Dangerfield on Kelly

[sprockets]

There it is, the end of the bump:

Redirect Notice

Patrick Dangerfield tribunal hearing: Why AFL coaches are banning the bump
View attachment 1084220
"Patrick Dangerfield’s report for his bump on Crow Jake Kelly has forced coaches to make a fundamental change, in effect banning the bump.

The bump could soon be extinct in AFL football, with coaches actively encouraging their players not to use it.
Giants coach Leon Cameron revealed in the wake of Patrick Dangerfield’s weekend bump on Jake Kelly – which left the Crow concussed and with a broken nose – that he instructed his players to tackle every time.
Greater Western Sydney’s post-match analysis even includes trying to understand why a footballer opted to bump instead of tackle, as part of the process to eliminate the age-old act.

Cameron’s Port Adelaide counterpart Ken Hinkley also said the Power were trying to reprogram players to “choose the option of tackle more than bump”.

“We talk to our players all the time about not bumping anymore,” Cameron told Fox Footy on Monday night.

“We talk about when you go in and approach a contest, or an opposition player, to tackle at every given time.

“Now, clearly, habit has been there for a long time for these players and it’s not always going to be perfect … so we have little incidents all the time where you have a choice to tackle.

“We review it, but you might have bumped and we say, ‘Well, why did you take the bump there?’.

Hinkley agrees with the AFL’s “strict liability” approach to bumps, where if a player chooses to make contact they must deal with the potential consequences if the opponent suffers injury.

“It will make the game safer,” Hinkley said.

“(Dangerfield’s) intent was to disrupt the ball – it wasn’t to cause injury and harm to the player … (so) there will be consideration to what was the intent, and I think that’s OK, but the injury is the biggest and most important factor in the whole thing.”

However, Hinkley said it wasn’t as straightforward as people might think to remove the bump from the sport.

“It’s a combative game and we usually welcome the combativeness of the game, but the game is now changing,” he said.

“The instruction now is, ‘Tackle or go at the ball and pick the ball up’, and if you go at the ball really hard and the ball’s on the ground, that’s easy.

“But if it’s in doubt and the oppo’s got the ball, yes, I think tackle is the first option.”

www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/patrick-dangerfield-tribunal-hearing-why-afl-coaches-are-banning-the-bump/news-story/6407acdd83f4ab8077bb7c334aa11e1d%3famp

*****************

Disagree or not, but given the high profile nature of Dangerfield as an example for all future examples, it's not conspiracy to state that the bump will now be consigned to history moving forward - as there is irrefutable evidence of this above.

Can't really bump, if coaches are actively dissuading it. While I agree that you can, it doesn't mean that after the game you won't get a dressing down and it'll be reinforced that you shouldn't. In the wake of the Dangerfield charge, you can see that coaches are actively holding education sessions on post-training on why the opted to bump instead of tackle (that's the most significant part of the article IMO):

"Greater Western Sydney’s post-match analysis even includes trying to understand why a footballer opted to bump instead of tackle, as part of the process to eliminate the age-old act."

If the coaches aren't endorsing it, it means the leadership group won't endorse it, which means the players as a group won't practice it - in any form. This will be adopted throughout all clubs very quickly I would say - if it hasn't already starting being discussed.

In essence, the bump is now dead.

 

[Malifice]

I find it interesting that none of you have made the argument - for or against - whether he wanted to headbutt Kelly or not?

That's because it's not relevant to the charge if he meant to do it or not. They graded the conduct as careless, not intentional, which is accepted by everyone.

If he flattens him but they never clash heads, it's play on...right?

Wrong.

If you carelessly (or intentionally) iron someone out, and break ribs going nowhere near the head, it's also reportable.

 

[Vader]

I still don't get how you can argue part of the charges and get the discount for pleading guilty. Should be accept the MRP/tribunals charge in full or no discount.

Discounts don't apply once it gets sent straight to the tribunal.

