Dangerfield on Kelly

[compact72]

DECISION TIME
The jury will now exit the video conference and join a separate video link to deliberate.

They simply need to answer the question of whether the impact is graded severe or high.

We'll have updates as soon as there is a decision.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Utterly at a lawyer using siri in his defence argument.

What’s next Wikipedia?

 

[Wilbur23]

If you go off the ground when you could have tackled normally or done a smother it’s your responsibility to not take the bloke out! I bet you aren’t saying the same thing if it was McCluggage with a smashed nose

Oh yes I would. What happens if he chose to tackle instead and caused an accidental head clash ? Suspension there too ?

 

[beema limapep]

Seemed severe.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I love that they argued that you shouldn't take the nose being broken into account as its a sensitive organ prone to damage.



..... Like the brain?

 

[Wilbur23]

If you go off the ground when you could have tackled normally or done a smother it’s your responsibility to not take the bloke out! I bet you aren’t saying the same thing if it was McCluggage with a smashed nose

I follow the game more than any club.

 

[Wilbur23]

If you go off the ground when you could have tackled normally or done a smother it’s your responsibility to not take the bloke out! I bet you aren’t saying the same thing if it was McCluggage with a smashed nose

He didnt 'take the bloke out' It was an accidental head clash

 

[compact72]

What’s next Wikipedia?

Somebody was quick

 

[Wilbur23]

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.

 

[TheKITC]

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

No, I point that out as a slight against the opinions you're espousing. Nothing personal in that at all.

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

You barrack for Geelong do you not? Being partisan is being prejudiced in favour of a particular cause. Your cause, very obviously is that you support Geelong and Patrick is a key player for Geelong.

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?

It was bullshit. Point directly to where I've been overly aggressive or forceful? Just because my opinion is strong and clear and goes against yours, does not make it those things. If you think I'm being unreasonable and acting outside the terms of service, please report those posts.

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.

I think you're getting far too emotionally invested and hyperbolic in conversing with me. I'm strongly disagreeing with your opinions, not once have I attacked you. NOT ONCE. My behavior is just fine and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. You on the other hand have personally insulted people multiple times, called people unnecessary names etc etc.

 

[Shadow89]

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.

You're still doing it even now. You're literally saying I tried to 'slip through some BS excuse', when there's nothing bigger at play here - I just got it wrong and admitted as such. You're still trying to impugn my character, saying I'm being unreasonable in my response, when there's swathes of you coming at me from left, right and centre calling me all sorts of things and having a go at me personally. The minute I respond in a way you guys don't like, I'm apparently being unreasonable even though I never sought out any one of you to attack first. That's victim blaming.

I called the other guy a dickhead and then retracted it, because he made a smartass comment about how even the defense for Dangerfield admitted his feet left the ground, with a crying face. I had literally just admitted I was wrong about that a few posts back, and he was trying to provoke me, which unfortunately, he succeeded in.

See my edited response above. The post on the previous page actually showed the angle I saw (the reverse angle) where his feet still look like they're on the ground in the final screencap - on a mobile phone.

You keep making guesses about why I'm saying what I'm saying, and then directly proceeding to have a go at me by saying things like 'I don't think you're enjoying having those views tested.' Given that there are plenty of people that I've had reasonable discussions with who disagree with aspects of what I said/have changed my viewpoint on some aspects, I wholeheartedly refute that.

It's pretty simple - stop directly pointing out things about my character, and then calling me unreasonable when I respond in ways you don't like. I never picked you out to have a go at you, nor did I to anyone else in this thread. I've copped a barrage of crap because I deigned to have a different viewpoint on certain aspects of the discussion. The minute I call people out on that, I've had laughing emoticons, rude messages and slights at my character over and over again - yourself included. Excuse me if I'm a little sick of it.

 

[compact72]

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.

Take it your about to lose some $$$ on SportsBet??

 

[box070]

He didnt 'take the bloke out' It was an accidental head clash

Just go away

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He didnt 'take the bloke out' It was an accidental head clash

He could have tackled him it’s that simple.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Go Gleeson!

 

[gingernuts]

I have watched the footage for the first time and I request an upgrade to 4 weeks

 

[Supercoach Bargain]

OK Siri, if a broken beak and knocked out is "high" level impact, what would be "severe"?

 

[Bjchan13]

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.

I agree he would've definitely got a rush of blood to the head after just being caught but players are instructed to the make body contact to their opponent after they've handballed. You see it all the time in my opinion, without the head clash. Im all for punishing late cheap hits but that just didnt look like one to me.

 

[1972championsofaust]

Wilbur23 has had his content ignored...smile

 

[DanWA]

OK Siri, if a broken beak and knocked out is "high" level impact, what would be "severe"?

The defense used these examples

 

[SBYM]

'Siri...where would one find a legal dictionary?'

 

[Xtreme]

2 weeks or less and the AFL is corrupt to the core

 

[Mancey]

Oh yes I would. What happens if he chose to tackle instead and caused an accidental head clash ? Suspension there too ?

Probably not tbh

A head clash in a tackle is not a classifiable offense under the Rough conduct guidelines. Its specifically called Rough Conduct (High Bumps)

As per below

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps) The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or » The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen. In the interests of Player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to Players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all Players and will guide the application of the rule. For the purpose of these guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball

The only classifiable rough conduct offence for tackling is Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles), which specifically apply to spear or sling tackles

So no, Dangerfield would not even have been charged if the head clash occurred in a tackling motion

Want to know more?

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2019/12/04/68a18e95-713c-4408-a269-06b2aef6db34/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

 

[DanWA]

2 weeks or less and the AFL is corrupt to the core

No way, it has to be 3 minimum

 

[Xtreme]

No way, it has to be 3 minimum

Should be 5!