Patrick Dangerfield 'dangerous tackle' - gone or safe?

Remove this Banner Ad

Personally I think the suspensions for dangerous tackles are OTT, but based on what we have seen this year it had to be a suspension.

Would like to see the in-game dangerous tackles removed as the umpires seem to get those hilariously wrong - and you really need the benefit of replays to judge it.
 
BF Tiger said:
FMD people saying Walsh contributed to his head hitting the ground. He had no time to even think that through. From the moment he was immediately tackled After taking possession to his head hitting the ground could be measured in fractions of a second.

Why did his head hit the ground though? Hmmm, do you think it might be because as PD dragged him down his (Walsh) knees dig into the turf. This provided a point of rotation, a pivot that saw his thighs, upper body and head rotate around a point until the football that he was holding against his lower chest hit the ground. That then mostly stopp, there's ed the rotation of his thighs and upper body, but provided another point of rotation for his neck and head, that through summation of forces, was then slammed into the ground. Of course, both arms being pinned meant that Walsh was unable to bring one or both forward to break his fall.

But no, there are mental pygmies in this thread who choose to believe that one of Carlton’s best players chose to risk an early game concussion, possible multiple weeks off football, possible other physical injuries and life long brain trauma to win a free kick in the first 15 seconds of a game that his team were favourites to win anyway.
Click to expand...

Mental pygmy my a*se, plenty of players play for frees every round and not just bottom feeder role players....

....plain as day every round there's players willing to incur injuries and possible life long neck trauma for a free ducking into tackles....

....and pretty sure they don't also milk for free kicks only towards the end of a game....
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BF Tiger said:
If you want to apply that logic then we can use it to argue Dangerfield’s act was deliberate.
Click to expand...

Danger gets is legs out in front of both himself and Walsh to try and halt the momentum, he didn't succeed. Walsh tried the same thing in either the 2nd or 3rd quarter but was unsuccessful.
 
OnceWeWereKings said:
He threw his legs out to give himself leverage, weight & the momentum to bring Walsh to ground.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Throwing your legs out transfers the ballast of the upper body weight downwards.

This technique is used all the time in League to bring down the larger players. NRL tackling techniques that are now trained in the AFL.

Dangerfield has always tackled with “intent” it’s part of his playing arsenal, I for one love players that play with an edge.

In this instance, and with the changing landscape and intent to protect players that cannot protect themselves (duty of care) in moments (in this case Walsh having both arms pinged) it resulted in a dangerous tackle.
In todays game, that’s a week. More if the player is injured, in particular if that injury pertains to a head injury.

To say Walsh contributed in any way is just being ridiculous.

Both Danger and Walsh lucky that the tackle didn’t result in injury.
Click to expand...

Walsh tried it again in the 2nd when tackled by Duncan with about 8:50 left in the quarter.
 
ThatsjustDappa said:
Mental pygmy my a*se, plenty of players play for frees every round and not just bottom feeder role players....

....plain as day every round there's players willing to incur injuries and possible life long neck trauma for a free ducking into tackles....

....and pretty sure they don't also milk for free kicks only towards the end of a game....
Click to expand...
Regardless of what you say about players milking frees explain to me how in this instance Walsh would have been able to deny the laws of physics, you know... momentum, angular rotation, transfer of energy, inertia, whatever etc etc... and just halted his head and body in mid-air. Is he some type of super-hero?

This is all aside to whether the action is suspendable. I really don't care as I recognise the lottery that the tribunal is. But to be blaming Walsh for his head hitting the ground is ludicrous.
 
Wow, people hate Danger, we get it, but the games cooked, that’s not a report, we are rewarding players giving up on breaking the tackle
 
The 747 said:
From what the footage shows, even if you favoured the did it on purpose view it is very marginal.

But the overall argument that players do not or will not risk their head to win a free kick is ludicrous, they do it all the time.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s the argument here.
May just yesterday demonstrating this very thing.
But making the argument that this tackle wasn’t dangerous in the way the game, and these type of incidents, are adjudicated in todays light is just wrong.
Would be like trying to argue a car running a red light and t-boning the car coming through the intersection is the fault of the car driver that’s just been hit because they didn’t brake.
Boyd got 3 last year for something similar. Unfortunately the player tackled was concussed hence the additional 2 matches.
 
OnceWeWereKings said:
I don’t think that’s the argument here.
May just yesterday demonstrating this very thing.
But making the argument that this tackle wasn’t dangerous in the way the game, and these type of incidents, are adjudicated in todays light is just wrong.
Would be like trying to argue a car running a red light and t-boning the car coming through the intersection is the fault of the car driver that’s just been hit because they didn’t brake.
Boyd got 3 last year for something similar. Unfortunately the player tackle was concussed hence the additional 2 matches.
Click to expand...

Not your argument but looks like other are making it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ambrosia said:
The current guidelines from the AFL is Dangerfield should let go or not pin the arm which just isn’t football imo

We’re slowly progressing to stand up tackles and the game changing forever where any lunging tackle is dangerous
Click to expand...
We're slowly moving towards touch footy with everyone having tags around their waist.
 
For a guy who supposedly rammed his own head into the turf, he sure looked shocked afterwards that it had happened.

Wasn't a dangerous tackle though. Just unfortunate that Walsh's knees dug into the turf which pitched him forward.
 
Pistol Night said:
Danger could of tried to stop abruptly and ruptured an ACL or let Walsh run off uncontested. Both options would please the coach immensely
Click to expand...
AFL HQ, and the rules committee have ****ed with our game for too long.
Unrecognisable to what we all fell in love watching.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Patrick Dangerfield 'dangerous tackle' - gone or safe?

Similar threads

HirdyLannister
  • Poll
MRP / Trib. Dangerfield how many weeks?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Romeoh1
R
Mister Dog
MRP / Trib. Maynard dangerous tackle on Owies?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Grand Uncle Horace
Grand Uncle Horace
Maddo11
Dangerous tackle roulette v6.9, Maynard v Powell
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
TW Sherrin
TW Sherrin
kreuze_missile
Staging for dangerous tackle frees is more common than ducking ever was
Replies
14
Views
926
kickazz
kickazz
Colonial
Tackling banned?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
3K
FlowersByIrene
FlowersByIrene
C
Daicos dangerous tackle on Daniel
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
245
Views
9K
Chronz
Chronz
Maddo11
  • Poll
Libba slinging tackle on Day
Replies
7
Views
662
hawkman
hawkman

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top