Is Hartigan in trouble?

[MC Extra Dollop]

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]

The bump was still intentional

This has never been disputed. But if you think Danger intended for the sickening head clash that followed then your name is apt.

 

[Sttew]

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?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

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]

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

 

[Sttew]

Dangerfield went in with force to take his opponent out.
The headclash was accidental. The collision was not

Yes agreed, and Danger copped 3 weeks. How many posters bemoaned that 3 weeks was not enough because Kelly would be forced out for longer? Kelly missed 1 game

 

[Thewlis Dish]

The AFL obviously only wants to protect the head when it suits them. Ridiculous outcome.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Lol, careless conduct.

 

[HairyO]

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.

 

[Sttew]

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.

Rohan did Neale no damage last week and copped 2 weeks.

 

[Wojcinski]

Protect the head (unless you're punching them then its ok)

 

[Hamingja]

The AFL obviously only wants to protect the head when it suits them. Ridiculous outcome.

It was way too late to be in the contest so if the head is sacrosanct he should have got a week.

 

[STPer18]

Started winding up after Hawkins had already taken the ball. Very strange decision by the MRO, but totally predictable.

 

[falcons2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Haha WTF?

Hawkins would have been begging for two weeks if he'd done that.

A truly bemusing decision.

 

[Ricketz]

Spoiling is completely legal. Except when it isnt.

Just like bumps.

Nobody believes he was attempting to spoil the ball. Give it a rest.

 

[Go the Guts]

In terms of impact there's a massive difference yes. In terms of intent this was worse.

 

[Spearman]

A bump has the potential to cause head injury.
A late spoil has the potential to cause head injury.

These days spoils are more approved than bumps - which the AFL are trying to phase out of the game.

The problem is calling a late spoil. After how many steps does it become a strike?

 

[HairyO]

The problem is calling a late spoil. After how many steps does it become a strike?

It was called a strike. But rated careless. The question would be how many more steps before its intentional.



At least 1 more step.

 

[Ricketz]

It was called a strike. But rated careless. The question would be how many more steps before its intentional.



At least 1 more step.

How ever many steps Gaff took before he connected with Brayshaw, I guess. "I was just spoiling, sir".