I agree he was going for the ball however he made no effort to withdraw his elbow. At the very least it should have been graded as reckless, high impact and high contact and a 3 week sanction. Double sanction for a GF = 6 game ban. But of course the AFL are gutless amateurs and let him off. Disgraceful and goes against society values.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 8:41pm He punched the ball and .035 of a second later had impact.
Had no time to drop his arm at all.
Whether he is a protected species or saints supporters are biased or have a persecution complex is irrelevant, in this instance he was going for the ball.
Dangerfield cleared
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Wed 16 Sep 2020 8:23pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
Sorry Moods if that was Long he would have got 4 weeksMoods wrote: ↑Mon 26 Oct 2020 8:08amYou’re joking surely. Slo mo makes what is a complete accident actually look deliberate. So Danger should have lowered his arm in a split second and allowed himself to be ironed out by Vlaustin who was charging straight at him? Get real. He basically kept his arm up as a reflex response to protect himself as any person would if they had someone in their face and a split second to react.Saint 58 wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 9:58pmNo - not intentional but if he had time to bend his arm then he had time to drop his arm to shirtfront himJoffa Burns wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 9:54pmAre you suggesting the hit was intentional?Saint 58 wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 9:47pmBut he had time to bend his arm ??Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 8:41pm He punched the ball and .035 of a second later had impact.
Had no time to drop his arm at all.
Whether he is a protected species or saints supporters are biased or have a persecution complex is irrelevant, in this instance he was going for the ball.
I believe it was accidental in the process of going for the ball.
Suspension warranted clearly (times 2 for a GF)
Any “non star” of the game would be cited, suspended
It was an unfortunate collision but I would have been more worried for our game if he was suspended than anything else that happened this year
Rules for some - different rules for others
Geelong losing may have factored in as well
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- SaintDippa
- Club Player
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Sun 20 Aug 2006 10:28pm
- Location: Mean Streets of Ringwood North
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 116 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
Danger getting off. Lifted his forearm, Vlastuin KOed. Laughable. But.... Why aren't we talking about the Cotchin 'tackle' on Ablett three seconds later. What the hell was that! A legs first dive that contacted Ablett around the knee that could have broken his leg. #9 again.
https://www-sportingnews-com.cdn.amppro ... qlnu6jvk0v
https://www-sportingnews-com.cdn.amppro ... qlnu6jvk0v
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4939
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 343 times
- Been thanked: 488 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
We're not talking about Cotchin because his was a perfectly legitimate tackle. We start outlawing that type of tackle we may as well ban tackling as well as the bump. Ablett had a pre existing bung shoulder. 99% of AFL footballer's shoulders would have withstood that tackle no worries. THe tackle didn't get near his leg until the very end.SaintDippa wrote: ↑Mon 26 Oct 2020 9:31am Danger getting off. Lifted his forearm, Vlastuin KOed. Laughable. But.... Why aren't we talking about the Cotchin 'tackle' on Ablett three seconds later. What the hell was that! A legs first dive that contacted Ablett around the knee that could have broken his leg. #9 again.
https://www-sportingnews-com.cdn.amppro ... qlnu6jvk0v
And Danger didn't lift his elbow. His arm was already in that position. You know why? Because his fist had just contacted the ball. He merely bent the elbow for self protection as almost simultaneously a richmond player was about to crash into him. I would love you blokes to stop looking at slo mo's and watch it in real time. Then tell me that Danger had any other alternative which didn't result in him being flattened himself? I simply can't see any myself. We are now crucifying the guy who is actually going for the ball and the victim is the guy who is trying to lay out the ball player????
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
I respect your opinion but I believe it to be speculative.Devilhead wrote: ↑Mon 26 Oct 2020 8:19amSorry Moods if that was Long he would have got 4 weeksMoods wrote: ↑Mon 26 Oct 2020 8:08amYou’re joking surely. Slo mo makes what is a complete accident actually look deliberate. So Danger should have lowered his arm in a split second and allowed himself to be ironed out by Vlaustin who was charging straight at him? Get real. He basically kept his arm up as a reflex response to protect himself as any person would if they had someone in their face and a split second to react.Saint 58 wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 9:58pmNo - not intentional but if he had time to bend his arm then he had time to drop his arm to shirtfront himJoffa Burns wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 9:54pmAre you suggesting the hit was intentional?Saint 58 wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 9:47pmBut he had time to bend his arm ??Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 8:41pm He punched the ball and .035 of a second later had impact.
Had no time to drop his arm at all.
Whether he is a protected species or saints supporters are biased or have a persecution complex is irrelevant, in this instance he was going for the ball.
I believe it was accidental in the process of going for the ball.
Suspension warranted clearly (times 2 for a GF)
Any “non star” of the game would be cited, suspended
It was an unfortunate collision but I would have been more worried for our game if he was suspended than anything else that happened this year
Rules for some - different rules for others
Geelong losing may have factored in as well
I was at the Gabba and Long was charging off the back off the square consistently looking for body contact with the Bulldogs mids and guess what, I love it and so do the coaches as they sit him in that position.
His family were sitting in the stands about bay 64 and they appeared to love it more than me
The Bulldogs finally woke up to it sometime in the 3rd 1/4 and Longs opponent was trying to make contact and block his charge at the unsuspecting Bulldog mids.
