Will Dangerfield appeal his 2 weeks?

[kirbatron]

I'm surprised de Boer didn't get 2 weeks instead for getting in the way of Paddy.

 

[Obeanie1]

I said force wasn’t comparable to a hit that got 4 weeks.
The force IS comparable to Martin’s. It is a genuine swing with a follow through.

Right....sure it was.

Dusty was jogging when he threw the elbow. Danger was stationary.

Your claim is fanciful at best. And the MRP agrees.

 

[crippamagic33]

AFL is weak, it’s ruining our game


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Obeanie1]

Big love to the Sept 2017 onwards fans of Richmond who seem to forget that in 2017 Danger got suspended for tackling a player who had the ball in his hands and Dusty got let off after punching a player in the face off the ball.


Imagine if DeBoer was actually good at footy and played within the spirit of the game though? He wouldn't get punched every week I guess.

Play within the spirit of the game?

How is a tagger playing any different to a lock down defender?

I havent read anything about him playing outside the spirit of the game.

 

[Chocoholic]

The cornerstone of Dusty's citing was the potential too injure.
Lasted a week.

No the MRP downgraded the charge back to low impact and disregarded this.

It is pretty much useless now.

 

[Chocoholic]

I don’t think you get where I’m coming from.
Christians whole rationale behind suspending Dusty was ‘potential to cause injury’
Dangerfield threw a blind elbow at de boer. It hit de boer in the head. Only just, that’s why de boer is alright.
If de boer’s head is just a few inches higher, he gets knocked out. Since Dangerfield wasn’t actually looking at him, how the **** does he know where de boers head is? Throw that elbow 100 times and he’ll be collected a few times.
The action (though not the force) is more comparable to Houli on Lamb in 2017. Obviously it’s a different process now and Houli’s force was greater so I’m not saying Dangerfield deserves 4 weeks - but does that incident not show the potential for injury a blind elbow has?
If potential for injury is a factor in the MRO process, then suspending Dusty was absolutely right. But then Dangerfield should have got a week too.
If it’s not a factor, the Dangerfield getting off was fine. But then that makes Christian’s comment on why Dusty got suspended seems a bit silly.
Which one is it?

And Christian was wrong.

Maybe you should read the tribunal notes from the Dusty case.

The MRP downgraded it back to low which it is a week, throwing out the idea it could be upgraded to medium due to ‘potential to cause injury’.

The guy was wrong and therefore I doubt you will see it used again as any decent lawyer will copy the Richmond argument.

 

[Obeanie1]

And Christian was wrong.

Maybe you should read the tribunal notes from the Dusty case.

The MRP downgraded it back to low which it is a week, throwing out the idea it could be upgraded to medium due to ‘potential to cause injury’.

The guy was wrong and therefore I doubt you will see it used again as any decent lawyer will copy the Richmond argument.

Regarding it wont be used again I would dissagree. And Christian was not wrong to use it. Ive heard this view on AFL360 and Gerard and thought it was poor journalism.

It should come down to each circumstance to see if the guidelines apply. Look at law, it evolves depending on circumstance.

The MRP and Christion now have feedback from the tribunal on the burden of proof it requires to utilise that aspect of the system. I would suggest a more brutal and obvious incident would see the charge upheld. The pesimist in me feels a non marquee player likely would be treated more harshly.

 

[Wojcinski]

Play within the spirit of the game?

How is a tagger playing any different to a lock down defender?

I havent read anything about him playing outside the spirit of the game.

Constantly holding/scragging players off the ball is not playing within the spirit of the game. Don't be daft.

 

[Obeanie1]

Constantly holding/scragging players off the ball is not playing within the spirit of the game. Don't be daft.

Was he?

You can really only tell if you are watching live as tv footage doesnt show everything.

Standing next to, blocking their run, bumping and elbowing with min impact is all fine in my book.

Holding should get you a free.

It would be interesting to see how he went about it as De Boar was cleared of that v Dusty.

Hard to tell from comments from fans. They only have one eye open and tend to sook when they lose.

 

[Sttew]

Was he?

You can really only tell if you are watching live as tv footage doesnt show everything.

Standing next to, blocking their run, bumping and elbowing with min impact is all fine in my book.

Holding should get you a free.

It would be interesting to see how he went about it as De Boar was cleared of that v Dusty.

Hard to tell from comments from fans. They only have one eye open and tend to sook when they lose.

I think the limelight will be firmly on de Boer from hereon, so we will know one way or the other. He will either become ineffectual or will be exposed.

 

[Obeanie1]

I think the limelight will be firmly on de Boer from hereon, so we will know one way or the other. He will either become ineffectual or will be exposed.

Again sounds like sour grapes from losing.

Maybe iption three he will be found to be playing within the rules of the game.

Then he will get the accolades for being good at his role just like Hutchings has with his stopping jobs last year and this.

 

[Sttew]

Again sounds like sour grapes from losing.

Maybe iption three he will be found to be playing within the rules of the game.

Then he will get the accolades for being good at his role just like Hutchings has with his stopping jobs last year and this.

Sour grapes? No way. We lost fair and square. All I was saying is that IF de Boer is not playing fairly he will be exposed

 

[Hoops]

Don't forget Whately. He has massive pull now as well.

I heard Gil reports to Catman

 

[Getlegs]

How Duman gets 2 weeks after the Danger and Dusty decisions is beyond me.

 

[Tiger2709]

And no acting?

It would have been despicable if Danger got rubbed out for what he did, and for those imbeciles saying it was no different to Dusty, well.....

Your missing the point, Dusty's hit was in the shoulder then up to the head as proved in the appeal and by the footage, the AFL wanted two weeks because of the potential to cause injury, if anything the potential was higher with what Danger did had he fully connected accidentally or not, as his was a fully swinging arm that fortunately only clipped the head.

 

[Tiger2709]

I heard Gil reports to Catman

Gill is catman or is it Whately, nah he would be catwoman.