Luke Shuey on Dangerfield

[DrMike]

Happens 20 times in a game and no one comments.

Happens against a Victorian teams Brownlow Medalist by a West Coast player and media idiots (and sore losers like you) ask for the death penalty.

The media tossers are hunting for Mitchell to be suspended after Selwood elbowed him to the back of the head in a crude attempt to tackle and Mitchell remonstrated.

Its pathetic really..........but continue on!!!!

I actually agree with you

 

[cats2016]

If Hawkins got a week, Shuey has to get 3.

 

[cats2016]

I actually agree with you

I am trying to gauge which supporters hate Geelong the most, and i have detected a pattern. Teams that we have belted for the longest amount of time (Richmond) are #1.

 

[DrMike]

I am trying to gauge which supporters hate Geelong the most, and i have detected a pattern. Teams that we have belted for the longest amount of time (Richmond) are #1.

Hate to break it to you but I think Geelong are a very well run club

What I hate is corrupt MRP findings. When a player deliberately elbows another in the back of the head, as Selwood did (and don't tell me he didn't because he had plenty of time to do something different), they need to be held accountable

Edit: Apologies wrong thread

 

[Chaisa]

Fact that he clearly went past the footy can't help.

One saving grace is that bumps rarely get intentional and Dangerfield played on so he might be OK.

 

[MotleyLemon]

Fact that he clearly went past the footy can't help.

One saving grace is that bumps rarely get intentional and Dangerfield played on so he might be OK.

It has to be intentional, he goes past the football and elects to bump, so onus is on him to keep it down.

He didn't, so he must go.

 

[Chaisa]

It has to be intentional, he goes past the football and elects to bump, so onus is on him to keep it down.

He didn't, so he must go.

Oh yeah I don't disagree, I'm just saying I've seen stuff like that been called careless.

 

[jackster83]

A fine should do the trick.

 

[Smeg Head]

So Gary 'massive grudge' Lyon has weighed in trying to get him banned.

“I’m reasonably confident that (AFL football operations boss) Simon Lethlean will be saying, ‘this is not the look that this game is going to tolerate’.

You know whats not a good look, ******* your best mate's missus. Why this dog even still have a job shows the joke that is the afl media circle jerk.

 

[Hoops]

Havent seen it but I assume a week is fair.

Do you work for the MRP?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Don't think it'll be classed as intentional as he didn't intentially hit him in the head.

Negligent/reckless, high contact, low impact

Dangerfield didn't even leave the field so low impact

May get 1 week or a fine because good record

No sure if you can argue negligence if you run past the ball to bump

 

[MotleyLemon]

So Gary 'massive grudge' Lyon has weighed in trying to get him banned.



You know whats not a good look, ******* your best mate's missus. Why this dog even still have a job shows the joke that is the afl media circle jerk.

Lol.

Meltdown.

Though don't forget the Eagles play Melbourne next week. Everyone has an agenda.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Not much in it but he will get a fine I think, the AFL base most things on outcome and Dangerfield was fine so Shuey will be also.
I still shake my head that these types of things are considered even against the rules now but the game has changed and so be it.
Still laughable to me though.

 

[Sttew]

Was good to see Patty get flattened

Yeah, because nobody likes champions. We cut them down the moment they rise to the top because we are so envious and weak.

 

[Sando22]

I agree with Garry Lyon - 1 week.

 

[Sttew]

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

Dangerfield had no lasting effects from it whatsoever

The game got embarrassing last week when Hawkins copped a week for a jumper punch that until then had been tolerated.

 

[ThirtyThr33]

Yeah, because nobody likes champions. We cut them down the moment they rise to the top because we are so envious and weak.

Lol dramatic much?

 

[Orange C]

i still can't understand, and I though this about the Maxwell/Mcginnity case that started all this years ago, but why is running past the ball to lay a bump a crime in and of itself if the player makes the decision that it's the best way for he or a teammate to win the ball?

Either way I can't see it being a suspension given Dangerfield got straight back up and took his kick, likely a Careless/Low/High

 

[Sttew]

Lol dramatic much?

Got to look after my boys!

 

[royalsfan]

Of course

I agree with Garry Lyon - 1 week.

Of course you do..

 

[Astro35]

I want him to get off just so I can watch Garry & Jon have a complete & utter meltdown. What a pair of muppets.

 

[Scott2clarkson]

That was pretty much a horrible thing for Luke shuey to do. Why punch dangerfield in the nuts? It's just not on.

 

[Obeanie1]

It has to be intentional, he goes past the football and elects to bump, so onus is on him to keep it down.

He didn't, so he must go.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

2 down to 1 seems fair enough, high contact, went past the ball, certainly knocked Dangerfield over, but he played on.

 

[Orange Agent]

You can tell a lot from these threads when team supporters of the player in question are the few defending it. If having eyes for the player only and lining him up off the ball with no other intention is not classified as intentional then they may as well not have the grading.