Danger hit on de Boer

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Smedts_2

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Posts
2,177
Likes
3,015
AFL Club
Geelong
What’s funny is you think you know what your on about, yet you don’t. What stuffed Shiel was a second hit by Astbury about 10 minutes after the Cotchin hit. A massive bump. But you clearly didn’t watch the game. I was there and have watched it as well. So, at least get it right when you’re having a crack.
So I’ve been trying to restrain myself from commenting on this thread even after the false equivalence of the Dusty to Danger actions that many clowns are trying to argue, but then I came across this bit of gross stupidity.

Absolute revisionist history bullshit.

The desire of many of you muppets to whitewash 2017 as the second coming of Jesus, without blemish, is as tiresome as your incessant moaning about anti-Richmond bias now that you’re just a good ordinary side again.

You deserved to win in 2017, you had some luck with Cotchin, and Dusty had an awesome season. That should be enough.
 

Foley#41

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Posts
1,641
Likes
7,149
Location
Eagledale
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Stunts Volleyball - since 1987
Wow. Care to explain the relevance of the free kick against Mirra to this discussion...?
Well given the penalty is a done deal, I sense that this thread has devolved to banter, so.... :)
It’s a good headline though. I plan on using it often, especially after your use of ‘wow’.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Posts
73,547
Likes
94,275
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
Nah. You csnt throw elbows and punches. Fines make sense. But make them bigger for players beyond the 2 year controlled salary.
One of the more sensible ideas surrounding the fine system.
I'd instead make fines a fixed % of a players income, and the same flat rate $2000 for the base salary guys.

Players on 300-400k would have to think long and hard about doing something if it cost them 6k or 7k or 15k as a % instead.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Posts
36,444
Likes
60,044
Location
#rentfree in Cats and Magpie supporters heads.
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Aston Villa, Traralgon Tyers United
So I’ve been trying to restrain myself from commenting on this thread even after the false equivalence of the Dusty to Danger actions that many clowns are trying to argue, but then I came across this bit of gross stupidity.

Absolute revisionist history bullshit.

The desire of many of you muppets to whitewash 2017 as the second coming of Jesus, without blemish, is as tiresome as your incessant moaning about anti-Richmond bias now that you’re just a good ordinary side again.

You deserved to win in 2017, you had some luck with Cotchin, and Dusty had an awesome season. That should be enough.
Lol, so you come in over the top and don’t know either. Brilliant.


Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower
 

Hodge1

Senior List
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Posts
218
Likes
158
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Nah. You csnt throw elbows and punches. Fines make sense. But make them bigger for players beyond the 2 year controlled salary.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a clean game in rubbing out clear punches and elbows.
However I've seen more contact than that around stoppages, ruck contests and defenders making them 'earn it' in most games.

Love your idea where fines are warranted, current system is neither here nor there for cashed up players.
 
Last edited:

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,761
Likes
3,265
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
So DeBoar didn’t go down when struck? Are we looking at the same footage?


Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower
I don't think we are. I am yet to see something that resembles a "massive elbow".

I have seen footage of Dangerfield throwing an elbow back getting de Boer in the guts. Not a whole lot in it though. Certainly not a massive elbow. There was probably 20-30 more powerful elbows thrown in that game than the one Dangerfield threw. A fine is probably fair enough.

The comparisons between this and Martin's strike I've been reading in here are rather laughable to be honest.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Posts
36,444
Likes
60,044
Location
#rentfree in Cats and Magpie supporters heads.
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Aston Villa, Traralgon Tyers United
I don't think we are. I am yet to see something that resembles a "massive elbow".

I have seen footage of Dangerfield throwing an elbow back getting de Boer in the guts. Not a whole lot in it though. Certainly not a massive elbow. There was probably 20-30 more powerful elbows thrown in that game than the one Dangerfield threw. A fine is probably fair enough.

The comparisons between this and Martin's strike I've been reading in here are rather laughable to be honest.
There’s no difference in a hard elbow to the shoulder/back or a hard elbow to the chest. I’m gonna assume you have played or are playing so you would know that. Both were hard hits.
So how is one worse than the other? They aren’t. And the MRP once again sends a mixed message. You can get suspended for a tackle, yet throw a hard elbow back and a blind fist - fine. It’s just crazy.


Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,761
Likes
3,265
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
There’s no difference in a hard elbow to the shoulder/back or a hard elbow to the chest. I’m gonna assume you have played or are playing so you would know that. Both were hard hits.
So how is one worse than the other? They aren’t. And the MRP once again sends a mixed message. You can get suspended for a tackle, yet throw a hard elbow back and a blind fist - fine. It’s just crazy.


Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower
Well there is a difference - One was to the head and one was to body.

Dangerfield's was not a hard hit.

Someone running at another player and striking them high with an elbow will always get a higher penalty than someone throwing an elbow back that occurs many times a game.

I think its time to let the Martin incident go hey captain? It was incorrectly graded by MC and subsequently amended at the tribunal. That is what the system is for. You challenged an unfair grading, and a fair punishment was handed out. Richmond then won against Port and now get Martin back.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Posts
36,444
Likes
60,044
Location
#rentfree in Cats and Magpie supporters heads.
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Aston Villa, Traralgon Tyers United
Well there is a difference - One was to the head and one was to body.

Dangerfield's was not a hard hit.

Someone running at another player and striking them high with an elbow will always get a higher penalty than someone throwing an elbow back that occurs many times a game.

