MRP / Trib. Potential MRP - Hawkins run down tackle from behind on Joyce - Not cited yet.

[Herne Hill Hammer]

BTW, Danger was reported for rough conduct in the last quarter. Also absolutely nothing in it.

I was going to say that I'm more concerned about Danger than Hawkins.

 

[cats_09]

I was going to say that I'm more concerned about Danger than Hawkins.

Dangerfield should have nothing to worry about and any report dismissed tomorrow upon review of the match

 

[Strange Cat]

I was going to say that I'm more concerned about Danger than Hawkins.

Why? Danger was pushed into the contest and had no control of the incident

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Dangerfield should have nothing to worry about and any report dismissed tomorrow upon review of the match

I'd need to see it again, I only saw it the once when it happened, but on first viewing, Danger rushes in as he does, get's the Saints player high then throws himself backwards to make out he was hit high too. I may be completely wrong but at normal speed on one viewing, that's what it looked like to me. There were other players in the play so the vision was partially obscured. There was no mention made by the commentary team and as far as I'm aware, they didn't replay it during the broadcast.

 

[cats_09]

I'd need to see it again, I only saw it the once when it happened, but on first viewing, Danger rushes in as he does, get's the Saints player high then throws himself backwards to make out he was hit high too. I may be completely wrong but at normal speed on one viewing, that's what it looked like to me. There were other players in the play so the vision was partially obscured. There was no mention made by the commentary team and as far as I'm aware, they didn't replay it during the broadcast.

Zac Jones gave Dangerfield a decent shove/push in the back which in turn leads to the contact with Crouch - fair case to argue that Dangerfield should have been the one to receive a free kick as the initial infringment was against him

Using the MROs own guidelines, that alone should equate to no case for Dangerfield

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps) The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:

- The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; 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.

In the interests of Player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to Players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all Players and will guide the application of the rule.

For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.

 

[Strange Cat]

I'd need to see it again, I only saw it the once when it happened, but on first viewing, Danger rushes in as he does, get's the Saints player high then throws himself backwards to make out he was hit high too. I may be completely wrong but at normal speed on one viewing, that's what it looked like to me. There were other players in the play so the vision was partially obscured. There was no mention made by the commentary team and as far as I'm aware, they didn't replay it during the broadcast.

Could Danger find himself in hot water?

Patrick Dangerfield is penalised for this high contact on Brad Crouch

www.afl.com.au

Video link and screen shot below where Zac pushes Danger into the contest

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Could Danger find himself in hot water?

Patrick Dangerfield is penalised for this high contact on Brad Crouch

www.afl.com.au

Video link and screen shot below where Zac pushes Danger into the contest

View attachment 1206283

Yep, he'll be ok, pushed in by Jones.

 

[Wojcinski]

It’s not identical when Hawkins pinned both arms and Holman only pinned 1…

amount of arms pinned doesn't mean shit because the outcome was the same, it was the same type of tackle.

 

[Wojcinski]

Could Danger find himself in hot water?

Patrick Dangerfield is penalised for this high contact on Brad Crouch

www.afl.com.au

Video link and screen shot below where Zac pushes Danger into the contest

View attachment 1206283

nothing in it, the free was incorrect too

 

[JohnZ]

Pretty sure that we the terminology many used after Duncan was concussed in the Holman tackle

i agree but will he get weeks...history says yes.

Holman got off, so see no reason why tommy wouldn't either for an identical case, even if it has to go via the tribunal. Wonder if Michael will bother.

 

[crocsta]

I said to my dad at quarter time that Tom would tackle someone too hard and get reported. It’s been bubbling for weeks. Just a stupid act. Needs to control himself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cats_09]

IF Hawkins is reported and IF we decide to challenge the decision, wonder if AFLPA President, Patrick Dangerfield, would be free to partake in the hearing to argue there's an "error in the law" in regards to the charge...

 

[FredLeDeux]

amount of arms pinned doesn't mean sh*t because the outcome was the same, it was the same type of tackle.

It's a significant point of difference when assessing the level of potential danger

 

[Moley Russels Wart]

Same as mitch duncan. No swinging force dude was just a perfect tackle bag. need more awareness and strength than that, it's he's own fault really.

 

[Moley Russels Wart]

Disagree - watch the tackle - and focus entirely on Hawkins right arm - and the last part of that tackle - Hawkins with his right arm drives that Stk bloke with tremendous force into ground

You just have to watch his right arm towards the conclusion of the tackle - clear cut

What I love mate is you still haven't answered the question on how he should've tackled him?

 

[Tristan34]

Looks like the saints player body was turned before impact, probably why his head hit the ground...

 

[FredLeDeux]

Has Hocking finished at AFL House yet?
If so, which AFL official now makes the final decision on Christian's recommendations?

 

[jim boy]

If so, which AFL official now makes the final decision on Christian's recommendations?

Not sure - but Christian's remit is a bit more of a prosecutor than a judge, so I would be surprised if Hawkins isn't given a two week holiday, which so long as there is no jeopardy hanging over Hawkins head (an extra week) will then get appealed and go to the tribunal, where a fairer hearing will be held.

 

[xtatik222k]

Get a week I reckon, ItS aLl AbOuT tHe ReSuLt.
Pfft, no malice what-so-ever but he'll get pinged, 100%.
He's no buddy

It would be a pretty stark comparison, wouldn't it? Bloke performs a football action within the rules, accidentally hurts someone and gets rubbed out. Another bloke deliberately elbows someone in the head, outside the rules, nah that's fine.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Disagree - watch the tackle - and focus entirely on Hawkins right arm - and the last part of that tackle - Hawkins with his right arm drives that Stk bloke with tremendous force into ground

You just have to watch his right arm towards the conclusion of the tackle - clear cut

I agree. Unfortunately a few on here are blinded by their bias. Hence the rose coloured glasses comment that got me in trouble last night

He’ll go. And he deserves to.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Cataholic]

What I love mate is you still haven't answered the question on how he should've tackled him?

Nope, and asked the question a number of time too.

 

[Patronus]

It’s not identical when Hawkins pinned both arms and Holman only pinned 1…

the thing with Holman tackle though is while he did only pin down one arm the one that was free was on the opposite side of the body that hit the ground. You can not protect your head that way so he may as well have had both arms pinned.

 

[Cataholic]

I agree. Unfortunately a few on here are blinded by their bias. Hence the rose coloured glasses comment that got me in trouble last night

He’ll go. And he deserves to.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you about the odds of Hawkins getting suspended, because of the sad fact that the AFL has lost its way on protecting the soul of the game, what makes it great, and the concept that there will be accidental injuries arising through contact in a physical sport.

They're misguided with their principle of 'result'. Judgement should be made on 'intent' and I believe most reasonable, ardent footy followers would agree.

That's where I vehemently disagree with your perspective. You are asserting that Hawkins was malicious in his intent with that tackle. He was not.

If they punish him the tackle is dead to the game. It was as textbook a tackle as you can get.

But it remains quite possible that the AFL and its woke attitude to physical contact will see him suspended just to vindicate their sense of righteousness.

 

[Cataholic]

the thing with Holman tackle though is while he did only pin down one arm the one that was free was on the opposite side of the body that hit the ground. You can not protect your head that way so he may as well have had both arms pinned.

Has it been written into the rulebook that both arms mustn't be pinned?

 

[Whiskers]

Christian will suspend him for 2, nothing is surer.
He will than take it to the tribunal and use Holman as precedence to get off as just a fine.