They are the rules, that is why he was suspended.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 13
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 12 Winner: believe_it
MRP / Trib. 2017 MRP/ Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
How could Dangerfield think Kreuzer had the ball? He had both of his arms pinned, one in a chicken wing hold. Did he think he had it tucked under his jumper?
I absolutely gaurantee 1,000,000% if this was the other way around, and it was a Carlton player suspended for that, you would be outraged.
This whole board would be up in arms.
They are the rules.. Pfft. Bring in a rule for tackling too hard. What is this game becoming.
Maybe, but the argument was that you didn't think he should have suspended. Under the current rules it is a suspension.
A Carlton player would have got 4 weeks.
Safer for players wishing to have a life after footy free from impaired brain function?
I don't think he should have been suspended. I stand by that.
It was just a sloppy tackle. If the current rules say that is a suspension, they are wrong and need to be changed.
Soft is the word you are looking for.
Lol, he said that with a straight face?
ESKIE
Keeping it Cool.
- Feb 28, 2009
- 32,152
- 54,376
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Disagree. That tackle is something that has been introduced to the game in recent times.
Now your being silly. You enjoy people getting hurt?
The old 'temporary insanity defence'.As if he didn't realise ..
Dangerfield didn't realise Krooz didn't have the ball and didn't notice he wasn't on the field later on.
Clearly Patrick wasn't of sound mind, your honour. Please let him go.
- Apr 23, 2017
- 13,192
- 32,345
- AFL Club
- Carlton
He also said on gameday on 7 that their ruckman competed really well against Krooze for the whole game ..
Umm Krooze only played a half of game , by the looks of it i reckon Danger has already had too many headknocks to not notice the big fella on the ground ..
I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.
But guess what.. people get hurt in contact sports. It happens.
You should read my earlier post then. I explain why it's more likely these days for people to get hurt. I'm not sure of your age but the technique of tackling has changed significantly in the modern game.
I'm 30 next month.
Played since I was 10 years. 20 odd years of footy.
Completely blew my ankle out round 16 last season after being tackled after disposing of the ball. Didn't even get a free kick let alone the guy getting suspended.
Basically finished my career with work commitments and a family etc to worry about.
BUt you know what. Just cos it was a bad tackle doesn't mean I want the guy who did it suspended. Injuries happen. All players know that every day they step out on the field.
Sling tackling. Lifting off the ground and dumping players... All those sort of tackles should be outlawed. But a normal tackle where the guy incidentally hits his head on the ground should not be something you get rubbed out for.
Got dragged to the Arts Centre to watch the Nutcracker Suite. Pretty sure there's more body contact in that than a modern game of footy. They don't seem to have a problem with copping front on tackle in tights either.
This sort of tackle is almost guaranteed to result in at least a minor head injury.
With the number of players whose careers have been cut short, or are hanging by a thread due to suffering a number of concussions & the still unclear long term effects of said concussions, the AFL has to stay on message.
Having looked at the incident several times, it is quite clear that Dangerfield could have avoided throwing Kreuzer to the ground, but instead he chose to try & make an aggressive statement. He rolled the dice & it came up crap.
Maybe they could open it up to potential harm, but then that is one big grey area to cover
Not sure what all the fuss is about tbh, the rule is pretty clear. Dangerfields tackle in pinning both Kreuzers arms and forcing him to ground, constitutes rough conduct and caused injury.
We're sort of agreeing here. I just don't agree that Dangerfield's tackle should be considered normal. I'm 60 years of age and played footy from about 9 years of age up until 26. I retired because I preferred to watch Carlton play football. I managed to break my collar bone twice in that time. Head over the ball and smashed by an opponent. The broken wrist resulted when I was tackled from behind and pulled backwards. I put out my arms to break the fall and managed crack one of the wrist bones. I understand the risks of playing footy. I can tell you that what you think is normal and OK wasn't around when I played footy. I think we should get back to the idea of the perfect tackle where you wrap up your opponent without causing injury. That means having a duty of care. As for the tackle applied by Dangerfield. The modern grabbing of an arm or arms is not an Aussie Rules tackle and should be sent back to Rugby where they can continue to hurt each other if they enjoy that sort of thing.
I understand that the AFL want to protect the head, but is it for player welfare, rather than possible litigation? If the welfare is truly front and centre, they need to send clear messages for all acts, rather than the ones that just cause the concussion
As I said, it is a fine line. Would Dangerfield have been suspended if he dragged him back or sideways and MK hit his head on another players knee or hip, rather than the ground? Not so sure he would have been suspended, if that was the case
I suppose you would have us believe that Greg Williams is soft because he now believes the repeated head knocks he suffered during his career have had a permanent impact. And what of the studies done on deceased NFL players & signs of CTE.
The 1970s have called. They want you back.
The difference is that if the injury happens as you have described there is another significant contributing factor, potentially outside of Danger's control. In contrast Kreuzer suffered concussion purely through an incident which was fully within Danger's control. As soon as Danger chose to take Kreuzer to ground while pinning his arms, he left himself open to whatever consequences arose from this action.
Similar threads
- Locked
