Dangerfield on Kelly

[Nebular]

Not really what I'm talking about, I'm talking about all this sniper and personal attacks on danger for what is nothing more than an accident when in the same scenario minus a head clash everyone would applaud it. That's moronic.

If Stacks bump is perfect the only thing danger did wrong was be unlucky
[/QUOTE

He cracked it coz he got caught holding the ball and wanted revenge.

Dangers response to the whole thing shows his true colours.

Didn't go check on Kelly, claims he had to protect himself. This from the AFLPA president.

All me me me.


Pathetic, and deserves all the criticism he's getting.

 

[Obeanie1]

Nah.. I gotta disagree with you on this.

In that clip I posted from 360, if you can make it all the way through Robbo's ranting over the inadequacy of the 1 match ban given to Williams, there is a later segment from the same show where Jordan Lewis and Dermott Brereton are both asked about the Williams bump.

Dermie has that old ex-footballer's tendency to downplay the rough stuff. He also sticks up for the Giants players he knew from when he was briefly a development coach up there. But I actually agreed with what he said. I don't think there was serious malice in that Williams bump. Yep, he chose to bump, he was late; he jumped high and got him in the head... He deserved 1 week. But he wasn't trying to destroy Clark. If he had've got him with full-on intent, they would've needed a stretcher to get Clark off the ground. But he didn't. Clark got straight up and kept playing with no ill-effects. No St Kilda player bothered to remonstrate with Williams (which was also something Dermie noted.) That's usually a pretty good indicator.

Dangerfield, on the other hand, f**king SMASHED Kelly... Forget the clash of heads for one sec... Just the bump alone was a massive hit. Danger was pumped. He lined up Kelly and ran at him with 100% nasty intentions. He wanted to hit him (legally) as hard as he could and hurt him. He hit Kelly at least twice as hard as Williams v Clark. Maybe three times harder.

Both hits were illegal under AFL rules. Williams was more obviously illegal - he jumped higher and connected with the point of his shoulder into Clark's head. Dangerfield was unlucky he clashed heads with Kelly. Apart from that, it was a classic shirtfront. Split him down the middle. He also jumped up into the bump, but the point of his shoulder connected with Kelly high on the sternum, just below the jugular.

I don't think either player "meant" to go high. Obviously Danger didn't - nobody would be dumb enough to use their own head as a battering ram - but Williams also.. I just think it was one of those split second decisions in a collision sport where the player commits to making contact, but he f**ks up and has to pay the penalty. Maybe a little bit of self-preservation by Williams in that last split-second to jump up and avoid taking the full brunt of the collision anywhere near his own head. But it wasn't a hard bump. (Whateley and Robbo are a pair of dildos.)

Dangerfield had far greater malicious intent than Williams did. In that moment, he wanted to smash Kelly (legally) except he stuffed up.


Dangerfield: Careless high contact, severe impact = 3 weeks

Williams: Careless high contact, medium impact = 1 week

Correct weight.

Correct weight?

So the severe injuries sustained gets you only 2 more weeks than no injury?

Personally I feel that is under's for the extent of injury sustained.

1 week for not much damage.

2 weeks for being concussed.

3 weeks for being concussed, getting a broken nose and a fractured eye socket?

Does not add up for me.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Not really what I'm talking about, I'm talking about all this sniper and personal attacks on danger for what is nothing more than an accident when in the same scenario minus a head clash everyone would applaud it. That's moronic.

If Stacks bump is perfect the only thing danger did wrong was be unlucky

The same scenario minus a head clash would at the very best still be a downfield free kick. It is illegal for a player to bump that late. If you do choose to bump that late you’d want to ensure you avoid a head clash. I think we are all still for applauding well timed and well executed bumps, which Danger’s was not.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

It's only side on because Viney literally turns his shoulder at the last second you Muppet.

Yes, because he was expecting contact. Kelly would not have been expecting to be ironed out, high and late.

Viney had the goddamn ball you goon, therefore would have expected contact and was able to brace for it (by turning his shoulder).

 

[Obeanie1]

Serious question, if that scenario happens again but the head clash causes Danger to go unconscious while Kelly walks away. Does danger still get 3 weeks?

