Dangerfield on Kelly

Remove this Banner Ad

Sttew said:
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
Click to expand...
Actually it's not right that any of them are giving their opinions. The AFL used to have a rule that once a player was reported that the footage could not be shown nor any aspects of the case discussed until after the hearing. It appears that with the MRP/MRO coming in, now the media run the footage ad nauseum to generate hits on their sites and then discuss the topic to death before it even lands on the MRO desk. Should be once a charge is laid all discussion about the incident should be halted until after the player either accepts their penalty or heads to the tribunal.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If his INTENT was the ball he have had his arms outstetched trying to negate the handball or put pressure on the execution of getting rid of the ball

His clear INTENT is to bump and give him one to earn it so Paddy for that action you cop your whack or. the OUTCOME of that INTENT
 
1616475595838.png

For those saying that Dangerfield didn't leave the ground until after the bump, well it's not quite right is it. Dangerfield clearly off the ground at the moment of impact.
 
gingernuts said:
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"
Click to expand...

Nobody is losing sleep friend.

We are all just delighted that this self-promoting hypocrite is getting his just desserts.

Player's welfare advocate, apparently...until he has to account for being a sniper.
 
Nice to see this is still going on.

I find it interesting that none of you have made the argument - for or against - whether he wanted to headbutt Kelly or not?

If he flattens him but they never clash heads, it's play on...right? So given some of the arguments on here, the thing you take issue with is the head clash? If that's the case, as Sloane points out, do you really think he meant to intentionally headbutt Kelly?

Whatever your position on this, the actual action of bumping is not what caused the collateral damage that resulted after the initial bump. It's not like Williams launching off the ground and getting Clark in the head, or Long extending his elbow and getting whichever played he KO'd, in the head too.

That's why it would be lovely if some people could exercise some nuance in this discussion.

Danger's actions will result in 3 weeks minimum suspension, as the grading schema shows that it should. But that's not what's being debated here. People are acting like he intentionally decided to lay him out, which only happens because of the incidental clashing of heads after the initial bump.

This argument doesn't make much sense, because the initial contact was a fair hip and shoulder directly to the body, without any contact to the head - and elbows tucked in.

Like him or despise him, that's the context this should be viewed in. If he extended his elbow and took out Kelly with that motion, then there'd be no discussion to be had here, no defence and I'd be asking that we throw a 6+ week penalty at him too - because his intent would have been to severely injure Kelly.

To provide an example, I'll refer you guys back to the Shane Mumford front on 'tackle', which was lauded by everyone in the footy world, and showcased on every major AFL news network as being the 'perfect tackle' or 'the most brutal bump you'll see this year.' In actuality it was never a tackle, and only becomes one after the initial bump where his arms sort of fall over Duncan. After that incident, Duncan wasn't right for nearly 2 years - let alone a few weeks.

Had their heads made contact in this day and age, then Duncan would have likely been knocked out and Mummy would have had the book thrown at him. Because there was no concussion at the time, Mumford didn't even get reported and headlines like 'Duncan gets Mummified' were trotted out left right and center - as Duncan was made the butt of every AFL joke at every chance. 'I bet you Duncan wakes up having nightmares', is one I can remember said by a footy commentator - said with tongue in cheek.

So what becomes the difference here with Danger? If he executes the bump in the same way but their heads don't clash, I guarantee not one person in here is even talking about his intent, but rather, 'wow that was a solid bump - Kelly didn't know what hit him' - etc.

His initial action was one that elicited no injury, as it was directly to the body and no initial contact was made to the head upon impact. Their heads clash as a result of the sheer force and inertia of two players colliding, and as a result, Kelly is injured in a very severe way. That's known as incidental contact, not malicious or intended contact. If that's the case, then you can't exactly call him a 'thug', 'sniper' 'scum' etc. if the resultant injury was caused by incidental contact.

The only way you can make that argument, is if you intentionally think he meant to headbutt him, and if you think he's some sort of Rambo type, or underground boxer, lol. Even if you bizarrely do think that, he doesn't just walk up to Kelly and headbutt him off the play.

There's nothing wrong with disliking Dangerfield - as many in here do -, that's your prerogative. However, just disliking him doesn't mean you can seriously argue that he meant to make contact with Kelly's head in this particular instance - by using his own head -, as the initial bump itself was perfectly legal.

As you were.
 
Last edited:
PetterdHoisted said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dunstall refused an AFL accreditation a few years ago, that's why he is speaking with a sensible opinion.
The AFL accredited journos are using the same terminology to limit the push back when dangerfield gets 1-2
 
Shadow89 said:
Nice to see this is still going on.

I find it interesting that none of you have made the argument - for or against - whether he wanted to headbutt Kelly or not?

If he flattens him but they never clash heads, it's play on...right? So given some of the arguments on here, the thing you take issue with is the head clash? If that's the case, as Sloane points out, do you really think he meant to intentionally headbutt Kelly?

