Yep some one lese will do the same tackle,cop a week and wont get offRules for some ... rules for others
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep some one lese will do the same tackle,cop a week and wont get offRules for some ... rules for others
Clearly physics is lost on youIt was shown through evidence that he took measures to halt and even bring walsh upright to prevent his head hitting the ground. The tribunal saw this argument and agreed. Good call.
If walsh wants to drive himself forward to milk a free then he can take ownership
Yeah but Walsh's head slammed into the turf and had both arms pinned isn't that the definition of a dangerous tackle that the AFL trying to stamp out?Wasn’t a dangerous sling tackle though.
No current season stats available
Tribunal reasons:
Dangerfield pinned both of Walsh's arms and the forward momentum of both players contributed to Walsh's head making forceful contact with the ground.
Dangerfield conceded that he did not release either arm throughout the tackle, and that he could’ve done so.
The pinned arms placed Walsh in a vulnerable position with little, if any, opportunity to protect himself from having his head hit the ground.
It will be a rare, even exceptional case where a player who tackles with significant forward motion, who pins both arms and who could have but does not release one or both arms will not have engaged in rough conduct. This is such a case.
Although not immediately apparent and not truly apparent until all angles and vision and still shots had been carefully considered, the evidence is clear here Dangerfield immediately swung his legs beside and forward of Walsh, and pulled back with considerable force to attempt to prevent Walsh being driven into the ground.
Vision shows Dangerfield managed to pull him back so that at one point Walsh's torso was almost vertical.
Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.
The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so.
From the considerable care that Dangerfield went to in a short space of time in a fast moving piece of play to do what he could to avoid or minimise injury to his fellow player, we find that this was not rough conduct.
This one fit more criteria for a dangerous tackle than Reid’s and both had the same outcome (no concussion) Theres no chance there’s a 2 week differential in punishments
Not when everyone else is getting pinned with “potential to cause injury” bullshit."He tried his best not to hurt him" seems like a pretty good defence to a rough conduct charge no?
No I didn't, so fair play to you and I apologise.Did you see who I was replying to?
He said I bet if he were a Brownlow favourite he would not get rubbed out
That's the AFLPA president right there. Leading by example."I'm using all of my upper body. I'm using all of my legs. I'm using all of my core strength to pull back Sam."
Arms up's Decent, Mouth-full of dirt's Dandy.Does the dangerous tackle go the way of the dissent rule ? Or the stand ? Applied aggressively to start with no understanding of how it could be over & negatively applied. Now we have players screaming at umps & thumping their arms and stamping feet again and getting away with it, because no ump wants to pay dissent, but a year ago a sigh got you 50.
Any tackle that had a head hit was a week earlier in the year (good bloke pending). Now they’re realising heads are gonna hit the ground for various reasons outside of duty of care and ah shit maybe it’s a contact sport where tackling is a way to win the ball back and it’s a 360 game so sometimes tackles will have forward momentum
This, CONSISTENCY is all most of us want. It is a massive problem with AFL is so many facets of the sport. FFS a lawyer debating a player over an action that took a second and change to occur. And so many similar incidents that get decided in different ways. It doesn't help that it appears to be a stated fact that star players shouldn't get suspended for any of the finals or in medal contention. It puts the whole operation into the dodgy and ripe for corruption file.That’s all the complaint is about.
On its individual merit, no one thinks Danger did anything bad or dodgy.
As a function of trend or consistency, had to be a week.
That’s all.
We’re not annoyed Danger got off. It was a tackle to stop Walsh getting a fair disposal off to win a game of footy, not to wrap Walsh in cotton wool & make him a cup of tea. We’re annoyed at how the rules and interpretations change weekly it seems.
It had grainier footage than the Apollo 11 moon landing.There was no footage of that incident and they gave him a month, so the other poster knows FA about Geelong and the match review panel
Nah Reid got done with “potential to cause injury”. Ie. we can’t actually find anything in our own guidelines that you’ve broken so we’ll pull this gem out of our arse that no one can argue against.Reid clearly had a second motion to dump to ground. Wilson went from standing propped, to being lifted & tackled to the ground. Dangerfield was in forward momentum. Very different.
Then be offended, nobody's suggesting he faked it, but certainly he milked it. It was a good tackle.Walsh did no such thing and nothing in the footage suggested he did. Comparing him to what May did is offensive.
He exxagerated and milked it looking for a free kick. Plain and simpleClearly physics is lost on you
He was caught and milked it for everything he could. It was a great tackle and Walsh did what every footballer does, tried to get a free kick for it.FWIW I personally don't think it was worth a week but given the current AFL guidelines etc it was and find their reasoning for reversing the decision a joke given they haven't applied that logic to any other incident this year.
Also Walsh didn't milk it, and to put him in the same category as Steven may is just insulting.
Premiership and 8xAA too.If you elect to bump but don't hit the head
-potential to cause injury (S.McAdam 3wks)
If you elect to tackle, pin arms, drive head into the ground (Geelong,Brownlow Winner,AFLPA Pres,Potential Farewell Season...0 Weeks, Play on Patty)
“SLAMMED”..Yeah but Walsh's head slammed into the turf and had both arms pinned isn't that the definition of a dangerous tackle that the AFL trying to stamp out?
Couldn't agree more. Players have been getting rubbed out for pinning arms in a tackle and the tackled hitting their head on the ground all year 1- 3/4 weeks, depending on concussion or not. Unless anyone thinks Sam Walsh faked it, how does Dangerfield escape a couple weeks off here?Not when everyone else is getting pinned with “potential to cause injury” bullshit.
Theyve got vague wording and phrasing for every scenario to get the outcome they want, much like their rulebook.
The game is run by lawyers and its pretty evident they’re applying the same bullshit arguments to the way they do things.
Reckon you should worry about Jhye Clark and Tanner Bruhn actually getting a kick one of these days instead of Walsh's head motions when he's slammed into the turf by flogs like ur Captain.Will the AFL retrospectively fine Walsh or just wait for the inevitable next faceplant?
Couldn't agree more. Players have been getting rubbed out for pinning arms in a tackle and the tackled hitting their head on the ground all year 1- 3/4 weeks, depending on concussion or not. Unless anyone thinks Sam Walsh faked it, how does Dangerfield escape a couple weeks off here?