Mega Thread Port Forum 'General AFL Talk' Thread Part 17

[Tibbs]

I cant believe people are defending Dangerfield here. Yes it was a head-clash, but stop comparing it to incidents of past years. In this new CTE-aware world we are living in, the head is sacrosanct, and has to be protected!

Dangerfield could have ...
1] dived for the spoil
2] attempted to tackle

Instead he chose to go for the man. Yes he attempted a shoulder bump, but it was late, crude, and poorly executed. He drove himself into the player, in so doing was airborne on impact.

'Oh, but he didnt intend to head-clash.' .... C'mon, the guy is an elite, experienced AFL footballer. The basic laws of physics will tell you that two players running full pelt into each other is always going to produce a head-clash. Now if they were BOTH going for the ball and the clash occurs, then fine, its accidental. But in this case, with all the clear instructions they have received on the matter, he has to get 2 weeks minimum ..... or 3 minimum if he was a Port player!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I think the league will want this resolved via the matrix and not at the Tribunal. It will happen again.

The matrix says if it is careless or intentional, but severe impact, it goes straight to the tribunal with at least a 3 game penalty. The matrix doesnt allow for any alternative.

I cant see how the impact ruling can be anything other than severe.

 

[Waspy79]

Why? Head clashes as a result of a player choosing to bump have been straight up and down suspensions for years now.

SHOULD have been. The league ignored its own guidance when not banning Burton.

 

[JimmyBC]

Yea guys deliberately go in for a bump expecting a head clash which could knock themselves out lol get off the grass

 

[TeeKray]

SHOULD have been. The league ignored its own guidance when not banning Burton.

The Burton incident was what changed the guidance ...

 

[Waspy79]

The matrix says if it is careless or intentional, but severe impact, it goes straight to the tribunal with at least a 3 game penalty. The matrix doesnt allow for any alternative.

I cant see how the impact ruling can be anything other than severe.

I understand what you are saying however I think Danger deserves an allowance for the head contact being secondary to the body bump. I’d be grading the impact high as opposed to severe as there’s definitely scope for worse impact when bumping.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I understand what you are saying however I think Danger deserves an allowance for the head contact being secondary to the body bump. I’d be grading the impact high as opposed to severe as there’s definitely scope for worse impact when bumping.

Thats not how it works. It looks at the impact andthe outcome. Kelly misses half a game and has a 12 day break. That is severe impact on the player

 

[Waspy79]

The Burton incident was what changed the guidance ...

If you dig deep enough I think you’ll find that’s not actually the case. The guidance was already “duty of care when electing to bump”. Michael Christian overlooked that policy guidance when choosing to let Burton off. It was a disgraceful decision.

 

[Waspy79]

Thats not how it works. It looks at the impact andthe outcome. Kelly misses half a game and has a 12 day break. That is severe impact on the player

Yes it does work that way because Michael Christian manipulates the matrix to achieve outcomes, not the other way around. This won’t go to the tribunal as contact is not severe.

 

[Doctor Feel]

Why? Head clashes as a result of a player choosing to bump have been straight up and down suspensions for years now.

Dangerfield, head clash, new focus on CTE. It'll be a case that is immediately referred to every single time anything like this happens. Whatever happens will be the precedent moving forward regardless of the old cases.

 

[JimmyBC]

Dangerfield, head clash, new focus on CTE. It'll be a case that is immediately referred to every single time anything like this happens. Whatever happens will be the precedent moving forward regardless of the old cases.

Gerhard Whiteley to Broad Landscape it Mondee morn' without fail.

 

[Grave Danger]

The other interesting report was the swipe by Essendon's Nik Cox on Hanrahan, which looked exactly like the swipe a Richmond player got a fine for in Thursday's Traditional Season Opener. I wonder if a newbie player will get exactly the same outcome.

 

[Duck Farmer]

It was an accidental clash of heads. Dangerfield could have been just as easily the one injured. If there was no head clash, it was a fair bump and no report. If the AFL are truly serious about this, they should address the root cause and eliminate the bump.

 

[PAFC_1870]

I still have a problem with head clashes leading to suspensions.

I get the rule, but I don't like the rule. He should cop a week or two, but I don't agree with it.

I hate Danger as much as anyone but he's not a dirty sniper, he's a tough, great player. The game is better for those physical encounters. It's just 'unfortunate' that in this day and age we know better about the consequences.

 

[Windy Cindy]

I cant believe people are defending Dangerfield here. Yes it was a head-clash, but stop comparing it to incidents of past years. In this new CTE-aware world we are living in, the head is sacrosanct, and has to be protected!

Dangerfield could have ...
1] dived for the spoil
2] attempted to tackle

Instead he chose to go for the man. Yes he attempted a shoulder bump, but it was late, crude, and poorly executed. He drove himself into the player, in so doing was airborne on impact.

'Oh, but he didnt intend to head-clash.' .... C'mon, the guy is an elite, experienced AFL footballer. The basic laws of physics will tell you that two players running full pelt into each other is always going to produce a head-clash. Now if they were BOTH going for the ball and the clash occurs, then fine, its accidental. But in this case, with all the clear instructions they have received on the matter, he has to get 2 weeks minimum ..... or 3 minimum if he was a Port player!

chose to bump, and wears the consequences. should get 2, based on what Zac Williams got

 

[Andre]

Dangerfield, head clash, new focus on CTE. It'll be a case that is immediately referred to every single time anything like this happens. Whatever happens will be the precedent moving forward regardless of the old cases.

