Dangerfield
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10761
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 827 times
Dangerfield
How will the AFL fudge this one.
A gutless late bump head high contact head on head.
The despicable grub Chris Scott says "he was doing everything he could to protect himself and the other player."
Go on AFL tell us Dangerfield had no other way to contest the ball the ball have already been hand passed away.
Minor detail of Crow Jake Kelly had already disposed of the ball but Dangerfield choose to flatten him and caused a head clash.
Deliberate high force, reckless head high should go to the tribunal for a couple of handful of weeks.
A gutless late bump head high contact head on head.
The despicable grub Chris Scott says "he was doing everything he could to protect himself and the other player."
Go on AFL tell us Dangerfield had no other way to contest the ball the ball have already been hand passed away.
Minor detail of Crow Jake Kelly had already disposed of the ball but Dangerfield choose to flatten him and caused a head clash.
Deliberate high force, reckless head high should go to the tribunal for a couple of handful of weeks.
Last edited by ace on Sun 21 Mar 2021 2:21am, edited 3 times in total.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3626 times
- Been thanked: 2897 times
Re: Dangerfield
One would think he’d be out for a few weeks at least
I’ll accept it was accidental head contact (who plans head to head) but Dangers opted to bump, he jumped, it was late and he really hurt the other guy
I’d have thought at least 3-4
I’ll accept it was accidental head contact (who plans head to head) but Dangers opted to bump, he jumped, it was late and he really hurt the other guy
I’d have thought at least 3-4
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12463
- Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2662 times
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10761
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 827 times
Re: Dangerfield
Gee yeah like players deliberately clash heads all the time.
But the bump was deliberate
The bump was late
It was a jump bump, both feet off the ground at contact, but to make any contact he had to jump forward not up, that meant he lead with his head.
He could easily have failed to make contact by not jumping.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Wed 11 Nov 2020 9:54pm
- Has thanked: 853 times
- Been thanked: 197 times
Re: Dangerfield
The rule states if you choose to bump you will be charged if there is contact to the head, intended or accidental. High contact, is the critical issue, even if it is an accidental head clash.
It was explained in great detail tonight on Fox Footy's coverage, along with the several changes the rule has undergone. The rule has been the same for a couple of years now, so Dangerfield has no excuse.
The general consensus on FF was 2-3 weeks. However, they failed to factor in it is Danger and Geelong, so anything's possible.
It was explained in great detail tonight on Fox Footy's coverage, along with the several changes the rule has undergone. The rule has been the same for a couple of years now, so Dangerfield has no excuse.
The general consensus on FF was 2-3 weeks. However, they failed to factor in it is Danger and Geelong, so anything's possible.
If alcohol can damage your short term memory, imagine what damage alcohol could do.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11941
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3650 times
- Been thanked: 2548 times
Re: Dangerfield
If the AFL is serious he needs to cop weeks. There is a high probability that he is contributing to people getting CTE later on in their lives
That's a quite a few blokes that Danger has knocked out. And I thought Paddy was a nice guy
The bump in last year's GF was worse imo. It was a brutal collision against Nick Vlaustin and avoidable. These guys make split second decisions.
You can't claim that you had time to protect yourself and yet you didn't have time to veer away from a collision
The collision against Jake Kelly yesterday was reckless. If Paddy tried to tackle the Adelaide player or went for the smother they wouldn't have clashed heads
That's a quite a few blokes that Danger has knocked out. And I thought Paddy was a nice guy
The bump in last year's GF was worse imo. It was a brutal collision against Nick Vlaustin and avoidable. These guys make split second decisions.
You can't claim that you had time to protect yourself and yet you didn't have time to veer away from a collision
The collision against Jake Kelly yesterday was reckless. If Paddy tried to tackle the Adelaide player or went for the smother they wouldn't have clashed heads
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12463
- Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2662 times
Re: Dangerfield
Why would you want to avoid a collision in AFL footy?
It’s a brutal contact sport, where collisions happen.
I dislike Dangerfield and think he’s a massive knob!!!
But it was an accidental head clash resulting from a bump.
Was the bump legal? That’s the argument
Not the outcome, that was unintentional
It’s a brutal contact sport, where collisions happen.
I dislike Dangerfield and think he’s a massive knob!!!
But it was an accidental head clash resulting from a bump.
Was the bump legal? That’s the argument
Not the outcome, that was unintentional
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6078
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 1567 times
Re: Dangerfield
The bump was late and clearly intentional. It was delivered with force and also reckless, resulting in head high contact. Bad bump, bad outcome, bad luck. 4 weeksB.M wrote: ↑Sun 21 Mar 2021 4:33am Why would you want to avoid a collision in AFL footy?
It’s a brutal contact sport, where collisions happen.
I dislike Dangerfield and think he’s a massive knob!!!
But it was an accidental head clash resulting from a bump.
Was the bump legal? That’s the argument
Not the outcome, that was unintentional
The MRO will of course agree with Scott, looks like Paddy did all he could to protect himself and his victim, while trying to knock the stuffing out of him, after he got rid of the ball. He couldn't tackle him, cause he didn't have the ball. Nothing to see here.
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dangerfield
I don’t think that is an argument anymore.
Don’t know the wording but the general consensus is if you choose to bump the onus is on you even if there is an accidental head clash and someone is injured. It was updated a couple of years back.
