I’ve heard much media beat up this week about Patrick Dangerfield’s suspension. Several players being interviewed, especially on South Australian radio, have been asked, “As a player, do you want to see guys rubbed out in this way?”
Invariably, the answer is, “It’s a tough one.”
But see, the thing is, to me it’s not a tough one. Whether it’s one or two actions, if you choose to chicken wing a player and then sling them, you’re fully aware of the damage you might cause. Arguably, you’re intending to cause some damage. At the very least, you know you’re flirting with danger (pun intended).
I mean really, do any of us actually believe that AFL players, male or female, tackle the opposition with love in their heart? Of course not. When you tackle, the only thing going through your mind is – I want this person to remember being tackled by me.
AFL, rightly or wrongly, has been severely sanitised in the past ten years. Whatever you feel about that, any player who doesn’t realise that they’re risking something by laying a tackle such as Patrick did, is honestly a little naïve. Things happen in the heat of battle, this we know. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be held accountable for your actions.
Much of the discussion has been around whether or not this particular tackle deserved a week off. 20 years ago you’d have been laughed at for suggesting it did. But it’s a brave new AFL world. The salient point here is, whether the act deserved a week or not, this player was intentionally flirting with the line of what is and isn’t fair.
Yes, the line has been moved significantly in the past two decades, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Brownlow is not just a medal for the best player. It’s a medal for the best and fairest player.
Fairest. Have we completely forgotten what that means? It means that when this medal was conceived, being a fair player was valued as much as being a good one. My argument is, if you’re willing to play on the edge of fairness, and lay tackles like this, you probably don’t deserve that medal anyway.
‘I wasn’t even aware of it until I came off’ isn’t a valid defence. I find it simply impossible to believe that Patrick had no idea that the ball was long gone and that pinning a guy’s arms and throwing him to the turf might hurt him.
There’s really no argument for the fact that Dangerfield is the best player in the AFL right now. But I don’t subscribe to the theory that that automatically qualifies him for the Brownlow. Because if he’s willing to lay tackles like this, is he really the fairest player in the competition? If you want Charlie to be handed simply to the best player every year, change the wording.
Philby
Guest
There's simply no need to drive opposing players into the ground when tackling them - that is the message that should be getting through on the back of the Dangerfield and the Grundy tackles. I know some won't like to hear that, but they are unlikely to be convinced until there is serious brain and/or spinal damage to a player. The AFL is acting to put an end to dangerous tackles, and that's a good thing and a necessary thing. No doubt, there will be some agonising over the loss of physicality in the game. However, as someone who has followed footy since the late '60s, I can say without any doubt that the game is as physical as ever. Thankfully, it is largely without the outright thuggery of the past, as well as the 'protected' thuggery (and cowardice) of the shirtfront. Eliminating dangerous tackles will make the game better, safer and with minimal impact on the overall physicality.
Champs
Roar Rookie
Great point me too. In fact, that only strengthens my point!
Champs
Roar Rookie
I think the umpires do. I think that's why guys like Stynes, Woewodin and Priddis could win the medal. Because none of the so called experts would have said those guys were the best players in those years.
Lroy
Guest
That intrigued me as well, when the ball popped out it was clearly ''incorrect disposal'' so should have been a free to Dangerfield. I was surprised the umpire didn't say anything, usually they will pipe in with ''balls out Patty let him go'' or something like that. There was no way Dangerfield could have known the ball was out because the umpire didn't tell him it was out. Well I suppose he gets a week off to freshen up now so maybe there will be a silver lining to it all.
me too
Roar Rookie
i agree with all you've written, but please - it isn't an award for best and fairest - it is 'fairest and best' and always has been.
Raimond
Roar Guru
I suspect Tom Mitchell digging a lot of balls out of packs might get more attention from the umps than Dusty's flashier stuff.
JamesH
Roar Guru
That's not exactly true. I have little doubt that the way a player conducts themselves on the field affects the umpires' perception about how deserving they are of votes. If a player gets reported or gives away a 50m penalty for abusing an umpire then that would impact the umpires' decision when it comes to giving votes. Maybe not enough to shuffle a clear standout player out of the 3-vote position (there would be a public outcry), but definitely enough to split a couple of players who had similarly good games. Beyond that, the fairest element has always been black and white when it comes to actual eligibility to win the award. I think that's what Josh Champion (cool name, BTW) is talking about here. My feeling is that incidents deemed 'careless' like this one should not make a player ineligible. This is particularly so when the suspension is designed more around injury prevention than what is right or wrong within the spirit of the game. I think the concept of fairness is more relevant to players who commit acts that are deemed dirty or reckless. Such acts involve either malicious intent or a conscious disregard for another player's welfare. Carelessness is more along the lines of thoughtlessness or clumsiness, which I don't think makes someone an 'unfair' player. Of course, the line still has to be drawn somewhere. No matter where you put it, it will still come down to interpretation and there will always be incidents that could arguably fall either side of it.
Birdman
Guest
"Only a few years ago, this sort of tackle helped win the Hawks a premiership (remember Roughie’s tackle on Hannebery)" Gecko, you couldn't be further from the truth if we're talking about the same tackle in the 2014 granny? That was a bump straight down the middle.
Birdman
Guest
4 games to go - Dusty's not a cert just yet.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Brill Gecko! Laughed 'til I stopped.
Gecko
Guest
Only a few years ago, this sort of tackle helped win the Hawks a premiership (remember Roughie's tackle on Hannebery). I accept that the game's increasingly trying to protect the head but even in sling tackles there are nuances. Some should be penalised with a week off. Others, like Dangerfield's, should cop a suspended sentence or a fine.
Gecko
Guest
I'd assume Dusty. But I'm glad he's going to win the Brownlow this year. When a champ wins the Brownlow (as opposed to Woewodin, Dipper or Teasdale), it doesn't devalue the Brownlow.
Gecko
Guest
Fatman has your response just been through a Chinese translation machine?
The Fatman
Guest
Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favourite reason appeared to be at the net thee simplest factor to be mindful of. I say to you, I certainly get irked while other folks think about concerns that they plainly don’t know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also defined out the entire thing without having side-effects , folks could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thank you!
Cat
Roar Guru
Didn't say it wasn't worse, Dusty's was worthy of a fine though. A fine that would make him ineligible. Something that very well may happen yet. In two weeks time Scott Selwood will drive Dusty nuts when he shuts him down and the Tigers lose for the 13th straight time to the Cats.
Martin
Guest
Ha. Hawkins was much worse than Dusty's. The bitterness of Dangerfields suspension lingers I see. Don't worry, Dusty was miles in front of him already.
Don Freo
Guest
They never have Josh. I don't think you will find an umpire in AFL/VFL history that has given a 3,2,1 on the basis of who was fairer than another...who was the most fair.
Cat
Roar Guru
Last season is irrelevant. Hawkins got rubbed out for a jumper punch. Dusty should have been too.
Cat
Roar Guru
I used both to be as equally melodramic as you were ;)
Champs
Roar Rookie
Haha, fair call Cat. Just for the record though, melodramatic and way over the top mean exactly the same thing. So pick your favourite next time ;)