Patrick Dangerfield 'dangerous tackle' - gone or safe?

[HairyO]

So if you tackle someone and their head hits the ground you can get away with it because the impact was low and you didnt really mean it.

But if you lay a tackle where there is no head contact but it is deemed dangerous then you are shit out of luck and going to have to sit out for a week.

The AFL are just ****ing useless.

 

[danster168]

strange decision. how does pulling back stop Walsh's head from hitting the ground? You'd have to try to roll him, not yank his shoulders backwards.
This has set a precedent that you can now pin both arms and tackle a player into the ground which I'd probably a good thing long term as geez this game is soft.

 

[TW Sherrin]

there are a few players wondering how they copped a week or 2 earlier in the season.

its almost as if its finals time.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Think this was the right call and the right process as it was a weird tacle, so suspend him, but let Geelong challenge and let the tribunal decide. This wasn't an obvious one. I would have let him off too.

 

[skipper kelly]

No suspension.
Walsh did nothing wrong.
Non story.

 

[skipper kelly]

Oh....and the MRP is ****ed.

 

[Cam Payne]

Personally, I feel he should have received the same punishment as Jeronimus Cornelisz. Anything short of that is a miscarriage of justice.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The most commonly erroneous statement made on this site would be Selwood ducked. I reckon less than 1% of comments were challenged.

After a while, why bother.

I'm sure you tried to reason with this in the early days before you gave up. This happened 4 days ago.

The thing is I believe staging to be one of the worst things you can do in the game. It's cheating and it can change games.

I hated it when Lindsay Thomas was doing it, and hate that Jack Ginnivan still does it.

Yes, I know that raising the arm causing the traffic, and we didn't really think of it like a tactic when Selwood (and a few Eagles players) did it. For Joel, I always felt he was trying to break tackles, not looking for frees. He didn't go to ground, didn't snap his head back so the jumps saw it. It felt like his motives were different.

I don't like Carlton players doing it either. Snapping your head back when you copped an arm across the chest, as one of our ex-players did ... it was weak.

I want games to be decided as fairly as possible, not by conning umpires. So any accusation of cheating by one of our tougher ball players doesn't sit well with me.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Personally, I feel he should have received the same punishment as Jeronimus Cornelisz. Anything short of that is a miscarriage of justice.

A bit ho hum. Hanging?

What about the Blood Eagle?

 

[HairyO]

I'm sure you tried to reason with this in the early days before you gave up. This happened 4 days ago.

The thing is I believe staging to be one of the worst things you can do in the game. It's cheating and it can change games.

I hated it when Lindsay Thomas was doing it, and hate that Jack Ginnivan still does it.

Yes, I know that raising the arm causing the traffic, and we didn't really think of it like a tactic when Selwood (and a few Eagles players) did it. For Joel, I always felt he was trying to break tackles, not looking for frees. He didn't go to ground, didn't snap his head back so the jumps saw it. It felt like his motives were different.

I don't like Carlton players doing it either. Snapping your head back when you copped an arm across the chest, as one of our ex-players did ... it was weak.

I want games to be decided as fairly as possible, not by conning umpires. So any accusation of cheating by one of our tougher ball players doesn't sit well with me.

There are dozens of players doing it. The umpires need to be more consistent at calling it out and it will stop.

There are 4 umpires. Surely they can see what is happening.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

There are dozens of players doing it. The umpires need to be more consistent at calling it out and it will stop.

There are 4 umpires. Surely they can see what is happening.

Call them all out by all means. The more doing it, means others will do it just to get the same opportunities.

Raise the arm, lean in, or duck equals no free kick if you get high contact, and perhaps it is considered prior.

The issue is the media flip flopping. They call out certain players, get everyone onside , then do a reverse story about how the player is being bullied out of the game. The umps don't even know what the prevailing sentiment is anymore.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Not commenting on how it matches precedent or the letter of the law, but in isolation, this one felt right by my eye test.

I think Dangerfield did pretty much everything right in the circumstances, and the outcome was more of a “sometimes shit happens” situation because Walsh also did nothing wrong.

