Dangerfield

[asiu]

Danger ran at the ball carrier if he hangs on to it he tackles if he gets rid of it what does he do implode into thin air?

mmmmm

fair point

[st.byron]

Decision is a crock. The players are trained to attack the ball and the contest now we will be teaching them to corral them and stand off like a basketball guard.

The key phrase above is “attack the ball”. You can still be ferocious when it comes to winning the footy. You can still hurt your opposition physically when it’s a contest ‘for the ball’, like a loose ground ball or in a marking contest. I’m pretty sure Jacob Hopper felt the Jack Steele tackle.

If a player is late and doesn’t make an effort to avoid a collision that could result in a head knock then they should cop their fair whack. What do you think the Frawley family wants as far as protecting players and reducing the incidence of concussion?

The other thing you mentioned is the word ‘trained’. Players have to adapt to rule changes don’t they? This is no different. This is more important for the AFL to change the mentality of senior players, because we also have to take into account the ramifications for junior sport

How would you feel if Holly was your child? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-20/ ... /100014652

If it was your child who had topped himself like the Tuck kid, would you still be wanting them to ignore what Danger did? The consequences from players continuing to attack someone without the footy will be that more AFL players end up like Shane Tuck and Spud Frawley.

Long bow to draw bringing what happened to Tuck into it but that's what the media are doing .

When running flat out at a contest how does a player stop in that split second?

Where is the ball carriers awareness to give the ball off?

Danger ran at the ball carrier if he hangs on to it he tackles if he gets rid of it what does he do implode into thin air?

This is the guts of it IMO. I watched it numerous times and can’t see how he could of avoided the collision. A man running at full pace towards an objective - that objective being the ball - can’t suddenly stop. The contact was unavoidable and the head clash accidental. Makes a lottery of the rules. If there was no head clash would there have been any charge at all?
The game has fundamentally changed and I’m not sure it’s for the better.
That said, f*** Geelong.

[samoht]

I'm fift/fifty - he deserved at least one week, but there are some mitigating factors.

Even if you assume he (Dangefield) has lightning reflexes - the brain takes 0.3 seconds to process what the eye sees.
So, with an approach speed of say 10 metres per second, what his mind had just processed and taken in, at the point of contact, was what happened 3 metres further out.
And if you allow a reaction time on top of this of say another 0.3 secs again - he'd need to be making adjustments 6 metres prior to the contact point.

It was reckless nevertheless - and he should have beeen up to speed already with all the bio-mechanics and physics.

[6621104]

Danger in his effort to impact the play bumped, he did not tackle so he knew the player had disposed of the ball. To claim a split second decision- you pull out of the intended tackle and clumsily make contact with the ball carrier. You do not tackle the player who has just disposed of it unless you wish a "professional free kick". Danger was always going to bump- fair enough as he is an aggressive player, gets targeted a lot and likes the contact - so the onus was on him to do so whilst protecting the head. Of course the head contact was accidental and not intended. That intent should be a mitigation of sorts if the outcome is severe is another question. 3 weeks is too harsh.

[Devilhead]

Danger was never ever going to tackle and he could have easily tried to smother when Kelly shaped up to handball

But he didnt because his intention was never the ball

Not sure why some supporters dont get it - by all means target the player but if you hit him/her in the head then you are in trouble

Its really not that hard to understand

[takeaway]

3 weeks is too harsh. Dangerfield had time to ease back a bit and make the contact less forceful, head clash accidental, he was careless, so one week appropriate imo. In the Age I read that one AFL coach (Goodwin), due to the Dangerfield incident, is now instructing players to avoid bumping wherever possible, and give preference to tackling. Is that what we want to happen to AFL football? Might as well adopt more netball rules.

[Devilhead]

3 weeks isnt harsh at all given Kellys injuries

I am sure Gaff didnt mean to hit Brayshaw in the head but he did

Ben Long got 3 weeks for a lot less damage on Cox

Rules are clear - head is sacrosanct if you decide to target the player which Danger did

Danger had no intention for the ball - he didnt even shape to tackle - he was only ever going to go the bump and he got it horribly wrong and Kelly paid for it with a broken nose and period of unconsciousness

Most pundits think 3 weeks was a fair result

[Scollop]

Decision is a crock. The players are trained to attack the ball and the contest now we will be teaching them to corral them and stand off like a basketball guard.

The key phrase above is “attack the ball”. You can still be ferocious when it comes to winning the footy. You can still hurt your opposition physically when it’s a contest ‘for the ball’, like a loose ground ball or in a marking contest. I’m pretty sure Jacob Hopper felt the Jack Steele tackle.

If a player is late and doesn’t make an effort to avoid a collision that could result in a head knock then they should cop their fair whack. What do you think the Frawley family wants as far as protecting players and reducing the incidence of concussion?

The other thing you mentioned is the word ‘trained’. Players have to adapt to rule changes don’t they? This is no different. This is more important for the AFL to change the mentality of senior players, because we also have to take into account the ramifications for junior sport

How would you feel if Holly was your child? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-20/ ... /100014652

If it was your child who had topped himself like the Tuck kid, would you still be wanting them to ignore what Danger did? The consequences from players continuing to attack someone without the footy will be that more AFL players end up like Shane Tuck and Spud Frawley.

Long bow to draw bringing what happened to Tuck into it but that's what the media are doing .

When running flat out at a contest how does a player stop in that split second?

Where is the ball carriers awareness to give the ball off?

Danger ran at the ball carrier if he hangs on to it he tackles if he gets rid of it what does he do implode into thin air?

I like how you try and blame Kelly for the fact that Danger elects to hammer into him recklessly and carelessly. You’re a classic!!

The thing that people seem to forget is that AFL footballers of the calibre of Dangerfield have an ability to read and predict what an opposition player is about to do. Danger has eyes on the footy and eyes on Kelly and he sees in that split second that Kelly is shaping to handball. These guys have got to where they are in their professional careers because of their ability to make split second decisions.

He can’t stop or implode but he can veer off; he can attempt to do a legal tackle and just let go (the way Butler did against Cal Ward). This is the best option and the preferred option as far the coaches and the AFL are promoting going forward...or because of the athlete that he is...he could probably fly in the air and just jump straight over him. I’ve seen Danger do that...although that is probably not a good idea when running at full speed