangerfield didn't literally lose a Brownlow because of being suspended............he was 3 votes behind Martin. You don't know if he would have polled votes in those games.

He chose to bump, he could have easily tackled. When you choose to bump you accept the consequences, even if its accidental.

Cox and Daniher were not intentional and were no way on the same planet as what Dangerfield did.

I agree with you on Astbury though.

 

[_RT_]

We're soon gonna have a situation where players will just jump out of the way, either than brace for contact or tackle (due to the possibility of momentum resulting in the opposing player getting concussion).

Danger is not a protected species...he literally lost a Brownlow due to getting done for a fair tackle against Kreuzer in 2017, where Kreuz lost his balance and fell forward and knocked himself out.

With this said, based on what Morris said the other day, re: adjudication of the rules as they are, incidental head contact from a bump, will result in weeks. I think it's a long bow to draw to say he was being malicious, as he keeps his elbow tucked in, his feet only leave the ground due to sheer force of the collision - and inertia - resulting in him bouncing backwards and causing slight elevation of his body. If you watch it at full speed, it's a very quick action and he really does brace for contact without trying to inflict extra pain.

It's inevitable though that he'll probably get 3 weeks, as that's how the grading schema will apply. While I don't diaagree with this, I find it odd that Astbury and Daniher can swing elbows, and that young Nik Cox can literally bump Hanrahan in the head with his elbows...as a decision...but because Hanrahan plays on, it's a fine and nothing to see here.

We can't play the outrage card, and then only react when there's actually an injury. It should be the act that does you in. I.e. -

Swinging elbow to the head, potential for serious injury but low impact - 1 Week

Hip and shoulder to the head with potential to cause severe injury, but low impact - 2 Weeks

I remember when Danger got absolutely turfed into the ground by Burgoyne with his both his arms pinned in a textbook tackle, and Burgoyne just got a fine in 2019 - due to the fact that it was considered 'neglible impact', as a result of Danger being a hard nut and just hopping up to take his kick.

It's a very broken system, and one that seems disingenuous in its cause of fighting concussion issues/stamping out dangerous acts, as all it really boils down to is - how tough is the opposing player on the end of the sling tackle/bump/elbow etc.

If we want to get serious about this, ban everyone who throws elbows at heads or bumps people's heads - and stamp out the actions, rather than rely on the result.

Danger will get 3 weeks - which he probably deserves given he had other options -, but seeing all of Cox, Daniher and Astbury all get nothing but fines when those were all deliberate actions, proves the AFL is all talk and no show.

I wonder looking back, if Brent Staker had of got straight up and taken his kick, would Hall of just been fined instead of receiving a record ban at the time - in this current system. I shudder to think...

Comparing Dangerfield to Astbury Daniher and Cox are totally different actions.

Dangerfield ran towards Kelly to make impact.

Daniher and Astbury threw their arms back as their opponents were still holding them. Both should have got a week for the action.

Cox was contesting a ground ball and was somewhat clumsy in his approach in that he hadn't tucked himself up as he was a chance of winning possession.

The action that Dangerfield should be compared to is Williams, bith ran from the side of an opponent and chose to bump. Williams copped a week as Clark got up and played on. Dangerfield will get more because of Kellys concussion and broken nose.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Is he still president of the AFLPA?

Prob should just cop this one on the chin. Pretty sure the AFLPA are all about protecting the head and ball carrier.

He obviously can't just roll over and needs to present some type of defence, for the club, but his comments did strike me as someone who feels he didn't do anything wrong.

Strikes me as the sort of guy who blames his teammates after a loss.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Strikes me as the sort of guy who blames his teammates injuries after a loss poor game.

 

[gingernuts]

Wake up this morning updated BF and this is till going on with op clubs infatuated with Dangerfield. He will get weeks no doubt about it.
Fancy losing sleep over Dangerfield.
As Syd James said"what a carry on"

 

[Percel]

Wake up this morning updated BF and this is till going on with Geelong posters infatuated op clubs in the Dangerfield Kelly thread. He will get weeks no doubt about it.
Fancy losing sleep over op clubs in this thread.
As Syd James said "what a carry on"

 

[Bjchan13]

Unfortunately if the AFL are not seen to be taking the high road and stamping this out do you realise how open they are for a player suing them for these things after they finish. Watching it LIVE I thought it was just unlucky but we've now all seen the "behind the goals" footage which is 10 times worse for Danger. Should get 6 week, but will probably get 4. My view is that his suspension should start when Kelly is back though (just a personal view).

Stamping out what though? Accidental head knocks? They are unfortunately inevitable in the game. Even if you completely outlawed bumping there would still be head knocks. We need to be stamping out dangerous actions (eg Williams jumping bump) if we want to protect the head as much as possible. If the outcome of Williams bump was the same as Dangers id day most would rightfully agree it would be 7+ weeks. Because the action was dangerous and id say most would be happy to never see it again. 1 week only though because Clark was able to play on. What kind of message does that send to the players? If you dont break someones nose any action is fair game. It needs to be more proactive than that surely? Im on board with the new concussion protocols and im glad doctors are now advising certain players like McCartin against playing at all. Ex players maybe have a case to sue as unfortunately some of them have sustained pretty serious permanent brain damage. The AFL would argue that there was no research or knowledge around concussion though. No one knew the danger. Everyone does now, we're still learning more, and the AFL, clubs and doctors are testing regularly, putting in protocols and playing it safe. Advising some players to pack it up completely. Fine with all that. Concussions will still happen though as its a contact sport. And whether you like Dangerfield or not the contact that occurred happens multiple times a game, and is play on witbout the headclash.

 

[Sttew]

I suspect you are going to be disapointed with the likely sentence.

WTF? Danger will be suspended so of course I'll be disappointed

 

[Sttew]

What has made it more heated is the #FlogFromMogg putting up his piss poor excuses through the media before the tribunal to make it seem like he is the victim of the AFL cracking down on incidental head clashes.

It's okay for every football commentator to give their in-depth deliberation on TV, radio and the paper but 'the accused' has to remain quiet? Talk about a Kangaroo Court

 

[1972championsofaust]

The video footage from behind the goals.... doesn’t do Danger any favours entering court tonight! Suspect 3-4 games.