Whatever your position on this, the actual action of bumping is not what's caused the collateral damage that resulted after the initial bump. It's not like Williams launching off the ground and getting Clark in the head, or Long extending his elbow and getting whichever played he KO'd, in the head too.

That's why it would be lovely if some people could exercise some nuance in this discussion.

Danger's actions will result in 3 weeks minimum suspension, as the grading schema shows that it should. But that's not what's being debated here. People are acting like he intentionally decided to lay him out, which only happens because of the incidental clashing of heads after the initial bump.

This argument doesn't make much sense, because the initial contact was a fair hip and shoulder directly to the body, without any contact to the head - and elbows tucked in.

Like him or despise him, that's the context this should be viewed in. If he extended his elbow and took out Kelly with that motion, then there'd be no discussion to be had here, no defence and I'd be asking that we throw a 6+ week penalty at him too - because his intent would have been to severely injure Kelly.

To provide an example, I'll refer you guys back to the Shane Mumford front on 'tackle', which was lauded by everyone in the footy world, and showcased on every major AFL news network as being the 'perfect tackle' or 'the most brutal bump you'll see this year.' In actuality it was never a tackle, and only becomes one after the initial bump where his arms sort of fall over Duncan. After that incident, Duncan wasn't right for nearly 2 years - let alone a few weeks.

Had their heads made contact in this day and age, then Duncan would have likely been knocked out and Mummy would have had the book thrown at him. Because there was no concussion at the time, Mumford didn't even get reported and headlines like 'Duncan gets Mummified' were trotted out left right and center - as Duncan was made the butt of every AFL joke at every chance. 'I bet you Duncan wakes up having nightmares', is one I can remember said by a footy commentator - said with tongue in cheek.

So what becomes the difference here with Danger? If he executes the bump in the same way but their heads don't clash, I guarantee not one person in here is even talking about his intent, but rather, 'wow that was a solid bump - Kelly didn't know what hit him' - etc.

His initial action was one that elicited no injury, as it was directly to the body and no initial contact was made to the head upon impact. Their heads clash as a result of the sheer force and inertia of two players colliding, and as a result, Kelly is injured in a very severe way. That's known as incidental contact, not malicious or intended contact. If that's the case, then you can't exactly call him a 'thug', 'sniper' 'scum' etc. if the resultant injury was caused by incidental contact.

The only way you can make that argument, is if you intentionally think he meant to headbutt him is if you think he's some sort of Rambo type, or underground boxer, lol. Even if you bizarrely do think that, he doesn't just walk up to Kelly and headbutt him off the play.

There's nothing wrong with disliking Dangerfield - as many in here do -, that's your prerogative. However, just disliking him doesn't mean you can seriously argue that he meant to make contact with Kelly's head in this particular instance - by using his own head -, as the initial bump itself was perfectly legal.

As you were.
Click to expand...

So much crap in such a long post.
He didn’t intentionally set out to hurt Kelly but he Did intentionally set out to lay a shirt front when there were other reasonable actions. The head clash is the result of an intentional act. Then to come out and say he was protecting himself has just exacerbated the case.
Dangerfield’s own actions during and after is what is getting people riled up. His holier than thou attitude is what people can not stand about him
 
box070 said:
So much crap in such a long post.
He didn’t intentionally set out to hurt Kelly but he Did intentionally set out to lay a shirt front when there were other reasonable actions. The head clash is the result of an intentional act. Then to come out and say he was protecting himself has just exacerbated the case.
Dangerfield’s own actions during and after is what is getting people riled up. His holier than thou attitude is what people can not stand about him
Click to expand...

Yet another child left behind. Just admit you hate Danger, you're being partisan, you don't get what I've said and move on, lol.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

box070 said:
You must be Chris Scott. The self proclaimed smartest person in the room
Click to expand...

Because that's relevant to the conversation. I said within the post that he will get 3 weeks - yet you people are so intent on punishing him for being a 'flog', that your arguments are all based on character rather than the actual incident itself. Would hate to see you on a jury - he's a flog, he thinks he's better than us, 20 years in jail!
 
Shadow89 said:
Yet another child left behind. Just admit you hate Danger, you're being partisan, you don't get what I've said and move on, lol.
Click to expand...

FFS, he jumped into Kelly. He was off the ground when contact occurred. He instigated it, and leaving the ground means that he was not affording any duty of care to his opponent. It was not self-preservation as claimed. He is, in fact a flog and a liar.

Are your eyes painted on?
 
Shadow89 said:
Because that's relevant to the conversation. I said within the post that he will get 3 weeks - yet you people are so intent on punishing him for being a 'flog', that your arguments are all based on character rather than the actual incident itself. Would hate to see you on a jury - he's a flog, he thinks he's better than us, 20 years in jail!
Click to expand...

