Is Hartigan in trouble?

Remove this Banner Ad

MC Extra Dollop

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2006
21,576
18,470
AFL Club
Geelong
It has to be a suspension and I'd absolutely say the same thing if the jumpers were reversed. Clearly intentional, clearly high, clearly had a bit of force on it and (not that it's factored in, but anyway) it was a cheap shot at an opponent with his back turned. Surely the only debate could be one or two weeks?
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
20,575
18,326
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
It has to be a suspension and I'd absolutely say the same thing if the jumpers were reversed. Clearly intentional, clearly high, clearly had a bit of force on it and (not that it's factored in, but anyway) it was a cheap shot at an opponent with his back turned. Surely the only debate could be one or two weeks?
Not the way the MRO saw it, and who is surprised?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mitchell Madness

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 17, 2006
21,126
9,545
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
This has never been disputed. But if you think Danger intended for the sickening head clash that followed then your name is apt.
Dangerfield went in with force to take his opponent out.
The headclash was accidental. The collision was not
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
20,575
18,326
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
I guarantee you the argument will be he couldn't see the ball because he's behind the player and was swinging his arm in a misguided attempt to knock the ball. Not saying it's right - just saying on precedent that's the way the tribunal tends to work.
Given the MRO doesn't speak to either player before making his finding we can only guess that he guessed what Hartigan was thinking
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
24,926
26,692
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Those saying it was deliberate would argue that the action was not a spoil. It was a good old fashioned "made him earn it".

If indeed one does classify it as a spoil, then yeah it counts as careless.
I have no doubt he was going for a clip. In the same way Danger was going for a bump.

I dont think either of them intended to hurt. And the AFL, like our legal system, apply penalties based on damage done.
 

STPer18

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 12, 2017
7,748
21,605
AFL Club
Geelong
Started winding up after Hawkins had already taken the ball. Very strange decision by the MRO, but totally predictable.

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

falcons2

All Australian
Feb 19, 2009
869
752
Melbourne OuterEast
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The Astbury Defence seems to been applied. Didn't hurt him, 50m correctly applied.
Should have got a week for stupidity. Must admit I did laugh. However every up-country thug will do it this weekend saying AFL says it's ok and some 18year old playing his first senior game will have 3 teeth and a jaw shattered.
If he had done any damage it would have been 5-6 weeks.
Hartigan got a let out of jail free for the old time memories but he wouldn't want to do it again.
 

Smedts_2

Club Legend
Apr 23, 2012
2,235
3,195
AFL Club
Geelong
I have no doubt he was going for a clip. In the same way Danger was going for a bump.

I dont think either of them intended to hurt. And the AFL, like our legal system, apply penalties based on damage done.
I don’t know how you can make that equivalence. Hartigan was going for a clip TO the head, Dangerfield was going for a bump which resulted in head to head contact.

unless you think Dangerfield was looking to head-butt Kelly that incident is only relevant in casting a light on how stupid this specific decision is.
 

God Mode

Club Legend
Mar 22, 2011
1,126
2,340
Mount Olympus
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers, Chicago Bulls
Oh you Geelong whingers are unbelievable! MASSIVE difference between this and what Dangerfield did to Kelly, for instance.
He deserved every one of those 3 weeks and probably another one. It had nothing to do with who he plays for. FFS get over yourselves.
In terms of impact there's a massive difference yes. In terms of intent this was worse.
 

Duckimus Prime

Premiership Player
Apr 26, 2008
3,635
5,549
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Penalty is ok I recon, especially if first offence(?)

The judgement stating it was careless rather than intentional? Not so much.
Saying it was intentional means that the penalty isn't ok. Rating it intentional, high contact with low impact makes it a 1 week suspension.

The bump was still intentional
The bump is a completely legal action. So Dangerfield didn't intentionally perform a reportable offence. He was reported because his legal bump was performed carelessly and thus resulted in a head clash.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
24,926
26,692
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Saying it was intentional means that the penalty isn't ok. Rating it intentional, high contact with low impact makes it a 1 week suspension.


The bump is a completely legal action. So Dangerfield didn't intentionally perform a reportable offence. He was reported because his legal bump was performed carelessly and thus resulted in a head clash.
Spoiling is completely legal. Except when it isnt.

Just like bumps.
 

Hawk_francais

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2015
3,481
6,944
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Dont mind if they start giving blatantly late and obvious cheap shots like this 1 week. Its pretty cowardly, whacking a bloke in the head out of frustration that you weren't good enough to beat your opponent.

That said, under current rules it's a fine at most. But if they're serious about protecting the head it should at least be a hefty one. Players dgaf about $2000.

Also, the player should have to pay it themselves, not come from the aflpa slush fund.
MRO made their minds up when they fined Astbury and Daniher. If they are not suspensions, they can’t go and suspend Hartigan.

In a few years they will all be worthy of suspension. Any contact to the head which is not 100% accidental and unavoidable will eventually be stamped out.
 

Remove this Banner Ad