Dangerfield on Kelly

Remove this Banner Ad

May 1, 2016
2,650
9,062
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Bayern Munich, Tottenham Hotspur
Gee imagine talking about the current hot topic in the AFL while it is a relevant issue.

The fact that Dangerfield is parading around now throwing out quotes about what a challenging experience it was to be the victim of a tribunal hearing and I still haven't seen an apology or acknowledgement of wrong doing doesn't help.
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.
 

tropicaltiger

?2017?2019
Jan 4, 2002
4,623
10,082
cairns
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Snakes
I don’t disagree with the stance at all, but it would’ve been nice to see him hold the same energy towards Astbury’s wild elbow which could’ve been just as damaging. One issue at a time I guess.
carlton fella was clinging on to astbury illegally to hold him up after an OBVIOUS fee was awarded....kelly was running free and had disposed of ball when danger plowed thu him. apples and oranges.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
23,590
18,995
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
That's a shithouse example. Driving 150 through a residential is illegal. Bumping someone isn't
Example is fine.

Bumps executed properly are legal, bumps that are not executed properly are illegal.

If you execute a bump without taking due care (like driving over the speed limit) you are inviting an incident to occur knowing full well that 'driving 150km per hour is not safe'.
 

Shadow89

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 20, 2018
7,949
17,365
AFL Club
Geelong
Gee imagine talking about the current hot topic in the AFL while it is a relevant issue.

The fact that Dangerfield is parading around now throwing out quotes about what a challenging experience it was to be the victim of a tribunal hearing and I still haven't seen an apology or acknowledgement of wrong doing doesn't help.
Ugh.

Unlike some of you, I see no value in flogging a dead horse. He's got his 3 matches - which most of us agreed on - move on
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
23,590
18,995
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
Gee imagine talking about the current hot topic in the AFL while it is a relevant issue.

The fact that Dangerfield is parading around now throwing out quotes about what a challenging experience it was to be the victim of a tribunal hearing and I still haven't seen an apology or acknowledgement of wrong doing doesn't help.
Danger is still referring to it as an unfortunate accident.

Not taking responsibility and paying lip service.

And no, I haven't read about any apology for his actions. He's stated he understands the charge and ruling, he hasn't said he agrees with the rules or apologised.

I could be wrong as I may not have read everything.
 

tropicaltiger

?2017?2019
Jan 4, 2002
4,623
10,082
cairns
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Snakes
Jack Riewoldt is a ******* w***er. When Sydney stack nailed Viney with his bump he was on 360 talking about how great it was ( fair enough, I loved it too) but the only difference between stack and danger was an ACCIDENTAL clash of heads.

Calling stack a hero and danger a flog is double standard horse sh*t. Spineless little piss ant is Jack Riewoldt
dangerfield was late and viscious, stack got viney perfect
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
23,590
18,995
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
Ugh.

Unlike some of you, I see no value in flogging a dead horse. He's got his 3 matches - which most of us agreed on - move on
If you see no value then stop posting.

Others do see value in discussing the outcome.

You sound like you actually work for the AFL, its a bad news story so lets sweep this under the carpet ASAP and move on.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
23,590
18,995
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
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'
When do people intend to have an accident?

The head clash is not unexpected, that has been clearly clarified in the rules. It is foreseeable that head clashes have a high probability to occur when a player elects to bump.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
7,566
17,571
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
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?
Possibly. Depends on the severity of the concussion. He’ll miss 12 days at least. Keep up buddy.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
20,463
18,093
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Danger is still referring to it as an unfortunate accident.

Not taking responsibility and paying lip service.

And no, I haven't read about any apology for his actions. He's stated he understands the charge and ruling, he hasn't said he agrees with the rules or apologised.

I could be wrong as I may not have read everything.
It was an unfortunate accident as Dangerfield didn’t intend for heads to clash. End of story.

As for Danger apologising or not who knows what has been said privately? They are friends
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheWoodenSlug

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 24, 2008
6,546
13,520
AFL Club
Geelong
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.
You must be overweight or you would know when you run, 2 feet are not always on the ground
Bull

sh*t

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

Are your eye painted on too?
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that people don't have both feet off the ground at any point while running?

No wonder Bolt won so easily, the other guys are jumping instead of running!