 

[Shadow89]

View attachment 1084238

Was always gonna happen sooner or later, just needed someone high profile enough to get a decent enough ban to get coaches to educate their players on lower-risk options, in this more concussion-educated time

 

[Back One Out]

I've seen and heard people saying Dangerfield's feet didn't leave the ground

False

Both his feet were off the ground at the moment of impact.

(More lies from that bald-headed drunk flog on 360)

 

[Shadow89]

That's because it's not relevant to the charge if he meant to do it or not. They graded the conduct as careless, not intentional, which is accepted by everyone.



Wrong.

If you carelessly (or intentionally) iron someone out, and break ribs going nowhere near the head, it's also reportable.

It's really not accepted by everyone, as there's a fair contingent of people in here who are calling him a 'sniper', amongst other things. I agree that it was careless, and I stated all along that 3 weeks was the most likely after I heard Tom Morris' breakdown of the head clash aspect and the historical reasoning beind it.

Agree on the ribs part - surprised you're the first to point that part out as I thought that myself when posting it - but I was more pointing to the fact that Kelly didn't have any bodily injuries - just to the face and head. Meaning, if they hadn't of clashed heads as a result of Dangerfield's incidental and careless conduct, then it would likely have been play on, correct?

 

[Back One Out]

It's really not accepted by everyone, as there's a fair contingent of people in here who are calling him a 'sniper', amongst other things. I agree that it was careless, and I stated all along that 3 weeks was the most likely after I heard Tom Morris' breakdown of the head clash aspect and the historical reasoning beind it.

Agree on the ribs part - surprised you're the first to point that part out as I thought that myself when posting it - but I was more pointing to the fact that Kelly didn't have any bodily injuries - just to the face and head. Meaning, if they hadn't of clashed heads as a result of Dangerfield's incidental and careless conduct, then it would likely have been play on, correct?

The AFL changed the rules on head clashes resulting from a bump a few years ago after North's Lindsay Thomas knocked someone out.

It's no longer deemed accidental. The bumping player is held accountable for ANY contact to the head which results in injury or is considered to be of enough force to warrant a report.

Head clashes will still occur. But this rule only concerns players who elect to bump.

"Duty of care", etc etc

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

It's really not accepted by everyone, as there's a fair contingent of people in here who are calling him a 'sniper', amongst other things. I agree that it was careless, and I stated all along that 3 weeks was the most likely after I heard Tom Morris' breakdown of the head clash aspect and the historical reasoning beind it.

Agree on the ribs part - surprised you're the first to point that part out as I thought that myself when posting it - but I was more pointing to the fact that Kelly didn't have any bodily injuries - just to the face and head. Meaning, if they hadn't of clashed heads as a result of Dangerfield's incidental and careless conduct, then it would likely have been play on, correct?

Care to comment on your assertion that Dangerfield’s feet left the ground after the bump took place and that he didn’t jump in light of all evidence to the contrary?

Will you at least have the decency to walk that back or are you still prepared to die on that hill?

3 weeks, he got off a week light in my (partisan) opinion.

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

How the f do people still not get this after watching 100 replays.

The bump is not dead...

Bumping a bloke from front on who is defenceless after disposing of a football while sprinting and leaving the ground on the other hand... Is dead and should be.

A fair hip and shoulder it was not.

Not the first time Danger has gone too hard, recklessly/dangerously and hurt himself or someone else either.

Correct penalty.

 

[Malifice]

It's really not accepted by everyone, as there's a fair contingent of people in here who are calling him a 'sniper', amongst other things.

He is a bit of a sniper. He literally lined Kelly up and cannoned into him after Kelly disposed of the footy.

And it's not the first time he's done it.

Agree on the ribs part - surprised you're the first to point that part out as I thought that myself when posting it - but I was more pointing to the fact that Kelly didn't have any bodily injuries - just to the face and head. Meaning, if they hadn't of clashed heads as a result of Dangerfield's incidental and careless conduct, then it would likely have been play on, correct?