I think its time to let the Martin incident go hey captain? It was incorrectly graded by MC and subsequently amended at the tribunal. That is what the system is for. You challenged an unfair grading, and a fair punishment was handed out. Richmond then won against Port and now get Martin back.
You’re right, Danger did hit DeBoar in the head after the elbow. Martin hit Kennedy in the shoulder as is on record by the player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,761
Likes
3,265
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
You’re right, Danger did hit DeBoar in the head after the elbow. Martin hit Kennedy in the shoulder as is on record by the player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Martin hit Kennedy in the head as reported by an umpire standing 20m away. Kennedy also said he hit him in the head.

Dangerfield hardly hit him in the head. The force was not deemed forecful enough to warrant a suspension.

Is it not possible in your opinion that Kennedy was simply trying to get Martin off by stating it got him in the shoulder originally? Is it possible you’re taking Kennedy’s word as gospel and the absolute truth so that it suits you’re narrative that Martin was hard done by? I mean, you have stated tht Martin copped a fair suspension 1 week but here you are complaining again?

Its very simple - one was high, one was not. One player ran at another player from a couple of paces away with a raised elbow. One has carelessly/recklessly thrown an elbow back at a player standing immediately behind him and got him low.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Posts
36,444
Likes
60,044
Location
#rentfree in Cats and Magpie supporters heads.
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Aston Villa, Traralgon Tyers United
Martin hit Kennedy in the head as reported by an umpire standing 20m away. Kennedy also said he hit him in the head.

Dangerfield hardly hit him in the head. The force was not deemed forecful enough to warrant a suspension.

Is it not possible in your opinion that Kennedy was simply trying to get Martin off by stating it got him in the shoulder originally? Is it possible you’re taking Kennedy’s word as gospel and the absolute truth so that it suits you’re narrative that Martin was hard done by? I mean, you have stated tht Martin copped a fair suspension 1 week but here you are complaining again?

Its very simple - one was high, one was not. One player ran at another player from a couple of paces away with a raised elbow. One has carelessly/recklessly thrown an elbow back at a player standing immediately behind him and got him low.
Nah, he didn’t. You better read the statement Kennedy action stated in the challenge to the ban. You’re actually incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,761
Likes
3,265
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
Nah, he didn’t. You better read the statement Kennedy action stated in the challenge to the ban. You’re actually incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Screen Shot 2019-04-16 at 8.49.22 am.png


INITIAL contact to shoulder. Then stated he wasn't expecting contact to his head and was in shock when it occurred. Pretty clear he isn't denying contact was made to the head.

But as I have mentioned several times, I guess you only read into that how you want to see it.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Posts
36,444
Likes
60,044
Location
#rentfree in Cats and Magpie supporters heads.
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Aston Villa, Traralgon Tyers United
View attachment 655679

INITIAL contact to shoulder. Then stated he wasn't expecting contact to his head and was in shock when it occurred. Pretty clear he isn't denying contact was made to the head.

But as I have mentioned several times, I guess you only read into that how you want to see it.
So the initial force of the blow was to the shoulder and glanced up to the head. Danger threw a strong elbow to the chest and then glanced the head in an intentional second go. What’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,761
Likes
3,265
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
So the initial force of the blow was to the shoulder and glanced up to the head. Danger threw a strong elbow to the chest and then glanced the head in an intentional second go. What’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The difference is Martin made contact to the head forceful enough to warrant a suspension. Graded low by the tribunal resulting in a 1 week suspension. The fact Kennedy claims it hit his shoulder first is irrelevant. It resulted in a strike to the head that was forceful - a claim supported by the umpire.

Dangerfield made contact to the body where the impact was not worthy of a suspension. Elbows like that occur frequently in games - in ruck contests or general push and shove. The hit to the head was also deemed not hard enough to suspend Dangerfield.

Can I ask captain - you seem to be taking Kennedys word as the absolute truth? Is there a chance he was trying to help Martin out?
 

Corkintheocean

All Australian
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Posts
602
Likes
666
AFL Club
West Coast
Not sure how McDonald gets a week for a play on the ball.

Danger gets nothing for a strike 150m away from it.

A clear example of why the result of any injury to the victim should not be so highly rated in the verdict.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Posts
102
Likes
78
AFL Club
Geelong
So the initial force of the blow was to the shoulder and glanced up to the head. Danger threw a strong elbow to the chest and then glanced the head in an intentional second go. What’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The force used and the fact Danger had 2 seperate actions.

Your player ****** up, accept it and move on.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Posts
36,444
Likes
60,044
Location
#rentfree in Cats and Magpie supporters heads.
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Aston Villa, Traralgon Tyers United
The force used and the fact Danger had 2 seperate actions.

Your player ****** up, accept it and move on.
Yep. Strick him with an elbow and then flew a blind fist that just clipped his head. 2 seperate actions. And i’ll post what i want thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
30,034
Likes
26,464
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
So I’ve been trying to restrain myself from commenting on this thread even after the false equivalence of the Dusty to Danger actions that many clowns are trying to argue, but then I came across this bit of gross stupidity.

Absolute revisionist history bullshit.

The desire of many of you muppets to whitewash 2017 as the second coming of Jesus, without blemish, is as tiresome as your incessant moaning about anti-Richmond bias now that you’re just a good ordinary side again.

You deserved to win in 2017, you had some luck with Cotchin, and Dusty had an awesome season. That should be enough.

The revisionism is the belief that Cotchin's bump was the one that concussed Shiel.

The notion that he played on, quite well, for ~10mins afterwards, and then 'just happened' to suddenly notice the concussion effects after contact with Astbury is where the "gross stupidity" comes in.
 
Top Bottom