So you accuse me of not understanding your post when you clearly didn’t read mine.
 
Shadow89 said:
Because that's relevant to the conversation. I said within the post that he will get 3 weeks - yet you people are so intent on punishing him for being a 'flog', that your arguments are all based on character rather than the actual incident itself. Would hate to see you on a jury - he's a flog, he thinks he's better than us, 20 years in jail!
Click to expand...

With the updated Medical Report sent to AFL Tribunal (added Fractured Orbital Bone) Danger will consider himself lucky if he only gets 5!
 
box070 said:
So you accuse me of not understanding your post when you clearly didn’t read mine.
Click to expand...

You and others keep bringing up his 'holier than thou' attitude, as a reason to punish him further...what relevance does that have in this whole discussion?
 
The Cryptkeeper said:
FFS, he jumped into Kelly. He was off the ground when contact occurred. He instigated it, and leaving the ground means that he was not affording any duty of care to his opponent. It was not self-preservation as claimed. He is, in fact a flog and a liar.

Are your eyes painted on?
Click to expand...

His feet leave the ground because of the force of the hit - inertia. The more you keep calling him a 'flog' and 'a liar', the more you undermine your own argument - as you just look like a bunch of people baying for blood because you already hate him, lol.
 
Bjchan13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure if hits like that happen multiple times in a game. It was a ripping shirt front and got him flush almost coming from the opposite direction.

Interestly the shoulder charge is illegal in rugby as they know just how dangerous it is. But in the AFL its is ok as long as you don't go high.

What does that say in itself?
 
Shadow89 said:
Nice to see this is still going on.

I find it interesting that none of you have made the argument - for or against - whether he wanted to headbutt Kelly or not?

If he flattens him but they never clash heads, it's play on...right? So given some of the arguments on here, the thing you take issue with is the head clash? If that's the case, as Sloane points out, do you really think he meant to intentionally headbutt Kelly?

Whatever your position on this, the actual action of bumping is not what caused the collateral damage that resulted after the initial bump. It's not like Williams launching off the ground and getting Clark in the head, or Long extending his elbow and getting whichever played he KO'd, in the head too.

That's why it would be lovely if some people could exercise some nuance in this discussion.

Danger's actions will result in 3 weeks minimum suspension, as the grading schema shows that it should. But that's not what's being debated here. People are acting like he intentionally decided to lay him out, which only happens because of the incidental clashing of heads after the initial bump.

This argument doesn't make much sense, because the initial contact was a fair hip and shoulder directly to the body, without any contact to the head - and elbows tucked in.

Like him or despise him, that's the context this should be viewed in. If he extended his elbow and took out Kelly with that motion, then there'd be no discussion to be had here, no defence and I'd be asking that we throw a 6+ week penalty at him too - because his intent would have been to severely injure Kelly.

To provide an example, I'll refer you guys back to the Shane Mumford front on 'tackle', which was lauded by everyone in the footy world, and showcased on every major AFL news network as being the 'perfect tackle' or 'the most brutal bump you'll see this year.' In actuality it was never a tackle, and only becomes one after the initial bump where his arms sort of fall over Duncan. After that incident, Duncan wasn't right for nearly 2 years - let alone a few weeks.

Had their heads made contact in this day and age, then Duncan would have likely been knocked out and Mummy would have had the book thrown at him. Because there was no concussion at the time, Mumford didn't even get reported and headlines like 'Duncan gets Mummified' were trotted out left right and center - as Duncan was made the butt of every AFL joke at every chance. 'I bet you Duncan wakes up having nightmares', is one I can remember said by a footy commentator - said with tongue in cheek.

So what becomes the difference here with Danger? If he executes the bump in the same way but their heads don't clash, I guarantee not one person in here is even talking about his intent, but rather, 'wow that was a solid bump - Kelly didn't know what hit him' - etc.

His initial action was one that elicited no injury, as it was directly to the body and no initial contact was made to the head upon impact. Their heads clash as a result of the sheer force and inertia of two players colliding, and as a result, Kelly is injured in a very severe way. That's known as incidental contact, not malicious or intended contact. If that's the case, then you can't exactly call him a 'thug', 'sniper' 'scum' etc. if the resultant injury was caused by incidental contact.

The only way you can make that argument, is if you intentionally think he meant to headbutt him, and if you think he's some sort of Rambo type, or underground boxer, lol. Even if you bizarrely do think that, he doesn't just walk up to Kelly and headbutt him off the play.

There's nothing wrong with disliking Dangerfield - as many in here do -, that's your prerogative. However, just disliking him doesn't mean you can seriously argue that he meant to make contact with Kelly's head in this particular instance - by using his own head -, as the initial bump itself was perfectly legal.

