Dangerfield on Kelly

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Funny that Danger carries the high road...except when he does the action...why it took till the day for Dangerfield to admit wrong I have no idea. this rubbish about protecting yourself was disrespectful at best
 
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!


Add levitation to Danger's list of superpowers

1616545022635.png
 
Jan 3, 2012
43,348
88,002
From the interview room
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
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
It really was surprising that the blood rule for danger took about 10 minutes, other players going off with the blood rule jog off ,not our Patrick walked off real slowly turned his head to every angle to make sure the cameras got it when the trainer offered a towel he brushed it away, was he trying to say look at poor me?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jan 3, 2012
43,348
88,002
From the interview room
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
Funny that Danger carries the high road...except when he does the action...why it took till the day for Dangerfield to admit wrong I have no idea. this rubbish about protecting yourself was disrespectful at best
Well the admission only came late in the day
 
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.
Wrong. The clash of heads was unintended and unexpected, so it was accidental. Doesn't matter if the AFL says it ought to have been foreseeable. As long as it was not deliberate.

If Danger had bumped Kelly and no head clash occurred you may call that an 'incident'
 
It really was surprising that the blood rule for danger took about 10 minutes, other players going off with the blood rule jog off ,not our Patrick walked off real slowly turned his head to every angle to make sure the cameras got it when the trainer offered a towel he brushed it away, was he trying to say look at poor me?

We all know Patty thinks about Patty most of the time. I found it very upsetting that all the dialogue was "Poor Patty"...but there is a bloke concussed and has a smashed nose and is missing 2 weeks that no-one cares about
 
Oct 14, 2005
52,179
36,117
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Wrong. The clash of heads was unintended and unexpected, so it was accidental. Doesn't matter if the AFL says it ought to have been foreseeable. As long as it was not deliberate.

If Danger had bumped Kelly and no head clash occurred you may call that an 'incident'
It was unintended, but it was foreseeable. If you take an action which has foreseeable outcomes, and those outcomes eventuate, then you pay the penalty for that action.
 
Oct 9, 2006
22,522
29,233
Left of centre.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
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!

How would you explain both feet being off the ground at the moment of impact if Dangerfield didn't jump?

Of course he jumped. Any idiot can see that.
 

gingernuts

binlicker
Apr 25, 2018
1,825
2,708
the southern end of the minyip swamp
AFL Club
Geelong
As I am a cripple it takes me half a day to get moving. Coffee, PC on, I think ah well at least Richmond fans will have slept better last night because Danger got rubbed as expected. But no wait he is still inside there heads. The Richmond fans are still going at it.Lack of sleep can cause all sorts of issues
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

box070

Cancelled
Jan 8, 2021
1,402
4,686
AFL Club
Richmond
As I am a cripple it takes me half a day to get moving. Coffee, PC on, I think ah well at least Richmond fans will have slept better last night because Danger got rubbed as expected. But no wait he is still inside there heads. The Richmond fans are still going at it.Lack of sleep can cause all sorts of issues

Believe me he is not in our heads. I’d be extremely surprised that after his big game performances against us we are definitely in his. It’s glorious
 

Shadow89

Cancelled
10k Posts AFL Fantasy Div 6+ Winner 2021
Feb 20, 2018
17,150
41,361
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.

Lol, you can't come in here late to the party, and after the fact, making all these arguments, when you have no context of the previous discussion.

I already admitted I got that one wrong, based on the initial video evidence I saw that appeared to show his right foot still on the ground - before the tribunal had even started. Upon further evidence that was shown to me from a different angle, I could clearly see that I'd made a mistake and admitted as much.

I also said all along that it was 3 weeks, and that's what he deserved - I was just arguing about intent vs action vs outcome.

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you'd just read through the discussion for even a few pages after I posted that.
 
Last edited:
Oct 14, 2005
52,179
36,117
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
If player A bumps player B perfectly with zero contact to the head but player B hits his head on the ground as he fell and is concussed is player A suspended?
Yes, the same as if player's B is smashed into the ground in a sling tackle.
Or if I bump a player into another players path/body who collects him would I get suspended?

I suppose the answer is yes, because you bump you need to wear all consequences?
Yes, at least theoretically. If Player X cannons Player Y into opposition Player A, then X is responsible for any injuries suffered by A. In practice, I don't recall too many incidents of this happening. There are many incidences of players being cannoned, but very few (if any) which were reportable.
 
May 1, 2016
2,963
9,903
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Bayern Munich, Tottenham Hotspur
I don't know I could draw some pictures of human anatomy on paint to help explain but if a guy is side on and hits a guy who is front on at high force a head clash with at least one part of the body should be expected.

Can you really put a shoulder into a blokes sternum and NOT expect head contact?

Human bodies have some flex
Wrong. The clash of heads was unintended and unexpected, so it was accidental. Doesn't matter if the AFL says it ought to have been foreseeable. As long as it was not deliberate.

If Danger had bumped Kelly and no head clash occurred you may call that an 'incident'
 
Oct 9, 2006
22,522
29,233
Left of centre.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
You must be overweight or you would know when you run, 2 feet are not always on the ground

Bull

s**t

At the moment of impact, both feet were off the ground because Dangerfield jumped, not because he was running at him.

Are your eyes painted on too?
 
Last edited:

Shadow89

Cancelled
10k Posts AFL Fantasy Div 6+ Winner 2021
Feb 20, 2018
17,150
41,361
Believe me he is not in our heads. I’d be extremely surprised that after his big game performances against us we are definitely in his. It’s glorious

Yet who is in here debating - over 18 hours later - about a penalty for a player that has already been handed down?

It's done, finito, over. Said it early on in the thread, but some of you guys REALLY seem to hate Danger...like intense, passionate hate. I just dislike the guy, but even someone I really hate - I wouldn't keep arguing about after there's literally nothing left to argue about.

It's just a waste of time.
 
Back