Dangerfield on Kelly

Remove this Banner Ad

This thread is a cesspit. Tall poppy syndrome in full force.
Melbourne comedy festival will want to talk to you all for a spot with all the highly humorous and very original surfing jokes. Huzzah.

LukeParkerno1 said:
Severe means 3 minimum and let’s not pretend this is his first offence he’s no Toby Greene but he’s not a cleanskin either. 3-4 is about right
Click to expand...
:drunk:
 
DanWA said:
Yeah no less than 3 sounds about right

If the AFL wants to make a statement about concussions, the ban should be longer
Click to expand...

I’m surprised they haven’t tried to make an example asking for 5 weeks but looking at it rationally 3 to 4 is about right
 

Log in to remove this ad.

There it is, the end of the bump:


Patrick Dangerfield tribunal hearing: Why AFL coaches are banning the bump
subscriber-breach-pixel
"Patrick Dangerfield’s report for his bump on Crow Jake Kelly has forced coaches to make a fundamental change, in effect banning the bump.

The bump could soon be extinct in AFL football, with coaches actively encouraging their players not to use it.
Giants coach Leon Cameron revealed in the wake of Patrick Dangerfield’s weekend bump on Jake Kelly – which left the Crow concussed and with a broken nose – that he instructed his players to tackle every time.
Greater Western Sydney’s post-match analysis even includes trying to understand why a footballer opted to bump instead of tackle, as part of the process to eliminate the age-old act.

Cameron’s Port Adelaide counterpart Ken Hinkley also said the Power were trying to reprogram players to “choose the option of tackle more than bump”.

“We talk to our players all the time about not bumping anymore,” Cameron told Fox Footy on Monday night.

“We talk about when you go in and approach a contest, or an opposition player, to tackle at every given time.

“Now, clearly, habit has been there for a long time for these players and it’s not always going to be perfect … so we have little incidents all the time where you have a choice to tackle.

“We review it, but you might have bumped and we say, ‘Well, why did you take the bump there?’.

Hinkley agrees with the AFL’s “strict liability” approach to bumps, where if a player chooses to make contact they must deal with the potential consequences if the opponent suffers injury.

“It will make the game safer,” Hinkley said.

“(Dangerfield’s) intent was to disrupt the ball – it wasn’t to cause injury and harm to the player … (so) there will be consideration to what was the intent, and I think that’s OK, but the injury is the biggest and most important factor in the whole thing.”

However, Hinkley said it wasn’t as straightforward as people might think to remove the bump from the sport.

“It’s a combative game and we usually welcome the combativeness of the game, but the game is now changing,” he said.

“The instruction now is, ‘Tackle or go at the ball and pick the ball up’, and if you go at the ball really hard and the ball’s on the ground, that’s easy.

“But if it’s in doubt and the oppo’s got the ball, yes, I think tackle is the first option.”

www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/patrick-dangerfield-tribunal-hearing-why-afl-coaches-are-banning-the-bump/news-story/6407acdd83f4ab8077bb7c334aa11e1d%3famp

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

Disagree or not, but given the high profile nature of Dangerfield as an example for all future examples, it's not conspiracy to state that the bump will now be consigned to history moving forward - as there is irrefutable evidence of this above.
 
3 weeks will give you long enough to lick one of these Paddy

1616484788868.png
 
Meh you can still bump but aim lower jeez! Talk about going over the top. The “bump” shouldn’t be near the head. I’d rather our players just tackle though. Why bring “luck” into play. Not as if Dangerfield didn’t have other options and that’s the crux of it really.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Meh you can still bump but aim lower jeez! Talk about going over the top. The “bump” shouldn’t be near the head. I’d rather our players just tackle though. Why bring “luck” into play. Not as if Dangerfield didn’t have other options and that’s the crux of it really.
Click to expand...