I didn't feel there was much in Longs incident but felt he'd be suspended as the difference with Long and Dangerfield in my opinion is Long goes for the man and not the ball, Dangerfield (again IMO) was clearly going for the ball then braced as best he could in the allotted time.
Longy just needs to get in a little lower and make sure he doesn't connect with the head.
Hopefully he doesn't change his style of play as he can really hit for such a small wiry guy.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4939
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 343 times
- Been thanked: 488 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
The other thing is players are usually fairly perceptive as to what is outside the rules or considered dangerous. Not one Richmond player remonstrated with Danger afterwards. The ball wasn't that close to either goal, wasn't a crucial time of the game and definitely emotions would have been heightened as it was the beginning of a GF. Still no-one remonstrated. That's because the players knew it was just an unfortunate incident, just as the Cotchin tackle was. All part of the game.
As for Long (which seems to be what everyone is upset about) I too believed that decision was garbage by the afl. Not because Long's actions were lawful though, but because he caused no injury to the player concerned and my view is that if you choose to bump you are only guilty if you cause injury. Therefore Danger and Long are apples and oranges, Danger caused injury but his actions were lawful in that he had no alternative but to protect himself. Long's was unlawful but he caused no injury. They both should have got off.
As for Long (which seems to be what everyone is upset about) I too believed that decision was garbage by the afl. Not because Long's actions were lawful though, but because he caused no injury to the player concerned and my view is that if you choose to bump you are only guilty if you cause injury. Therefore Danger and Long are apples and oranges, Danger caused injury but his actions were lawful in that he had no alternative but to protect himself. Long's was unlawful but he caused no injury. They both should have got off.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5043
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2017 1:16pm
- Has thanked: 1444 times
- Been thanked: 1489 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
The divided opinion could suggest that at least a charge should be laid and defended. Can a future defence of an MRO charge be that Michael Christian misunderstood intent and with a sworn affidavit that you didn't mean to hurt you would have to get off, unless MC can prove he reads minds. Or is it policy to give benefit of the doubt on a discretionary basis, considering image, sponsors, club size.... Waving stuff like that through, and Lynch's elbow to Paton's head does the game no good. These guys need to know they cannot be reckless with impunity if AFL is serious about reasonable level of safety. MRO has too much discretion without proven good judgement.
- SaintDippa
- Club Player
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Sun 20 Aug 2006 10:28pm
- Location: Mean Streets of Ringwood North
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 116 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
Wish I knew how to repost comments.
@Moods. Don't want to flame, but you can't allow that type of two legged sissor tackle. I'll stand by my viewing that Ablett was lucky that Cotchin didn't brake his leg.
@Moods. Don't want to flame, but you can't allow that type of two legged sissor tackle. I'll stand by my viewing that Ablett was lucky that Cotchin didn't brake his leg.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23134
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 9076 times
- Been thanked: 3939 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
Well, the salvos have engaged in a bit of kiddie fiddling in the pastYorkeys wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 7:18pm Reckless/Intentional; severe impact; head injury = 2 matches every day of the week; discounted by Brownlow medal winner and AFL poster boy status. Nothing to see here, no time for an AA in peak mental and physical condition to adjust, you see. Is every bloody Australian institution corrupt? Maybe not the Salvos, firefighters and para medics. It is a farce, but sadly so predictable. Hocking and Gil could do a great public service by moving on. Its a pity the footy public can't appeal to an independent judge of the event. So here we are again having to rely on the Kama bus - which can be quite balanced in its outcomes. I am sure Ben L is well aware that life was not meant to be fair.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23134
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 9076 times
- Been thanked: 3939 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
I can see where you are coming from but he had time to c**k his elbow maybe to defend himself, maybe to cause damage, who know, but the pansie got off . End of story.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 8:55pmDisagree SD, can't see what else he could have done in that situation with the time he had to react/brace.Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 8:50pmI knew he would be cleared - but if he had kept his fist going in the direction of the ball it would have been a glancing blow - instead he 'cocked' and made sure the hit was felt!Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sun 25 Oct 2020 8:41pm He punched the ball and .035 of a second later had impact.
Had no time to drop his arm at all.
IMO the intent was to go for the ball and the clash was a consequence of that action.
He was given the benefit of the doubt. The problem is the majority of the posters on here think that if his colours had been red and black to go with the white, he wouldn't have received that benefit.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
Different rules for decorated players like Dangerfield. I’ve no doubt Ben Long would have had the book thrown at him for similar. Maybe a month’s holiday.
But Ben has a reputation and form now that is going to be hard to shake. We need him out there, so he’s going to have to modify how he plays.
But Ben has a reputation and form now that is going to be hard to shake. We need him out there, so he’s going to have to modify how he plays.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23134
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 9076 times
- Been thanked: 3939 times
Re: Dangerfield cleared
Dangerfield also has a reputation, for getting off.bigcarl wrote: ↑Mon 26 Oct 2020 11:48am Different rules for decorated players like Dangerfield. I’ve no doubt Ben Long would have had the book thrown at him for similar. Maybe a month’s holiday.
But Ben has a reputation and form now that is going to be hard to shake. We need him out there, so he’s going to have to modify how he plays.