For me Zac Williams action against Clark was much worse jumping into him well after he disposed of the ball, Williams got lucky Clark got up and kept playing.
Danger didn’t launch and jump into Kelly.
Had he gone a little lower it would have been perfect.
I reckon he gets 2-3 weeks.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13289
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 662 times
- Been thanked: 1951 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Wed 11 Nov 2020 9:54pm
- Has thanked: 853 times
- Been thanked: 197 times
Re: Dangerfield
The rule is not difficult to understand. Choose to bump and cop the consequences, accidental head clash or not. Simple.
If alcohol can damage your short term memory, imagine what damage alcohol could do.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12463
- Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2662 times
Re: Dangerfield
Foe list?
For mine, Zac Williams was far worse!
Lined him up and hit him high with his shoulder, could have broke his jaw, concussed him or worse
Lucky for him, Hunter was just dazed. The intent was to hit him high.
Dangerfields intent was to take the body, which he did, but the head snapped and they clashed heads. To me he did not mean to hit him high at all.
Now, under the stupid rules, he may be suspended. That’s what happens when you have a ridiculous outcomes based system. I’d prefer they looked at the action and the intent to cause injury.
It was clearly an accidental head clash.
Was the bump, if they didn’t clash heads legal?
For mine, Zac Williams was far worse!
Lined him up and hit him high with his shoulder, could have broke his jaw, concussed him or worse
Lucky for him, Hunter was just dazed. The intent was to hit him high.
Dangerfields intent was to take the body, which he did, but the head snapped and they clashed heads. To me he did not mean to hit him high at all.
Now, under the stupid rules, he may be suspended. That’s what happens when you have a ridiculous outcomes based system. I’d prefer they looked at the action and the intent to cause injury.
It was clearly an accidental head clash.
Was the bump, if they didn’t clash heads legal?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Fri 18 Sep 2020 6:51am
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1025 times
Re: Dangerfield
Not sure this has any impact on the ruling but could or should the Crows player have avoided the tackle, was there a stop and prop option or a side step to the right ?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23098
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 9036 times
- Been thanked: 3929 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12463
- Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2662 times
Re: Dangerfield
Which is a joke
Suspension for accidental contact
What if Dangerfield initiated the bump, and knocked himself out when heads clashed?
Would he get suspended for knocking himself out?
Maybe the other guy get suspended for getting bumped and knocking someone out?
Farcical rule
Suspension for accidental contact
What if Dangerfield initiated the bump, and knocked himself out when heads clashed?
Would he get suspended for knocking himself out?
Maybe the other guy get suspended for getting bumped and knocking someone out?
Farcical rule
- The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13956
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1314 times
- Been thanked: 2083 times
Re: Dangerfield
Yep, the result is the deciding factor, not the actual action.
The exact same bump could occur with the exact same impact, but one player could take it a lot worse than another and that would result in a different penalty.
The exact same bump could occur with the exact same impact, but one player could take it a lot worse than another and that would result in a different penalty.
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu 18 Mar 2021 8:27pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2011 4:24pm
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 774 times
- Been thanked: 871 times
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30093
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1234 times
Re: Dangerfield
Agree. There is meant to be a greater emphasis now on preventing concussions. Danger had ample time to decide what to do as well.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sun 21 Mar 2021 8:32amI don’t think that is an argument anymore.
Don’t know the wording but the general consensus is if you choose to bump the onus is on you even if there is an accidental head clash and someone is injured. It was updated a couple of years back.
For me Zac Williams action against Clark was much worse jumping into him well after he disposed of the ball, Williams got lucky Clark got up and kept playing.
Danger didn’t launch and jump into Kelly.
Had he gone a little lower it would have been perfect.
I reckon he gets 2-3 weeks.
2021 football, and penalties, will be different than in previous years due to concussion.
Just look at the new concussion 12 day rule this season, plus the concussion driven injury sub.
The AFL if it is serious, and it is meant to be, will very much be looking to reduce the number of concussions per game, and hence per career of players.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- Kate
- Club Player
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Wed 07 Jul 2004 1:58pm
- Location: Emerald
- Has thanked: 133 times
- Been thanked: 37 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008 12:39am
- Has thanked: 115 times
- Been thanked: 105 times
Re: Dangerfield
Accidental head clash after a late illegal bump(jumped to get him) Guy concussed. 3 weeks.
" If thought corrupts language then language can also corrupt thought."
Politics and the English Language George Orwell
Politics and the English Language George Orwell
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
Re: Dangerfield
Long would get a legit 6 weeks.
Hunter was actually pretty lucky to get up from the Williams bump.
Dangerfield chose to bump. The outcome is on his decision.
Hunter was actually pretty lucky to get up from the Williams bump.
Dangerfield chose to bump. The outcome is on his decision.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
- Saint 58
- Club Player
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Thu 02 Nov 2006 11:10am
- Location: Anywhere the Saints are playing in Melbourne
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 103 times
Re: Dangerfield
Agree
But under the current rules he should get suspended
BUT he won’t cos he’s “protected species” ( ... Ablett - raised elbow multiple times - no suspension)
What you do for others will define your life.
[Football isn't everything ... it's the ONLY thing]
[Football isn't everything ... it's the ONLY thing]
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3626 times
- Been thanked: 2897 times