Rough conduct (Head) hits have special rules attached to them as opposed to hits to the body.

But a Byron Pickett style late bump on a bloke a second or two after he got rid of the ball that breaks ribs is going to get you a (downfield) free kick against, and a rough conduct charge as well.

 

[nut]

Just trying to protect myself ......

 

[Shadow89]

Care to comment on your assertion that Dangerfield’s feet left the ground after the bump took place and that he didn’t jump in light of all evidence to the contrary?

Will you at least have the decency to walk that back or are you still prepared to die on that hill?

3 weeks, he got off a week light in my (partisan) opinion.

I already did walk it back and admit I was wrong about that, prior to the tribunal hearing taking place?

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Disagree or not, but given the high profile nature of Dangerfield as an example for all future examples, it's not conspiracy to state that the bump will now be consigned to history moving forward - as there is irrefutable evidence of this above.

It's not irrefutable. Have you got quotes from 18 coaches?

Meh you can still bump but aim lower jeez! Talk about going over the top. The “bump” shouldn’t be near the head. I’d rather our players just tackle though. Why bring “luck” into play. Not as if Dangerfield didn’t have other options and that’s the crux of it really.

Yep

In the wake of the Dangerfield charge,

. If you read what the coaches are saying, they were already training this. The journo retro fitted the Danger event into it.

Don't worry about bumping, he needs to learn to kick first. Clanger king.

 

[Seeds]

Meh you can still bump but aim lower jeez! Talk about going over the top. The “bump” shouldn’t be near the head. I’d rather our players just tackle though. Why bring “luck” into play. Not as if Dangerfield didn’t have other options and that’s the crux of it really.

His Bump hit him in the chest. You don’t go any lower Unless you want to injure his kidneys.

 

[OniAu]

I've seen and heard people saying Dangerfield's feet didn't leave the ground

False

Both his feet were off the ground at the moment of impact.

(More lies from that bald-headed drunk flog on 360)

Can you please stop using actual evidence of video footage and stills. Its not the same as real time. just ask Danger

 

[LukeParkerno1]

His Bump hit him in the chest. You don’t go any lower Unless you want to injure his kidneys.

It is up to him to not smash the blokes nose and take him out of the game...and also take a player out of the game.

 

[nut]

You can’t ban the bump... and it’s stupid to do so because there is different levels of force.

 

[Power Raid]

a tough outcome given it was a clash of heads but a fair outcome based on the rules

 

[Back One Out]

Can you please stop using actual evidence of video footage and stills.
Its not the same as real time. just ask Danger

The Dangerfield Defence...

 

[Seeds]

It is up to him to not smash the blokes nose and take him out of the game...and also take a player out of the game.

Got it. Up to players to not have accidents. Do you know what an accident is?

 

[brutus76]

Maybe he should have asked the Google Assistant for help instead of Siri. Siri must have been a Richmond supporter.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Got it. Up to players to not have accidents. Do you know what an accident is?

The consequence is an accident...the act isn’t. Not when there were realistic other options...make a correct tackle, smother the ball. Don’t bump near the head taking luck into the equation

 

[Back One Out]

Got it. Up to players to not have accidents. Do you know what an accident is?

According to the AFL rules, it is not an accident if a player chooses to bump

He is deemed to be responsible for the clash of heads.

Capiche?

 

[Nuke Fremantle]

Dangerfield knew what he was doing (not sure his Counsel was). He tried to get to Kelly before the latter disposed of the ball, realized he was too late and therefore decided to make him "earn it". Deserved outcome.

 

[Power Raid]

The consequence is an accident...the act isn’t. Not when there were realistic other options...make a correct tackle, smother the ball. Don’t bump near the head taking luck into the equation

one has to play the percentages and solid bumps are no longer the safe option