3 weeks is ok, but you know it’d have been 4 for a lesser light.
Dangerfield on Kelly
- Thread starter james Dean
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Exactly. Ban the bump.
Obviously not the case
Williams got 1 and his hit was far worse. If it was a lesser light he may well of got off.
What Dangerfield did was a specific type of bump. A dangerous and illegal one. Why do you have to ban all bumps?
Go look at the pic.
Whats a non dangerous one?
Yes cos danger was running faster then Williams and had more momentum. are we now penalising momentum?
Jeremy McGovern laid a great bump in the pre-season derby - got pinged for a free kick by a spooked umpire (should have been play on), no action taken by the MRO because it was done right and nobody suffered a head injury..
So I guess you can do it, you are highly likely to give away a free but if it’s done right you don’t get a 3 week holiday.
He could of accidently head clashed during that bump and then it would of not been done right. It was luck. Nothing more.
Last edited:
Well yeah, they have in the past. Nic Nat got rubbed out for not taking into account his size and weight while moving with momentum a few years back.
Here’s a diagram of the thought process he’s now required to go through before each contested possession, bump or tackle.
Williams shoulder went through a players headHe's a rambling drunk who can't remember what day it is, but what he said about Williams was all spot on ...
Just a shame that he forgot it in a fortnight
Danger did exactly the same thing as Williams but with more impact. And got the due penalty!
dangers went through the chest. Completely different. Williams Didnt head clash cos he jumped so high that his head was half a foot higher then his opponents. What Williams did was a snipe.
Yes.
Should a punch to the face that knocks someone out get the same penalty as a gentle bop on the nose?
Yes cos the momentum is in the fist Flying at the head. An illegal action. If the action is illegal then momentum matters. Dangerfields momentum was due to running too fast In an action to bump. bumping is apparently not an illegal action. at least it’s not supposed to be. Should players now be penalised cos their tackles is too forceful?
And wasn’t that ridiculous?
Nostradumbass
BigFooty Legend
- Oct 2, 2007
- 47,197
- 115,994
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Everton FC Williamstown FC
Wrong thread
- Sep 25, 2013
- 15,060
- 29,259
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Why was Danger bumping that late in the first place? Completely avoidable injury. That’s why he is suspended.
For starters one that's not against a blokes front side when he is disposing/recently disposed of the football?
Same intent from both players. Imposing physicality by electing to bump and intentionally lining up the player.
Footage clearly shows Danger running at the bloke with no intention to smother/block or tackle.
Williams got a bit higher because he's more athletic, danger got more force because he's heavier and cannonballed forwards rather than up.
Intent the same, outcome different (not just in injury itself, but the end position of the bump).
Footage clearly shows Danger running at the bloke with no intention to smother/block or tackle.
Williams got a bit higher because he's more athletic, danger got more force because he's heavier and cannonballed forwards rather than up.
Intent the same, outcome different (not just in injury itself, but the end position of the bump).
- May 19, 2018
- 2,066
- 2,055
- AFL Club
- Geelong
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
