Luke Shuey on Dangerfield

[ZingerB]

I would say one week, only because every head high bump where the player runs past the ball has resulted in a suspension. Pretty cut and dry but anything more than one week would be unusual given Danger eventually got up after staggering for a bit.

There is the 'potential to cause injury' and there was pretty solid contact to the head. It was one of the more blatant bumps to the head in a few years given the game has evolved passed that. It should get the same week for stupidity that Hawkins got.

 

[ZingerB]

Bumps are not prohibited. If the bump was not intentionally aimed to hit the head it won't be graded intentional.

I can see a grading of reckless, high, low impact coming. What does that translate into?

 

[Armadeo]

I can see a grading of reckless, high, low impact coming. What does that translate into?

There is no reckless its just careless vs intentional.

I think we can all agree it will be high contact and low impact. Really depends on the grading. Hoping for careless.

 

[Quinz]

I can see a grading of reckless, high, low impact coming. What does that translate into?

No reckless any more. Careless or intentional.

Careless high low impact is a fine
Intentional high low is one week with a plea

 

[lewigie]

Should be a fine, if that's weeks the game is getting pretty embarrassing.

Dangerfield had no lasting effects from it whatsoever

 

[ZingerB]

Should be a fine, if that's weeks the game is getting pretty embarrassing.

Dangerfield had no lasting effects from it whatsoever

Not really the point. Hodge's hit on Wingard, and Mitchell's hit on Goldstein in 2015 did no damage but they were both worthy of several weeks. Shuey ran passed the ball and planted a shoulder into Dangerfield's head with pretty solid contact. I don't think he will get a week, but he probably deserves one.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Bumps are not prohibited. If the bump was not intentionally aimed to hit the head it won't be graded intentional.

It is intentional unless:
The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.

Instead of running past the ball and bumping, a play at the ball could have been made...it will be deemed intentional.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

It is intentional unless:
The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.

Instead of bumping, a play at the ball could have been made...it will be deemed intentional.

QED. Thanks for coming.. Couldn't be more black/white. Chose to go past the contest therefore intentional.

 

[ZingerB]

No reckless any more. Careless or intentional.

Careless high low impact is a fine
Intentional high low is one week with a plea

Probably gets lucky then. The MRP are pretty gutless and manoeuvre the gradings to suit the narrative. They wouldn't want to grade it as insufficient force due to the solid hit, but they will be generous and give it careless even though there is an argument to be made it was intentional with him running past the ball. That way, they look tough and everyone wins.

 

[Quinz]

It is intentional unless:
The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.

Instead of running past the ball and bumping, a play at the ball could have been made...it will be deemed intentional.

You are not required to make a play at the ball, is bumping is allowed close to the ball.

He didn't intentionally bump high. Should be a fine at worst, although I'd throw it out altogether.

 

[aCunningPlan]

You are not required to make a play at the ball, is bumping is allowed close to the ball.

He didn't intentionally bump high. Should be a fine at worst, although I'd throw it out altogether.

Could he have played at the ball at all?

 

[Quinz]

Could he have played at the ball at all?

He doesn't have to.

The high contact was not intentional.

 

[aCunningPlan]

He doesn't have to.

The high contact was not intentional.

We are at an impasse, have a good evening.

 

[D-N-R]

It is intentional unless:
The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.

Instead of running past the ball and bumping, a play at the ball could have been made...it will be deemed intentional.

Bumping a player who is in possession of the ball and bumping a player who isn't in possession of the ball are both legal.

Bumping a player who isn't in possession of the ball is known as a 'shepherd' or a 'block'. This is legal unless the ball is more than 5m away.

If you took a passing interest in the AFL and the way the MRP works, you'd find that 'bumps' are generally graded as careless. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a bump that was graded intentional, unless this was a 'bump' with a raised elbow, forearm or something off the ball.

It will be deemed careless unless the ball was more than 5m away or there was some sort of striking action.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Bumping a player who is in possession of the ball and bumping a player who isn't in possession of the ball are both legal.

Bumping a player who isn't in possession of the ball is known as a 'shepherd' or a 'block'. This is legal unless the ball is more than 5m away.

If you took a passing interest in the AFL and the way the MRP works, you'd find that 'bumps' are generally graded as careless. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a bump that was graded intentional, unless this was a 'bump' with a raised elbow, forearm or something off the ball.

It will be deemed careless unless the ball was more than 5m away or there was some sort of striking action.

Face palm... It may be careless but will be graded Medium impact since its so dangerous and they don't want any bumps to the head.

 

[LeverPuller]

Long as he gets a week

 

[Topkent]

Havent seen it but I assume a week is fair.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Can't believe we're trying to make a big deal out of this. Barely got him. Free kick was there but nothing more.

 

[Topkent]

Dangerfield always throws his head back like he's been shot. Pretty soft footballer

 

[romeohwho]

Thought it was ordinary but not worth time off for.

 

[HairyO]

Not intentional?

He intended to bump him, after going past the football.

They can try the Buddy defence when he went past the ball and cleaned up Edwards and sent him off the field for the rest of the game. But Im not sure the MRP will believe him when he says "Sydney Swans MRP Discount, please".

 

[MotleyLemon]

They can try the Buddy defence when he went past the ball and cleaned up Edwards and sent him off the field for the rest of the game. But Im not sure the MRP will believe him when he says "Sydney Swans MRP Discount, please".

He won't get the Swans MRP Discount, but he won't get the Geelong MRP Loading either.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

How many for Selwood's weak as piss hit on Mitchell?

I haven't seen at, but given you described it as "weak as piss," it's obviously 0.

 

[HairyO]

He won't get the Swans MRP Discount, but he won't get the Geelong MRP Loading either.

He is well and truly screwed if he gets the Hawthorn "potential to cause serious injury" loading. Though that was very much Mark Evans showing his independence.

 

[Testekill]

2-3 weeks for me