Dangerfield

[ace]

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.

[skeptic]

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

[B.M]

Accidental head clash for mine

[ace]

Accidental head clash for mine

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 Billings Method]

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.

[Scollop]

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

[B.M]

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

[CQ SAINT]

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 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 weeks
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]

Accidental head clash for mine

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.

[The Fireman]

1 week.. but a bloody good bump.

[The Billings Method]

The rule is not difficult to understand. Choose to bump and cop the consequences, accidental head clash or not. Simple.

[B.M]

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?

[Vortex]

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 ?

[saynta]

Accidental head clash for mine

Still a suspendable offence these days,

[B.M]

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

[The_Dud]

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.

[Fugazi1966]

Put Ben Long in Dangerfields place....how many weeks?

[Trev from the Bush]

He's a koala. Protected species.

[saintsRrising]

Accidental head clash for mine

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.

Agree. There is meant to be a greater emphasis now on preventing concussions. Danger had ample time to decide what to do as well.

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.

[Kate]

Put Ben Long in Dangerfields place....how many weeks?

For Long: 10 weeks
For Dangerfield: 0 weeks

[spert]

Accidental head clash for mine

yep

[sendmehomehappy]

Accidental head clash after a late illegal bump(jumped to get him) Guy concussed. 3 weeks.

[bigred]

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.

[Saint 58]

Accidental head clash for mine

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)

[skeptic]

Well the AFL has put that to rest... straight to tribunal for 3 weeks