Whether a lesser known player would have been adjudicated the same way though… I’m not sure.

 

[Slime Roy]

there are a few players wondering how they copped a week or 2 earlier in the season.

its almost as if its finals time.

It is for Geelong.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not commenting on how it matches precedent or the letter of the law, but in isolation, this one felt right by my eye test.

I think Dangerfield did pretty much everything right in the circumstances, and the outcome was more of a “sometimes shit happens” situation because Walsh also did nothing wrong.

Whether a lesser known player would have been adjudicated the same way though… I’m not sure.

Maybe it takes a big name player getting off to create the precedent for the lesser known players? It shouldn't, but we live in the real world. Two-tiered system of justice in all walks.

 

[Obeanie1]

Just let channel 7 run thr tribunal: "it's almost like paddy's trying to hold him up"

I thought that looking at the photos.

Then looked at the vision.

Until he drives his weight into his back at the last second whilst pulling back on the arms so in effect stops the player being tackled bracing for impact and his head is unprotected.

Not the greatest technique.

The joke here is good players slightly erring in a football act get rubbed out of awards and miss games.

Meanwhile blokes like Butters go around striking and get fines. A non football act behind play.

 

[Ambrosia]

So he got off because it was clear he tried to not tackle dangerously?

When has this been taken into account previously?

 

[Seadog]

He tackled him and buried his head in the ground in a nice way.
You know it makes sense.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Oh....and the MRP is ****ed.

I think his guidelines look at actions and possible results and pinning the arms with head hitting would be two ticks. He had to do his job within guidelines and let the tribunal take into account the extenuating circumstances, so it was open and transparent.

If the MRO just let him off, the outcry would have been huge. Damned either way in this case.

But aside from that ... yeah **** that guy!

 

[JackFlash]

Fans are just voicing their hatred of Danger than any common sense. If he was rubbed out for that then the tackle is history. It was a good decision to free him to play, he didn't do anything wrong. Opposition fans are just hating on the player, it was a perfect tackle.

 

[Seadog]

Fans are just voicing their hatred of Danger than any common sense. If he was rubbed out for that then the tackle is history. It was a good decision to free him to play, he didn't do anything wrong. Opposition fans are just hating on the player, it was a perfect tackle.

No it wasn't. he drove his head into the ground. Not saying it was worth a suspension but it wasn't perfect.

 

[Spearman]

I think a lesser known player might not have gotten the votes from the tribunal, possibly because they wouldn't have argued on their own behalf as strongly as Dangerfield did. I think that had a lot of weight to it.

This case does show up how crap the AFL system is. It has fans baying for a terrible decision just because there were really shit decisions before and they want a square up. I get that emotion myself whenever these situations come up. It's disgusting and the decision makers need to be held accountable, somehow. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Whether a lesser known player would have been adjudicated the same way though… I’m not sure.

The only consistent thing about the tribunal is its inconsistency.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Dangerfields action did nothing to propel walshes head forward and down in the fashion and force with which it went… in fact he was almost holding him up. It’s amazing how good players are getting at the whiplash effect.

Are you suggesting Walsh caused his head to whiplash? Laughable.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Fans are just voicing their hatred of Danger than any common sense. If he was rubbed out for that then the tackle is history. It was a good decision to free him to play, he didn't do anything wrong. Opposition fans are just hating on the player, it was a perfect tackle.

I'm fine with that not being a suspension. It's just stupid that other players have been suspended for the same or less.

AFL needs a reality check.

 

[Hoops]

This is the point, most of us think he shouldn't have got a week but with some of the suspensions previously for the same type of incidents it becomes a bit of a joke.

Previously, if the head makes contact with the ground in a tackle the tackler was suspended because they have a duty of care or it was likely to cause injury therefore a suspension was given?

It's extremely rare that a player gets of this type of charge so who was the last player to be cleared in a tackle report?

You have to look at which tackles went to the tribunal and went from 1 to 0 weeks