Patrick Dangerfield 'dangerous tackle' - gone or safe?

[Hoops]

Of the 8 gradings this year of Careless Conduct, Medium Impact and High Contact that went to the tribunal 3 got zero weeks. Not exactly a statistical anomaly.

But cry conspiracy all you like.

 

[The Dodger]

Did they add the potential to cause injury?
Thats the "conspiracy" part if you want to call it that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The game is at an impasse.

1/ The decision to give a week was in the name of protecting the head.

2/ Knees to the back of the head in marking contests, nothing to see here.

^ This is the height of hypocrisy.

If the head is so sacrosanct then knees to head in contested situation must also be eradicated from the game.

Of course that is not viable, so MRO decisions MUST be graded on intent / duty of care. Ok there can be grey areas there but let's not pretend Danger intended to drive Walsh's head into the turf.

Thinks it's pretty clear what's intentional and what's not, i:e Maynard should've been given a suspension because of the intent of the tackle but didn't because of the outcome.

^ This is the height of stupidity.

Currently MRO decisions are driven by outcome, that being the case then we may as well convert the game into a non contact sport < way to kill the game.

We're heading to a tipping point, if the safety of the head trumps everything else then the game will die a slow death because inevitably contact will have to be taken out of the game. Otherwise it's hypocrisy.

Also, AFAIK players are coached to pin both arms in a tackle, it has been mentioned that the tribunal used this as a prosecuting factor.

So are clubs now gonna be given a memo to instruct players not to pin both arms, even though that's being coached since forever? May as well not tackle then.

Here's a thought, to eradicate all grey areas, have players sign an indemnity so they can't sue the AFL later in life as a result of playing the game.

It's a contact sport and incidental outcomes are forever gonna be a part of it, high time all and sundry acknowledge that and accept it.

 

[Foxx]

UPDATED RULE: - (from mickey mouse league)

A player can pin both arms, as long as they try to pull a player up from hitting his head. Even though the player tackled can't stop himself from hitting his head because his arms are pinned.

 

[YeoShuey]

How predictable. Called it last Friday

Add the Dangerfield discount and he will get off.

 

[perplexed]

Shocking decision. He cracked Walsh like a whip.

 

[myblueroan]

So pissed off but not surprised.
Can't stand the guy and that was a horribly unsafe tackle.
Never heard so much crap spun around a dangerous two arms pinned tackle where Walshy's head smashed in to the turf.
JUst **** off.

 

[Cyclops]

Jeepers, the tackle was text book. Grabbed his opponent and pulled him straight down, no twist, no sling.

Walsh straightened his legs, whether deliberately seeking to win a free for in the back/dangerous tackle or maybe his legs slipped.

If this was a suspension players will just flop in the tackle every time and the tackler will be rubbed out.

 

[myblueroan]

Jeepers, the tackle was text book. Grabbed his opponent and pulled him straight down, no twist, no sling.

Walsh straightened his legs, whether deliberately seeking to win a free for in the back/dangerous tackle or maybe his legs slipped.

If this was a suspension players will just flop in the tackle every time and the tackler will be rubbed out.

The most laughable argument against is this idea that Sam Walsh is somehow to blame!
It's ludicrous.
I just wanted to vent anyway because I felt angry and to me it's unjust.
This is my pov. I've heard the arguments for St Patrick.
I remain unconvinced.

 

[Cyclops]

The most laughable argument against is this idea that Sam Walsh is somehow to blame!
It's ludicrous.
I just wanted to vent anyway because I felt angry and to me it's unjust.
This is my pov. I've heard the arguments for St Patrick.
I remain unconvinced.

He doesn't have a history of flopping AFAIK.

I saw Owies earlier this year lunge and headbutt the turf.

It seems smart at the time but stagers are killing our game.

 

[myblueroan]

He doesn't have a history of flopping AFAIK.

I saw Owies earlier this year lunge and headbutt the turf.

It seems smart at the time but stagers are killing our game.

So how is talking about what you perceive as another player 'staging' helpful to the current convo? You seem to look at events with a victim blaming mentality. Oooh...was it dangerous or is player x a flopper?

