The hysteria surrounding Patrick Dangerfield’s one-week suspension is justified; just not for the reason most people believe.
There is no doubt in my mind that Dangerfield should have been suspended for his tackle on Matthew Kreuzer. To suggest that his suspension represents a ‘softness’ in the game is almost laughable, as the AFL has made it clear that tackles of this nature are unacceptable, and for good reason.
Kreuzer had his arms pinned, therefore being defenceless as he was driven into the turf and concussed. Surely as a football public we should be supportive of a governing body who is looking towards the players long term welfare in this regard.
However, if the AFL is truly determined to discourage these kinds of acts and protect the players, Luke Shuey escaping suspension for his hit on Dangerfield himself earlier in the year is an example of astounding inconsistency.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
Much of Dangerfield’s suspension is driven by the look we are trying to stamp out of our game, primarily players who are unable to protect themselves being in vulnerable positions and receiving head high contact.
In the Shuey case, he ran past the ball, lifted his shoulder and collected Dangerfield in the head. It was as far from a ‘fair’ bump as you would see on a football field. Now, surely, that act has the potential to do as much, if not more damage to a player than the concussion Kreuzer suffered.
But instead of punishing the act for its intent and potential damage to the opposition player, Shuey was able to play the following week as Dangerfield fortunately wasn’t concussed. The message this sends to the players is that their intentions and actions are essentially irrelevant, as long as the player isn’t concussed.
This is where the AFL will continue to frustrate fans and send mixed messages, as it is working backwards when looking at the issue. A player suffering a concussion shouldn’t be the overriding factor in a suspension, it is the act and intent that must be used to determine whether a player should be suspended.
While the AFL’s stance on concussion is certainly a step in the right direction, there is no doubt the process around suspensions still requires some significant changes. Until then, crude acts will certainly continue to escape punishment, while generally fair players like Dangerfield sit on the sidelines for far less.
Fat Toad
Guest
I am really in favor of protecting a player's head. But, I just can not agree that the difference between a legal and illegal tackle is the outcome of "does a player get concussed?" If there is a legal bump and the bumped player hits the ground and knocks his head, why is that different to a tackle? If a player walks past a competitor and trips knocking his head is that a problem? If a player dives to smother a kick and the ball hits him in the head is that a problem? If a player walks backwards, and trips on a player doing up his shoe is there a problem with that? The problem is that a player can be penalized for reasons that have nothing to do with if what they did was legal and in the spirit of the game. If the problem is that a legal tackle results in an illegal outcome you have a recipe for confusion .... hmmm the AFL would never do anything like that! Part of the problem I had with the Ziebel tackle on Treloar was the time that the tackle continued and went past the boundary line. To some extent, I have some concerns about with the Dangerfield tackle. But I still think the Dangerfield suspension was poor administration of the game. In assessing these cases, people should not consider the outcome. What is important should first be only was teh action legal and in the spirit of the game. I do have a problem with the bump on Goldsack as it was an illegal bump to the head and hard enough to spin his body through the air. But, because Goldsack played on after a concussion assessment it has drawn little interest or discussion for what was always an illegal bump. Go figure that!
Ribs
Guest
Mate, you're full of it. You described this event as Kreuzer being "driven into the turf". Have you ever tackled a 100+kg man on a footy field? (I have) Both men were travelling forward with the tackle and with the momentum of both and the weight of Kreuzer they were always going to hit the ground hard. Any objective viewer could see that Dangerfield did his best to break Kreuser's fall, even turning his body at the end to avoid 'driving' him into the turf. There was nothing wrong with the tackle; goodness knows this is how footballers are taught, from juniors, to tackle. The tackle itself was perfectly legal; the only thing bad in this was the outcome (Kreusers concussion). Therein lies the question. Had Kreuzer got up after that tackle and played on would the MRP have even looked at it? I'm certain they wouldn't have and anyone that suggests otherwise is kidding themselves. I am not a Geelong or Dangerfield fan - I just believe the decisions need to be made on the actions, not the outcome. If the action is deemed reasonable and within the rules or spirit of the game then the consequence of that action should have no bearing on the matter. If the action itself is deemed outside the rules or spirit then penalise it and feel free to add measure based on the severity of the outcome. Ribs
John Williamson
Roar Rookie
Danger had to go, it was a good call. But there have been too many instances this year where players have been let off for far more crude offences.
Maggie
Guest
There is a table that the MRP must use that determines penalties for reportable offences according to their gradings of conduct, impact and contact. Realistically a one-match suspension is the lowest penalty Dangerfield could have got.
John Williamson
Roar Rookie
The inconsistency clouds the fairness element of the brownlow for sure. If they truly want to protect the head instances like Cotchin's jumper punch should definitely be viewed as a suspension.
HNB
Guest
And lets not forget the new Brownlow favourite has been found guilty twice - the 2nd one for deliberately running at a unsuspecting player and crashing into his ribs / kidneys dropping the player to the ground and approx. 50 metres off the ball but only gets a fine - what a farce if he wins the Brownlow. Total inconsistency by the MRP. Lets not forget also that Dangerfield has never been reported in 196 games and his record should have meant something as it has for alot of others. Look at some of the other big names on 2 strikes - Franklin, Martin, Hodge, Cotchin but no such joy for Dangerfield, he cops a straight suspension.
John Williamson
Roar Rookie
No doubt about that.
The Fatman
Guest
The media is a beast with little or no control.