Dangerfield ineligible, Motlop?

Remove this Banner Ad

A

avijae

Rookie
Sep 6, 2015
24
12
Wisconsin, USA
AFL Club
Geelong
I am an American, and a huge fan of footy. Can someone please give me a little more detail on why Dangerfield is/was ineligible for the brownlow? I'm not quite sure from reading things on the internet (which as we all know is "never" wrong) what happened with not disputing the suspension. Also, it seems everyone is okay with Motlop leaving. I'm not! Is the first round pick as valuable?

Thanks!!
Dave
 
avijae said:
I am an American, and a huge fan of footy. Can someone please give me a little more detail on why Dangerfield is/was ineligible for the brownlow? I'm not quite sure from reading things on the internet (which as we all know is "never" wrong) what happened with not disputing the suspension. Also, it seems everyone is okay with Motlop leaving. I'm not! Is the first round pick as valuable?

Thanks!!
Dave
Click to expand...
Aussies have this thing about 'best and fairest'.:p Fairest meaning not breaking major rules and getting suspended for it. Always interesting when a Brownlow favorite has a brush with a reportable offense.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

avijae said:
I am an American, and a huge fan of footy. Can someone please give me a little more detail on why Dangerfield is/was ineligible for the brownlow? I'm not quite sure from reading things on the internet (which as we all know is "never" wrong) what happened with not disputing the suspension. Also, it seems everyone is okay with Motlop leaving. I'm not! Is the first round pick as valuable?

Thanks!!
Dave
Click to expand...
The bigger issue why he got suspended. He completed a perfectly legal tackle and the guy he tackled got knocked out (even though he played the next week I think). It was pretty dubious.
 
avijae this article may shed some light on why Dangerfield was suspended. Malcolm Knox wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Geelong's Patrick Dangerfield has lost his chance to win the Brownlow Medal because of a rough tackle that accidentally caused Carlton's Matthew Kreuzer's head to hit the ground. Each punishment was excessive, demonstrating how confused the codes have become on the issue of violent play. In their justified campaigns against concussion, it's as if the codes have collectively suffered a bad head knock. They're not thinking straight."

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/violent...s-reveal-clubs-confusion-20170804-gxp801.html
 
Thanks for the reply! Yes, I'm aware of his suspension, and I should have asked a better question. I saw the news interview of him saying (and this is where I was confused) that if they fought the suspension he'd be eligible, but they needed to get ready for the next game and not worry about it, or something like that, as I say, it was confusing to me. So, if he accepted the suspension he'd still be ineligible, but fighting it would keep him eligible? Would he be able to play while "fighting" the suspension?
 
Thanks for all the answers (and links)! Now I get it. I'll assume that the Cats management didn't feel they had much of a chance of reversing due to the concerns about concussions.

And what about Motlop? Good reasons for the trade? Anyone against accept me?

Go Cats!
 
avijae said:
Thanks for all the answers (and links)! Now I get it. I'll assume that the Cats management didn't feel they had much of a chance of reversing due to the concerns about concussions.

And what about Motlop? Good reasons for the trade? Anyone against accept me?

Go Cats!
Click to expand...
Cats' management rarely if ever appeals MRP decisions largely because the appeal system is a lottery
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top