 

[seasonedsainter]

If a St Kilda play had laid that tackle he would have been arrested on the spot.

 

[Cyclops]

So how is talking about what you perceive as another player 'staging' helpful to the current convo? You seem to look at events with a victim blaming mentality. Oooh...was it dangerous or is player x a flopper?

As i say he doesn't have the rep, but even decent players stage.

It's quite possible he did contribute deliberately. I don't see enough of him to judge..

The way he straightened his legs carried him forward, so deliberate or not his actions contributed to his head hurting the turf.

Dangerfield carried out a textbook tackle, hugged the opponent and pulled him straight down. No twist, no sling.

Dangerfield can't control Walsh's legs.

We have posters ranting that Dangerfield "cracked him like a whip", that's nonsense.

If that's not a fait tackle then there are very few that are, and every tackler will be at the mercy of an Owies or a May flopping.

 

[JackFlash]

No it wasn't. he drove his head into the ground. Not saying it was worth a suspension but it wasn't perfect.

Good grief He did no such thing and it was as good a tackle that you would see. If not, then the tackle is dead.

 

[Obeanie1]

Fans are just voicing their hatred of Danger than any common sense. If he was rubbed out for that then the tackle is history. It was a good decision to free him to play, he didn't do anything wrong. Opposition fans are just hating on the player, it was a perfect tackle.

It would have been perfect if he didnt drive him into the ground using the weight of his body in the final action.

He grabbed both arms so Walsh couldnt brace or protect himself. Then the final motion was drop his body into the back of Walsh to drive him into the ground.

Perfect tackle would NOT have that final driving motion and instead rolled him onto his side.

It was far from a perfect tackle. Just far enough to give the MRP scope to let off a high profile player. Just like Butters who gets to strike opponent behind play and is let off.

Dangerfield has been protected for years, everyone knows it.

 

[JackFlash]

It would have been perfect if he didnt drive him into the ground using the weight of his body in the final action.

He grabbed both arms so Walsh couldnt brace or protect himself. Then the final motion was drop his body into the back of Walsh to drive him into the ground.

Perfect tackle would NOT have that final driving motion and instead rolled him onto his side.

It was far from a perfect tackle. Just far enough to give the MRP scope to let off a high profile player. Just like Butters who gets to strike opponent behind play and is let off.

Dangerfield has been protected for years, everyone knows it.

A perfect example of hating the player with no reasoning at all. it was a great tackle. perhaps the tackle should go altogether? A lot of fans these days have to much bias to comment. It's a body contact sport and you will get hit or in the case of Steven May pretend to be hit, but as we recently saw with the unfortunate Petracca incident, accidents can also happen. Danger executed a perfect tackle and he was correctly exonerated from what would've been a ridiculous suspension.

 

[Romeoh1]

Degenerating into a top sook thread. Yawnies.

 

[Doashuey]

Disclaimer- I cant stand Dangerfield, remarkable player but also a remarkable flog.
But... I don't believe that was a dangerous action and should not have been a suspension in the first place. I understand that if a player hits their head on the turf, no matter how gently, they are probably getting a week this year.
But there has to be an element of carelessness or danger in the tackle such as a slinging action or ridding a bloke in the back that the tackler could have done better to acquit his duty of care.. I dont think there was any of that in this tackle.
Do I think he got off because of who he is? Yep- and that sucks too but I think at the end of the day the outcome is about right. Even though it took the AFL 2 **** ups to arrive at it- 1 for suspending him in the first place and the 2nd for letting him off because he is a marquee player.
The lottery continues.

 

[Pistol Night]

If a St Kilda play had laid that tackle he would have been arrested on the spot.

Is that why they don’t tackle

 

[Pistol Night]

So pissed off but not surprised.
Can't stand the guy and that was a horribly unsafe tackle.
Never heard so much crap spun around a dangerous two arms pinned tackle where Walshy's head smashed in to the turf.
JUst **** off.

Back to your Patty Cripps body pillow

 

[myblueroan]

How predictable. Called it last Friday

He's a bloody thug. Sneaky little prick but the media and AFL corps love him.