This is exactly why the AFL doesn’t want to allow precedents referred to. They want to be able to fine their good boys and suspend those from other clubs *cough* Port tax *cough*.

I don’t think he meant to hurt him to that extent, but it’s been very public now that players must avoid the head. He didn’t, but what tips it into weeks is both feet are off the ground. If at least one had remained on the ground, he could have argued he was bracing to protect himself.

Of course I’m still expecting some convoluted logic to get him one week, down to a fine with a guilty plea, first offence for the year. #vflforever

 

[Windy Cindy]

This is exactly why the AFL doesn’t want to allow precedents referred to. They want to be able to fine their good boys and suspend those from other clubs *cough* Port tax *cough*.

I don’t think he meant to hurt him to that extent, but it’s been very public now that players must avoid the head. He didn’t, but what tips it into weeks is both feet are off the ground. If at least one had remained on the ground, he could have argued he was bracing to protect himself.

Of course I’m still expecting some convoluted logic to get him one week, down to a fine with a guilty plea, first offence for the year. #vflforever

Should get the penalty doubled for forcing Kelly to come off, cost geelong 2 goals from Kelly turnovers

 

[Garibaldi Red]

The other interesting report was the swipe by Essendon's Nik Cox on Hanrahan, which looked exactly like the swipe a Richmond player got a fine for in Thursday's Traditional Season Opener. I wonder if a newbie player will get exactly the same outcome.

Wasn‘t the Cox incident a bump? It was Daniher who swung the arm back.

I reckon Joey gets off and Cox maybe a fine.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Yes it does work that way because Michael Christian manipulates the matrix to achieve outcomes, not the other way around. This won’t go to the tribunal as contact is not severe.

There are guidelines to what Christian has to follow. You are the one who is trying to manipulate it for some reason that it was a bump gone wrong and therefore the impact can't be graded as severe.

If Christian doesn't give this a severe ruling then he is manipulating things for a high profile player's benefit.

Zak Butters got careless, high impact, high contact and 2 weeks for when he grazed Jy Simpkin's chin last year with a bump gone wrong. Simpkin was stunned and was groggy and was helped off the ground and didn't participate for the rest of the game.

Kelly was stretched off on the cart and the game stopped for several minutes because the head clash produced a severe impact and concussion. He will miss 12 days. (Simpkin was bumped in Rd 16 and played in Rd 17 which was a 7 day break)

If the bump and impact on Kelly was not severe, then what examples do you think is clearly severe?

This is from the 2019 Tribunal Guideline book, which is the latest edition available from the AFL website. It was amended last year for dangerous tackles after Alex Neal-Bullen's tackle on Will Hammill, see

AFL statement: Amendment to AFL Tribunal guidelines

The AFL has decided to change the AFL Tribunal guidelines effective immediately

www.afl.com.au

4.2. (B) IMPACT
Consideration will be given as to whether the impact is Low, Medium, High or
Severe. In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to several factors.

Firstly, consideration will be given to the extent of force and in particular, any
injury sustained by the Player who was offended against.

Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury,
particularly in the following cases:
»»Intentional head-high strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist,
raised forearm or elbow;
»»High bumps, particularly with significant head contact and/or
Player momentum;
»»Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball,
particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from
a front-on position;
»»Forceful round arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in
a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling;
»»Spear tackles; and
»»Driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned.

The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe.
Thirdly, consideration will be given not only to the impact between the offending
Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as
a result of such impact. By way of an example, where a Victim Player as a result
of the impact from the offending Player is pushed into the path of a fast-moving
third Player, the impact to the Victim Player may be classified as High or Severe,
even though the level of impact between the offending Player and the Victim
Player was only Low or Medium.
In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending
Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either
increase or reduce the force of impact.
It should be noted that Low impact is the minimum impact required
for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a
negligible impact

.

This s a high impact graded offence by the MRO.

 

[Grave Danger]

Wasn‘t the Cox incident a bump? It was Daniher who swung the arm back.

I reckon Joey gets off and Cox maybe a fine.

Ah yes, I think you're right - I'm getting my long streaks of piss mixed up, in which case Daniher will probably get off even lighter than Astbury did.

 

[Nemisis]

Danger should get 3 down to 2. The footy world has evolved and should continue to change in regards to the bump. Danger had a chance to throw out his arms and reduce any impact but chose to be reckless and showed his neglect to the safety of Kelly. This is exactly the sort of collision that can avoided. Kelly was like a sitting duck without any form of protection. About time the coaches were put under scrutiny in regards to these sort of collisions.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Danger should get 3 down to 2. The footy world has evolved and should continue to change in regards to the bump. Danger had a chance to throw out his arms and reduce any impact but chose to be reckless and showed his neglect to the safety of Kelly. This is exactly the sort of collision that can avoided. Kelly was like a sitting duck without any form of protection. About time the coaches were put under scrutiny in regards to these sort of collisions.

The early plea discount was removed in the 2018 tribunal system changes. It is 2 or take it to the tribunal. If its 3 it will go straight to the tribunal for them to review.

 

[yepits2020]

Dangerfield lined him up. No if’s, no buts.

 

[Flash of power]

Just click here and you get a list of stations to choose ... click .... listen
View attachment 1081494

again today that icon is not there yet to listen and fiveaa have a recording saying go to afl.com am I missing something?

 

[chiwigi]

I still have a problem with head clashes leading to suspensions.

Nah, they need to be, very easy to do one and come off far better.
Used to happen all the time in league and union. The tackler needs to look out for their own heads as well these days.
Grand Final example here, attempt to take out the best player at kickoff.