No.

Langdon from Eagles knocked himself out on Fyfe's head as both went for a loose ball, Fyfe got there a fraction earlier.

Maybe that's contesting the ball situation.

But if you have the ball and someone elects to bump you and they knock themselves out............too bad. They elected to initiate contact.

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

Not going to happen the way Dangerfield was positioned and the momentum he had. Kelly absorbs the impact for him due to being a defenceless bag of meat and bone while disposing of the ball. Danger has very little whiplash movement of his head due to being braced and ready for impact. He also has the bonus of anatomy going for him. There's a lot of space between a shoulder and a head compared to a chest and a head. Therefore a lot less impact to the head.

Serious question, if that scenario happens again but the head clash causes Danger to go unconscious while Kelly walks away. Does danger still get 3 weeks?

 

[Topkent]

You can just say sorry I can't show you, it's fine to admit you are wrong

I already posted the images where stacks head and shoulder are at the same height as Vineys on impact and Vineys head snaps back from the contact.

 

[JackFlash]

A perfectly executed bump, hip and shoulder and it would've recieved accolades years ago. But not in 2021. The bump is dead and the repercussions of the AFL dancing about it all have come home to roost as we see a high profile player outed for doing something he was taught as a kid to do when he first started playing the game. Like the "Slam" Tackle the bump is out, it's a split second decision in a collision sport where body contact is constant, You can't be half and half about this. Coaches have to start teaching it at training "NO BUMP"! The days of the "Um and Ah" about it are over, the repercussions of the action far outweigh our excitment of seeing it happen. I'm older, i will hate to see it banned, but the AFL have no choice. What will the game look like in the next 5-10 years? Gaelic Football? I guess so? People can argue against it all they like, but the bump is from another era and sadly it's gone.

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

That's like saying someone driving a car at 150 through a suburban street has a car accident.

It's an incident, not an accident.

Sure he didn't want to hit the pole, but the actions that led to the incident were not accidental.

Factually speaking, the clash of heads was an unintended consequence of the bump, I.e., accidental.

 

[Topkent]

That's like saying someone driving a car at 150 through a suburban street has a car accident.

It's an incident, not an accident.

Sure he didn't want to hit the pole, but the actions that led to the incident were not accidental.

That's a shithouse example. Driving 150 through a residential is illegal. Bumping someone isn't

 

[Sterge]

That's a shithouse example. Driving 150 through a residential is illegal. Bumping someone isn't

It's a perfect example

Driving is legal, driving at 150 is illegal
Bumping is legal, bumping late and to the head is illegal

You caught up now?

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

Is it though? Because that bump was illegal it was late and he injured the player.. there's a law against each of those in the rules of the game

If you want to make it less black and white then replace driving at 150 through a residential area with driving tired on the highway.

Point still stands.

It's not an accident. It's an incident.

That's a shithouse example. Driving 150 through a residential is illegal. Bumping someone isn't

 

[Topkent]

Is it though? Because that bump was illegal it was late and he injured the player.. there's a law against each of those in the rules of the game

If you want to make it less black and white then replace driving at 150 through a residential area with driving tired on the highway.

Point still stands.

It's not an accident. It's an incident.

Wrong
The outcome was illegal the action wasn't. Same bump without a head clash isn't a suspension

 

[Seeds]

It use to be called a hip and shoulder. Leave the shoulder out of it and go the hip. If shoulder goes first I think things can get a lot messier. But the speed of the game today I’d say make sure you go real low.

Have you ever seen a bump to the hip?

 

[Wesley2]

A perfectly executed bump, hip and shoulder and it would've recieved accolades years ago. But not in 2021. The bump is dead and the repercussions of the AFL dancing about it all have come home to roost as we see a high profile player outed for doing something he was taught as a kid to do when he first started playing the game. Like the "Slam" Tackle the bump is out, it's a split second decision in a collision sport where body contact is constant, You can't be half and half about this. Coaches have to start teaching it at training "NO BUMP"! The days of the "Um and Ah" about it are over, the repercussions of the action far outweigh our excitment of seeing it happen. I'm older, i will hate to see it banned, but the AFL have no choice. What will the game look like in the next 5-10 years? Gaelic Football? I guess so? People can argue against it all they like, but the bump is from another era and sadly it's gone.

