Dangerfield on Kelly

Remove this Banner Ad

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Sep 21, 2002
48,940
40,408
Adelaide
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
Ten, even five years ago this was a non-incident. However attitudes in society have changed, some for better, some for worse. In accordance with today's standards, we shouldn't be too surprised with the outcome. Whether I agree with that outcome is questionable. All I ask is for the judicial to remain consistent with this.
 
Last edited:

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
33,221
32,176
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
You must be overweight or you would know when you run, 2 feet are not always on the ground
Do you usually run with one side of your body directed at another person expecting impact?



People keep calling for consistency, but can't accept that that requires black and white definitions.

2 feet off the ground is a jump.

I challenge you to define it otherwise while maintaining a clear, simple, indisputable language that will allow consistency.



Personally I'd like a little more gray in the definitions, and flexibility in the outcomes, but I also remember the relentless sooking over 'inconsistency' when they had that, so this is what we're stuck with.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Euku

Team Captain
Sep 20, 2019
444
489
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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.
So under the rules what outcome do you believe should danger recieve and why?
 
Last edited:

Shadow89

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 20, 2018
7,949
17,365
AFL Club
Geelong
Ten, even five years ago this was a non-incident. However attitudes in society have changed, some for better, some for worse. In accordance with today's standards, we shouldn't be too surprised with by the outcome. Whether I agree with that outcome is questionable. All I ask is for the judicial to remain consistent with this.
Awesome comment :)
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
33,221
32,176
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
That's a shithouse example. Driving 150 through a residential is illegal. Bumping someone isn't
Yeah, it is.

If I saw you in the street ran up to you and laid a hip and shoulder on you, I would be guilty of assault.

Nominally it's also illegal on the football field too, but the courts accept the tribunal as a de facto 'lower court' for such cases. (which is why tribunal decisions can be 'appealed' to real courts).
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
20,463
18,093
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
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
Not disputing your statement. The head clash was accidental. It just happens to be that a few years ago it was left at that. Today the rule is different. Call it foreseeable or whatever you like, but it was still accidental
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Oct 14, 2005
45,459
27,658
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Do you usually run with one side of your body directed at another person expecting impact?



People keep calling for consistency, but can't accept that that requires black and white definitions.

2 feet off the ground is a jump.

I challenge you to define it otherwise while maintaining a clear, simple, indisputable language that will allow consistency.



Personally I'd like a little more gray in the definitions, and flexibility in the outcomes, but I also remember the relentless sooking over 'inconsistency' when they had that, so this is what we're stuck with.
The act of running does, frequently, result in 2 feet being airborne at the same time.

However, Dangerfield clearly jumped laterally into Kelly. It wasn't the result of running, or an accidental collision.
 

Kreuuuzeurns

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 25, 2013
5,722
9,172
AFL Club
Carlton
Not disputing your statement. The head clash was accidental. It just happens to be that a few years ago it was left at that. Today the rule is different. Call it foreseeable or whatever you like, but it was still accidental
Should be no issue as long as it remains consistent. Danger is a nice and early example of what the players can expect.
 

The Cryptkeeper

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 9, 2006
15,086
16,028
Left of centre.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
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!


Reading not your strong suit mate? I am referring to (and I will say it again because you seem a bit slow) THE MOMENT OF IMPACT.

Dangerfield hit Kelly high because he jumped into him. Are you suggesting that he simply ran into him?
 

roacheee

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Aug 25, 2015
6,474
14,909
AFL Club
Richmond
if that was the goal hé should of done it with a raised elbow. A raised elbow is now considered the same as a bump to the chest.
true, danger should know
elbow someone in the face = 0 weeks
collateral head collision = 3 weeks
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
39,836
35,729
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
The act of running does, frequently, result in 2 feet being airborne at the same time.

However, Dangerfield clearly jumped laterally into Kelly. It wasn't the result of running, or an accidental collision.
Jumping is only an issue if you go up so your shoulder connects the head. The act of jumping actually slows you down compared to running (this is basic physics). So if he jumped laterally it’s actually reducing his force compared to if he kept running. A lateral jumping bump is a weaker bump.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
7,566
17,571
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
Jumping is only an issue if you go up so your shoulder connects the head. The act of jumping actually slows you down compared to running (this is basic physics). So if he jumped laterally it’s actually reducing his force compared to if he kept running. A lateral jumping bump is a weaker bump.
Except the act of jumping optimises the position of the attacker compared to the defender. By jumping Dangerfield was able to lead with his shoulder knowing that he was likely to do more damage to Kelly by hitting him higher and across a smaller impact zone with more force. If Dangerfield runs into Kelly they make contact in a tangle of legs, hips and torso - a huge impact zone across which the force would have been dissipated compared to what actually happened.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
12,126
12,127
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
No issue with suspension as these are the rules now, my issue is what can the player do? He can’t tackle as it will be down field. Can’t bump because possible head contact. Is he supposed to just put some red carpet down and let the player waltz past him?
The AFL have set the rules and that’s fine, they should also come out and explain what they think Dangerfield should of done and show us in detail what they think he should of done. It is against all instincts to let player with ball simply take kick or handball or even run unimpeded.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
33,221
32,176
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
The act of running does, frequently, result in 2 feet being airborne at the same time.

However, Dangerfield clearly jumped laterally into Kelly. It wasn't the result of running, or an accidental collision.
That was my point about the sideways impact.

When you're bracing for that, it's no longer a normal running action.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Oct 14, 2005
45,459
27,658
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
No issue with suspension as these are the rules now, my issue is what can the player do? He can’t tackle as it will be down field. Can’t bump because possible head contact. Is he supposed to just put some red carpet down and let the player waltz past him?
The AFL have set the rules and that’s fine, they should also come out and explain what they think Dangerfield should of done and show us in detail what they think he should of done. It is against all instincts to let player with ball simply take kick or handball or even run unimpeded.
Options are limited, given that Kelly had already disposed of the ball, and umpires are supposed to pay a free & 50m penalty if a player is interfered with after disposing of the ball.

Short answer is yes... he was expected to avoid contact with Kelly, under those circumstances.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Oct 14, 2005
45,459
27,658
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
That was my point about the sideways impact.

When you're bracing for that, it's no longer a normal running action.
I probably shouldn't have quoted your post. I was looking to reinforce your point, against those who were trying to argue that Dangerfield didn't jump into Kelly.
 

Remove this Banner Ad