Exactly Patrick needa to learn to bump effectively without raising the ire of the public.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Check out this flog from AFL 360 who was dirty on the AFL for handing only a 1 match ban to Zac Williams.
He demanded the AFL get tougher on those cheap shots where a player lines up another player and bumps them high after they've gotten rid of the ball

2 weeks later, Dangerfield lines up Jake Kelly from 15 metres away, knocks him out cold and that incoherent bald pisshead is defending Dangerfield :confusedv1:

:drunk::drunk::drunk::beercheers::drunk::drunk::beermug::beermug::$

 
Last edited:
LukeParkerno1 said:
Meh you can still bump but aim lower jeez! Talk about going over the top. The “bump” shouldn’t be near the head. I’d rather our players just tackle though. Why bring “luck” into play. Not as if Dangerfield didn’t have other options and that’s the crux of it really.
Click to expand...

Can't really bump, if coaches are actively dissuading it. While I agree that you can, it doesn't mean that after the game you won't get a dressing down and it'll be reinforced that you shouldn't. In the wake of the Dangerfield charge, you can see that coaches are actively holding education sessions on post-training on why the opted to bump instead of tackle (that's the most significant part of the article IMO):

"Greater Western Sydney’s post-match analysis even includes trying to understand why a footballer opted to bump instead of tackle, as part of the process to eliminate the age-old act."

If the coaches aren't endorsing it, it means the leadership group won't endorse it, which means the players as a group won't practice it - in any form. This will be adopted throughout all clubs very quickly I would say - if it hasn't already starting being discussed.

In essence, the bump is now dead.
 
I still don't get how you can argue part of the charges and get the discount for pleading guilty. Should be accept the MRP/tribunals charge in full or no discount.
 
Back One Out said:
Check out this flog from AFL 360 who was pissed off at Zac Williams receiving only a 1 match ban.
He demanded the AFL get tougher on those cheap shots where a player lines up another player and bumps them high after they've gotten rid of the ball

2 weeks later, Dangerfield lines up Jake Kelly from 15m metres away, knocks him out cold and that incoherent bald pisshead is defending Dangerfield :confusedv1:

:drunk::drunk::drunk::beercheers::drunk::drunk::beermug::beermug::$

Click to expand...


HAHAHA...hadn't seen this.

Oh dear...
 
Shadow89 said:
Can't really bump, if coaches are actively dissuading it. While I agree that you can, it doesn't mean that after the game you won't get a dressing down and it'll be reinforced that you shouldn't.

If the coaches aren't endorsing it, it means the leadership group won't endorse it, which means the players as a group won't practice it - in any form. In essence, the bump is dead.
Click to expand...

I’m fine with little to no bumping. I don’t watch the game for “bumps”. I watch it for the football.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
I’m fine with little to no bumping. I don’t watch the game for “bumps”. I watch it for the football.
Click to expand...

I'm not really fussed to be honest, was just posting the article in response to a lot of people like yourself stating that you can still bump, when coaches are now saying that you basically can't. Nothing more than that :)
 
Wilbur23 said:
You have the chance of a head clash from a tackle too. So why is one different to the other when both are legal parts of the game ? Either the bump is banned or it isn't.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Leaping on someone's head is a legal part of the game when you are going for a mark. Not when the ball is at the other end.

Tackling is a legal part of the game when the guy has the ball, not when he hasn't.

Swearing at a person on the field is legal when it's a team-mate or opponent, not when it's an umpire


There is not one rule of the game in which its context does not determine its legality.
 
Last edited:
DanWA said:
People getting all amped up that the bump is dead are silly

Only the sniping bump is dead
Click to expand...

Read the article that quotes coaches stating that they're training players not to bump in the wake of the Dangerfield charge? How is it silly if there's clear evidence that coaches are actively educating against using it?
 
Shadow89 said:
I'm not really fussed to be honest, was just posting the article in response to a lot of people like yourself stating that you can still bump, when coaches are now saying that you basically can't. Nothing more than than :)
Click to expand...

You can but aim lower towards the midriff rather than the old shoulder to shoulder. That said I’m not shocked coaches are trying to stop players doing it the consequences are massive
 

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