It wasn't a perfectly executed bump, because Dangerfield made foreseeable head contact with a head clash, which concussed a man and broke his nose, and following the published rules of game earned Dangerfield a 3 week suspension.

 

[Outback Footy]

His feet leave the ground because of the force of the hit - inertia. The more you keep calling him a 'flog' and 'a liar', the more you undermine your own argument - as you just look like a bunch of people baying for blood because you already hate him, lol.

No. Danger jumped at Kelly, Kelly didnt knock Danger off his feet, Danger put himself in that position, he chose to bump and in the act of doing that he accidentally head butted Kelly, broke his nose and cheek and gave him severe concussion.
The act of the bump cant be looked at in isolation as you want to do. He didnt bump him, get knocked off his feet and then in a totally unrelated action head butt him as youve previously outlined. One decision, to run at and bump, led to the action, including the headbutt, led to the injuries, led to the suspension. Arguably light in view of the damage done.
Danger jumped at Kelly to put more force into his bump and the force of his action propelled dangers head into Kellys causing all the damage. Danger tucked his arms in and targeted him.
Danger hasnt helped his cause by lying about it afterwards. 3 was the minimum, his subsequent public statements could justifiably have led to more, but he may have been contrite in the tribunal, back to 3.

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

Wrong
The outcome was illegal the action wasn't. Same bump without a head clash isn't a suspension

My understanding was that collecting a player after disposing of the football was an illegal action?

And that electing to bump and causing impact to the head is also illegal

 

[JackFlash]

No. Danger jumped at Kelly, Kelly didnt knock Danger off his feet, Danger put himself in that position, he chose to bump and in the act of doing that he accidentally head butted Kelly, broke his nose and cheek and gave him severe concussion.
The act of the bump cant be looked at in isolation as you want to do. He didnt bump him, get knocked off his feet and then in a totally unrelated action head butt him as youve previously outlined. One decision, to run at and bump, led to the action, including the headbutt, led to the injuries, led to the suspension. Arguably light in view of the damage done.
Danger jumped at Kelly to put more force into his bump and the force of his action propelled dangers head into Kellys causing all the damage. Danger tucked his arms in and targeted him.
Danger hasnt helped his cause by lying about it afterwards. 3 was the minimum, his subsequent public statements could justifiably have led to more, but he may have been contrite in the tribunal, back to 3.

Where did he jump? It's a split second decision and people need to put their Dangerfield bias in their back pocket. It's more important than that. Not any stage did Dangerfield "jump" at kelly, but he made contact, he never lied, that's total bullshit. Your reply to the post is all anti Dangerfield and i'm talking about the banning of the "bump" of which i do understand. If the "Slam Tackle" has gone the way of the sliding rule then so must the bump under any circumstances. Some people just want to hang him out to dry, but it's one of the biggest issues in football and fundamental to the game for the past 120 years. Not so in 2021 and the AFL have been backed into a corner in 2021. I don't like it, but the bump is over, there is no compromise here. Not that long ago the media would be singing his praises for an excellent bump, times have changed!

 

[Outback Footy]

That's like saying someone driving a car at 150 through a suburban street has a car accident.

It's an incident, not an accident.

Sure he didn't want to hit the pole, but the actions that led to the incident were not accidental.

In both instances the outcome was predictable.

 

[Vader]

Where did he jump? It's a split second decision and people need to put their Dangerfield bias in their back pocket. It's nore important than that. Not any stage did Dangerfield "jump" at kelly, but he made contact, he never lied, that's total bullshit. Your reply to the post is all anti Dangerfield and i'm talking about the banning of the "bump" of which i do understand. If the "Slam Tackle" has goneas has the sliding rule then so must the bump under any circumstances. Some people just want to hang him out to dry, but it's one of the biggest issues in football and fundamental to the game for the past 120 years. Not so in 2021 and the AFL have been backed into a corner in 2021. I don't like it, but the bump is over, there is no compromise here. Not that long ago the media would be singing his praises for an excellent bump, times have changed!

