Patrick Dangerfield has been offered a one-week ban by the Match Review Panel which, if he accepts, will render him ineligible to win the 2017 Brownlow Medal.
There is yet to be any indication from Dangerfield and Geelong as to whether or not they will opt to challenge the ruling.
If they do and succeed, he will be free to play and remain eligible for the award, but if they fail he will not only be ineligible but will be suspended for two weeks.
If Dangerfield is made ineligible for the award, it will almost certainly guarantee that Dustin Martin of Richmond wins the award.
Martin is already into $1.18 favouritism to win following news of Dangerfield’s possible suspension.
It has been a matter of significant debate since Dangerfield’s dangerous tackle on Kreuzer on Saturday night whether or not he would, or should, be banned.
Regardless of the result, this incident was one that shows it is time for a re-think of the Brownlow eligibility rules.
I know, I know – every man and his dog has come forward with a hot take on this subject in the past 48 hours or so.
Here’s my thinking, though – the Dangerfield verdict could’ve gone one of two ways.
Option one – the MRP suspends him, and he is ineligible for the Brownlow Medal despite his offense not really being something that most would feel should disqualify him for the award.
Option two – the MRP lets him go, and he escapes a ban that he probably should’ve gotten solely so the AFL can avoid the infamy of an ineligible Brownlow winner.
Neither of these is a good result. So what’s the answer?
Brownlow criteria around suspensions should be revised so that only a suspension for an incident that is assessed as intentional should make a player ineligible for the Brownlow.
At the moment, offences are divided into either ‘careless’ or ‘intentional’. Based on similar incidents in the past, this would likely be ruled careless – Dangerfield hasn’t intentionally committed a dangerous tackle, but he has neglected his duty of care to not do so.
There are plenty of ‘careless’ incidents each year that deserve suspensions, but at the same time it would be silly for a player to miss out on a Brownlow because of an act they didn’t intentionally commit.
It is true that players can sometimes pull dirty acts that disguised well enough to only be considered careless – but the MRP should also be empowered to name intentional contact where they see it.
In these circumstances, I believe it would be a relatively easy decision for the MRP to suspend Dangerfield for what most of the time should be a suspendable offense, without the potential headache of knowing it could – unfairly in the eyes of many – cost him the league’s highest individual honour.
Macca
Guest
Cat - and that from a man who has worked with words all his life!
Cat
Roar Guru
Let's hope he gets cited for a 3rd infraction because he should already be ineligible.
Cat
Roar Guru
If you want to be fully pedantic then lets go all the way. That is not a full sentence; therefore, no full stop should be present. Secondly, your comma is misplaced, it should be outside the quotes. Third, there should be no quotes, nothing was quoted.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Ouch, at least Grant and McKernan could hide in the crowd when Hird, Voss and Harvey were receiving their awards.
JamesH
Roar Guru
That's not quite right because this was high contact. Once it's deemed careless (vs accidental/incidental, which results in no case to answer), anything other than 'low level impact' to the head is a suspension. And 'reckless' is a higher grading then careless.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Maybe they are Labor voters? Should see if they can get Bob Hawke to sing Danger's praises.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Libba gave him a run for his money tho.
Don Freo
Guest
No.. that just "fair". FairEST would need to be voted upon. That's the point.
shiftyxr
Guest
The fairest comes into it by not being suspended during the year. The votes add upto to being the best. Like Liam is saying don't attack the criteria, attack the mrp for citing it in the first place.
GJ
Guest
Some people do not understand the difference between tricky and without Dangerfield, Geelong will lose to Sydney and Richmond .. Feel free to put a pointy hat on and sit in the corner for an hour
Don Freo
Guest
That's why it's strange he was only assessed at "medium impacr". Kreuzer was knocked out! It was high impact. If he challenges, he'll have the extra week.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Dipper was easily the dirtiest Brownlow winner of the modern era.
Don Freo
Guest
What do you think is the criteria for voting for *fairEST"? There's lots of fair players on any given days. Who does 3 votes worth of fairness? Liam...I think you have to say it 823 times. The 824th might find a nod.
Sal
Guest
I don't know why the Mumford one was let off, but I assume Burgoyne was because he didn't pin his arms? But your right they seemed fairly similar.
Maurice
Guest
Anybody else this would of been yesterday's news, unintentionally intentally whatever . Protect the head is what this is all about . Lucky to get 1 week I think.
frustrated.phil
Guest
I like the idea of only pinging someone out of Brownlow contention for a deliberate and intentional offence. That would sit well with the deliberate out of bounds rulings and we all know how well that's going on the consistency front.
Leanne
Guest
The match review panel got it right.just hope on brownlow night dustin martin wins it and not patty.
James
Guest
Roll over every time? That's a rubbish call. Name one suspension where Geelong should have challenged and didn't? Not because it was the 'right' thing to do, but because they had legitimate reasoning to challenge a decision, where the grading was clearly incorrect and decided not to.
Don Freo
Guest
"They're," you mean.
Don Freo
Guest
Every poster, except Cat, posted that opinion, anon. Nothing ground breaking there.