 

JackFlash

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 28, 2012
8,182
6,846
Docklands
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
QPR, Buffalo Bills, Melbourne Stars
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.
You're not allowed to drive at 150 in a suburban street, the bump is not yet banned. Players are taught to bump at an early age, this was an accident due to the AFL buggerising around with something they should've acted on years ago. The players are being told to be careful playing a collision sport at a super fast pace with 36 players on the field at the same time! Of course someone is going to collide with someone else and accidentally. Unfortunately the "bump" has had its day in 2021.
 

mario bortallotto

Team Captain
Mar 24, 2018
421
743
AFL Club
Carlton
Danger is still referring to it as an unfortunate accident.

Not taking responsibility and paying lip service.

And no, I haven't read about any apology for his actions. He's stated he understands the charge and ruling, he hasn't said he agrees with the rules or apologised.

I could be wrong as I may not have read everything.
may have been thinking or advised to not admit guilt if ever the long game came into play years down the track??? just a thought
 
May 1, 2016
2,650
9,062
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Bayern Munich, Tottenham Hotspur
But this wasn't an accidental collision?

Dangerfield ran at the bloke and cannonballed into him

That's not an accidental collision
You're not allowed to drive at 150 in a suburban street, the bump is not yet banned. Players are taught to bump at an early age, this was an accident due to the AFL buggerising around with something they should've acted on years ago. The players are being told to be careful playing a collision sport at a super fast pace with 36 players on the field at the same time! Of course someone is going to collide with someone else and accidentally. Unfortunately the "bump" has had its day in 2021.
 

Kreuuuzeurns

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 25, 2013
5,722
9,172
AFL Club
Carlton
You're not allowed to drive at 150 in a suburban street, the bump is not yet banned. Players are taught to bump at an early age, this was an accident due to the AFL buggerising around with something they should've acted on years ago. The players are being told to be careful playing a collision sport at a super fast pace with 36 players on the field at the same time! Of course someone is going to collide with someone else and accidentally. Unfortunately the "bump" has had its day in 2021.
There was nothing accidental about Dangers bump at all. He lined Kelly up after being pinged for holding the ball just before the incident.

Still a place for well timed, well executed bumps in 2021. This was neither.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
20,463
18,093
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
There was nothing accidental about Dangers bump at all. He lined Kelly up after being pinged for holding the ball just before the incident.

Still a place for well timed, well executed bumps in 2021. This was neither.
Nobody (and particularly Dangerfield) is saying the bump was accidental, but the head clash most definitely was accidental as it was neither expected by Dangerfield nor intended. Dangerfield did not bump Kelly with the intention that their heads clash violently, or are you saying it was intentional?
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Oct 14, 2005
45,459
27,657
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Nobody (and particularly Dangerfield) is saying the bump was accidental, but the head clash most definitely was accidental as it was neither expected by Dangerfield nor intended. Dangerfield did not bump Kelly with the intention that their heads clash violently, or are you saying it was intentional?
The head clash wasn't accidental. It was unintended, but it was an entirely foreseeable outcome. If you do something which has a foreseeable outcome, and that outcome occurs, then it's not an accidental outcome.
 

Kreuuuzeurns

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 25, 2013
5,722
9,172
AFL Club
Carlton
Nobody (and particularly Dangerfield) is saying the bump was accidental, but the head clash most definitely was accidental as it was neither expected by Dangerfield nor intended. Dangerfield did not bump Kelly with the intention that their heads clash violently, or are you saying it was intentional?
The bump was intentional which is all that matters. A head clash is now considered a foreseeable outcome of a bump and Danger is therefore responsible. If a player elects to bump (especially late and unwarranted) it’s on them to make sure the head is protected.

EDIT: See above
 

JackFlash

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 28, 2012
8,182
6,846
Docklands
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
QPR, Buffalo Bills, Melbourne Stars
You will never get any consensus here and this is the AFL's problem. The Bump is now over, people just love to hate on Dangerfield and their judgment is totally clouded because of it. There will always be football bias, the bump must join the slam tackle and sliding rule and become extinct! I love the bump, but in 2021 the repercussions of the action leave the AFL no choice now. The hate and vitriol by some fans is a greater issue, i suspect a new ruling on the bump at some point this year! The AFL have wanted it both ways for a long time, that time is up.
 

Remove this Banner Ad