Congratulations. Almost none of what you have written is true.

It wasn't a split second decision. Dangerfield was frustrated after being caught HTB by Hamill, a few seconds earlier. Footage clearly shows him lining up Kelly, accelerating, and jumping off the ground to bump him.

Even if the head clash hadn't occurred, Dangerfield still probably would have been facing a rough conduct charge - it just wouldn't have had a "severe" impact rating attached. You simply cannot cannonball into a defenceless player, after they have disposed of the ball.

Dangerfield lied through his teeth when he said that he was protecting himself. He wasn't. He was the instigator of the contact, and it was his actions alone which resulted in the contact. That's why he pled guilty to the rough conduct charge, and only attempted to challenge the severity.

The bump isn't dead. For every bump which results in high contact there are 50 each week which don't. Bumping in the way which Dangerfield did - that will hopefully be dead and buried, and it will not be missed.

Yes, times have changed - and that's the only bit of truth in what you've written. The science is now in, with regard to the long term effects of concussions and CTE. The AFL has no choice but to move with the times, or risk facing law suits in the millions of dollars. The AFL has made it clear that the head is sacrosanct, and bumps like Dangerfield's which result in head injuries will be heavily penalised.

 

[Outback Footy]

Where did he jump? It's a split second decision and people need to put their Dangerfield bias in their back pocket. It's nore important than that. Not any stage did Dangerfield "jump" at kelly, but he made contact, he never lied, that's total bullshit. Your reply to the post is all anti Dangerfield and i'm talking about the banning of the "bump" of which i do understand. If the "Slam Tackle" has goneas has the sliding rule then so must the bump under any circumstances. Some people just want to hang him out to dry, but it's one of the biggest issues in football and fundamental to the game for the past 120 years. Not so in 2021 and the AFL have been backed into a corner in 2021. I don't like it, but the bump is over, there is no compromise here. Not that long ago the media would be singing his praises for an excellent bump, times have changed!

Lol. Watch the video again sunshine, his feet clearly leave the ground prior to the hit, he launched himself at Kelly to get a bigget hit. Fair enough, thats how I was taught to do it too. Its a nonsense to argue that he didnt jump. Shadow tried to say that, hence my response. He claimed to act in self defense, no, he ran at Kelly and lined him up, he chose to bump and executed it to minimise impact to himself, brought his arm in lined him up side on, and jumped at him etc. His claim of self defense was clearly a lie.
All you Geelong numptys are defending Danger, worried hes being "hung out to dry", how do you feel about Kelly having a broken nose, broken cheek, serious concussion and likley out for a lot longer than 3 weeks?
Hes not being "hung out to dry" hes copped the minimum ban for his action, and this entire thread is because you lot want to defend him at all costs.
Fine. The rest of the League see what he chose to do, see the damage he did and think he got off lightly.
Front on bump probably should be over, very high likelihood of doing what Danger did. He chose not to smother or tackle, either of those options still on the table.
BTW, an "excellent" bump which left a bloke concussed with a broken face wouldnt have been praised by anyone since about 1980.

 

[SunshineBoy]

He put the sympathisers to Dangerfield in their place. Like Dangerfield not one had expressed concern for Kelly. What Jack said was spot on. The only person we should feel sorry for is the bloke with concussion and a broken nose

The commentary was all about poor paddy and his band aid

 

[Outback Footy]

Wrong
The outcome was illegal the action wasn't. Same bump without a head clash isn't a suspension

No, same bump without head clash = downfield free kick for a late hit. Illegal.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Jack Riewoldt not holding back on Danger tonight on 360. Interesting? It really stands out and seems quite pointed; possibly personal? I’m sure he’ll hold that line in incidences with players from his own club. In fairness, I don’t have anything against Jack Riewoldt; think he’s an okay guy, if not the brightest little fish - but tonight’s stance seemed really strong and pointed

As he should it’s a pity the AFLPA players rep couldnt give a toss

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The commentary was all about poor paddy and his band aid

Surprised they didn't ask Siri about the band aid! Couldn't have been worse than asking whether a broken nose wasn't severe enough lol