As you were.
Click to expand...
With what your saying and i agree with most of it he intended to bump not protect himself, I think most people actually agree it would have been a good bump if heads didnt clash but you choose to bump you take that risk, its also a late hit which I dont agree with, hes come out and blatantly lied
 
Shadow89 said:
Nice to see this is still going on.

I find it interesting that none of you have made the argument - for or against - whether he wanted to headbutt Kelly or not?

If he flattens him but they never clash heads, it's play on...right? So given some of the arguments on here, the thing you take issue with is the head clash? If that's the case, as Sloane points out, do you really think he meant to intentionally headbutt Kelly?

Whatever your position on this, the actual action of bumping is not what caused the collateral damage that resulted after the initial bump. It's not like Williams launching off the ground and getting Clark in the head, or Long extending his elbow and getting whichever played he KO'd, in the head too.

That's why it would be lovely if some people could exercise some nuance in this discussion.

Danger's actions will result in 3 weeks minimum suspension, as the grading schema shows that it should. But that's not what's being debated here. People are acting like he intentionally decided to lay him out, which only happens because of the incidental clashing of heads after the initial bump.

This argument doesn't make much sense, because the initial contact was a fair hip and shoulder directly to the body, without any contact to the head - and elbows tucked in.

Like him or despise him, that's the context this should be viewed in. If he extended his elbow and took out Kelly with that motion, then there'd be no discussion to be had here, no defence and I'd be asking that we throw a 6+ week penalty at him too - because his intent would have been to severely injure Kelly.

To provide an example, I'll refer you guys back to the Shane Mumford front on 'tackle', which was lauded by everyone in the footy world, and showcased on every major AFL news network as being the 'perfect tackle' or 'the most brutal bump you'll see this year.' In actuality it was never a tackle, and only becomes one after the initial bump where his arms sort of fall over Duncan. After that incident, Duncan wasn't right for nearly 2 years - let alone a few weeks.

Had their heads made contact in this day and age, then Duncan would have likely been knocked out and Mummy would have had the book thrown at him. Because there was no concussion at the time, Mumford didn't even get reported and headlines like 'Duncan gets Mummified' were trotted out left right and center - as Duncan was made the butt of every AFL joke at every chance. 'I bet you Duncan wakes up having nightmares', is one I can remember said by a footy commentator - said with tongue in cheek.

So what becomes the difference here with Danger? If he executes the bump in the same way but their heads don't clash, I guarantee not one person in here is even talking about his intent, but rather, 'wow that was a solid bump - Kelly didn't know what hit him' - etc.

His initial action was one that elicited no injury, as it was directly to the body and no initial contact was made to the head upon impact. Their heads clash as a result of the sheer force and inertia of two players colliding, and as a result, Kelly is injured in a very severe way. That's known as incidental contact, not malicious or intended contact. If that's the case, then you can't exactly call him a 'thug', 'sniper' 'scum' etc. if the resultant injury was caused by incidental contact.

The only way you can make that argument, is if you intentionally think he meant to headbutt him, and if you think he's some sort of Rambo type, or underground boxer, lol. Even if you bizarrely do think that, he doesn't just walk up to Kelly and headbutt him off the play.

There's nothing wrong with disliking Dangerfield - as many in here do -, that's your prerogative. However, just disliking him doesn't mean you can seriously argue that he meant to make contact with Kelly's head in this particular instance - by using his own head -, as the initial bump itself was perfectly legal.

As you were.
Click to expand...

What are you on about?

Its not play on, it's a late hit whether Kelly gets up or not. At absolute best, if Kelly is fine, it's still a downfield free kick for a late impact.
I would honestly have expected a report even if there was no head clash and Kelly was ok. Its a shoulder charge on an open player who has disposed of the ball.
 
For those saying he has to protect himself, it's a fair bump, it was accidental, sorry but he lined him up due to being pissed off.

If he wanted to line him up and be 100% confident he wasn't going to cause injury to the head he needs to go and watch the video of Doedee's hit on Snelling from last year. Cut the guy in half with a hard bump that went low to ensure no head contact

 

Remove this Banner Ad

Dangerfield on Kelly

Similar threads

HirdyLannister
  • Poll
MRP / Trib. Dangerfield how many weeks?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Romeoh1
R
Chadwiko
Patrick Dangerfield 'dangerous tackle' - gone or safe?
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
295
Views
9K
myblueroan
myblueroan
M
Rankine on Starc.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
127
Views
5K
iBeng
iBeng
gbatman
  • Poll
One game suspension exemption
Replies
20
Views
1K
VL3OJ
VL3OJ
carloss
MRP / Trib. Is Dane Rampe in hot water for this hit on Zak Butters?
Replies
19
Views
685
Duckimus Prime
Duckimus Prime
H
Kallan Dawson on Crisp
Replies
0
Views
300
HTPunter
H
J
Duck on in or duck on down
Replies
12
Views
1K
Maze
M

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top