Dangerfield on Kelly

Remove this Banner Ad

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...

He changed direction, sped up and shirt fronted him into next week. You can spin this any way you like but he went out to flatten Kelly. Plenty of bumps occur without that level of force or intent.

In electing to bump head clashes are deemed foreseeable and if you hurt someone then it's on you.

It is that simple.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TheKITC said:
You're partisan because of the team you support, it's as obvious as hell. All that other stuff you've carried on with in non-sense.

You haven't personally insulted people and talked down to them? Why won't you address that you've been found talking rubbish for the 'leaving the ground, inertia' which everyone can see is bullshit? Me raising that nobody agrees with you is not playing the man, you're making things up again.

You're trying to leave it there because you are being called out and destroyed by facts and reasonable opinion, simple as that.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just sick of people acting like it's a crime to disagree with consensus opinion?

You're actually getting pretty aggressive and you're the one who started this. Don't act all innocent. I was wrong about that aspect and I've admitted it - apparently that makes me even worse of a person now? Should I have just kept on lying once I realized I was wrong?

Can't win.

EDIT: This was your first post to me:

You have zero or very little support in this thread, just wanted to point that out. I think it's pretty clear you're partisan in this too, so that should be said also.

Perhaps those hanging sh*t on Dangerfield are trying to balance out the media spin we are seeing. I think it's really interesting that 'media darling' Dangerfield is getting a soft run and it's been pointed out the language being used (more like deployed) too. Almost all of the toilet trained media are referring to Dangerfield's "bump" as a "collision". It's almost as if a memo went out about it. I think the only reason they are agreeing it's weeks is because it's as plain as day that he gets suspended. If there was any loop-hole or grey area to exploit, I think we would have seen a full blown, systematic spin to get him off and a concerted effort by the media to push it toward his favour.

I posted this elsewhere, but it's quite relevant again here. Last week on 360 they only just stopped short of calling Williams a dog for his bump. Robbo was totally and disproportionately outraged with Gerard nodding and egging him on. Totally different tone this week which is so "weird" considering Williams has a good record and people that know him said he has no malice in him at all, whereas Dangerfield has a bit of a shoddy record around this stuff and his bump was far worse and actually injured someone. So "weird" that they have focused more on other things around this and have barely been critical of Danger for his actions. Really "weird".

Shadow89 said:
His feet leave the ground because of the force of the hit - inertia.
Click to expand...
This is just outright bullshit. You know we can watch footage of the bump right? Ooops, sorry I mean "collision".

***************

1. You say I have 'very little support', as some sort of unnecessary slight against me

2. You say 'I think it's pretty obvious that you're partisan'
- without any evidence to back that up

3. You then start getting pretty forceful, call what I've said 'bullshit', then proceed to follow up with more aggression in follow-up posts, disregard my stance towards him as a person or representative of my club (which actually should be taken into account, because I don't really care one way or the other if he gets weeks/our team is weakened because of it), proceed to call what I've said 'bullsh*t' again, and then state that I'm 'leaving it there' because I was apparently lying all along and I'm being 'destroyed by facts and reasonable opinion - when I was literally just doing what very few seem to be capable of doing in here - admitting that I was wrong about his feet leaving the ground prior to contact?

How are you innocent there? You are attacking me, and you continue to get more aggressive about my character in each post. I don't really care if you're going to throw barbs at me, but don't then turn around and act like you're a perfect angel. I can own that I was wrong about my opinion, maybe you should own your behaviour in this circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Sttew said:
Well if that's the case the bump has to be outlawed from the game to avoid any confusion. Simple, and will avoid 600 posts
Click to expand...
There is no confusion though. If you bump and cause damage to the head you are in trouble. If you avoid the head if you are fine
 
Bjchan13 said:
I dont know about rugby but to me without the headclash, that action happens multiple times a game, maybe not timed as perfectly as that to create the force of the hit. The action though, i see as running towards a player with the ball to tackle, the player disposes of the ball at last second, and the defender is taught to lay a body on anyway to stop them getting involved in the next sequence or getting a 1 2 handball recieve happening. Without the head clash there is no discussion.
Click to expand...
Without the head clash it's a free downfield, for the late hit after disposal.

However, he chose to bump - and the AFL is very clear that if you choose to bump then you are responsible for the consequences of the bump. Dangerfield clearly intended to hurt Kelly, out of frustration after being unexpectedly caught HTB by Hamill a few seconds earlier. He clearly didn't intend to clash heads, and didn't intend to knock him out cold - but those were the consequences of the action he chose, and now he has to pay for those consequences.
 
Shadow89 said:
No, I'm just sick of people acting like it's a crime to disagree with consensus opinion?

You're actually getting pretty aggressive and you're the one who started this. Don't act all innocent. I was wrong about that aspect and I've admitted it - apparently that makes me even worse of a person now? Should I have just kept on lying once I realized I was wrong?

Can't win.
Click to expand...

Please stop turning this thread into a cesspit with this tripe.

Mods?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Shadow89 said:
No, I'm just sick of people acting like it's a crime to disagree with consensus opinion?

You're actually getting pretty aggressive and you're the one who started this. Don't act all innocent. I was wrong about that aspect and I've admitted it - apparently that makes me even worse of a person now? Should I have just kept on lying once I realized I was wrong?

Can't win.
Click to expand...

It's not a crime, but look how defensive and emotional your responses are. You claim you're being reasonable but all evidence points to the contrary and I don't think you're enjoying having those views tested. You've literally called someone a dickhead 2 minutes ago for not sharing your views on things and you want to call me aggressive? In what way have I been aggressive?

How could you have ever thought he didn't jump though? You tried to slip through a bs excuse and got called on it. Nobody is their right mind could think he didn't leave the ground to bump, it's been shown as plain as day, multiple times in this thread.
 
So as he’s plead guilty, he will be suspended but he’s arguing the level of impact to reduce the suspension, correct?
 
compact72 said:
HEY SIRI....

Dangerfield's lawyer has asked Siri to define severe. The definition he shares with the jury is: "very great or intense".

Does this apply, he asks, to the impact Dangerfield made to Kelly "at head level, not body level".
Click to expand...
Did they go the Legal Aid lawyer??? :think:
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
He had no choice but to bump. Tackling or smothering were not possible............because Kelly had already got rid of the bloody ball!!! SO there was no choice left but to attempt to kill him
Click to expand...

Needed himself a point post did Danger
 

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