Paddy Dangerdive

[Baloo]

If it's any consolation I reckon the Clangerflop brand has taken a fair bit of damage this finals series. We should see and hear less of him next year.

 

[artball]

you go a bit deeper with this action of DangerElbows and it becomes about his choices.

that's what he chose to do, what he chose to bring to the game, a Grand Final.

its lousy, and reeks of someone playing stupid and scared.

 

[Quickdraw]

If it's any consolation I reckon the Clangerflop brand has taken a fair bit of damage this finals series. We should see and hear less of him next year.

We can only hope, Baloo.

 

[tigertim]

Remember when these accidental hits to the head earned a suspension?

 

[leon]

My take. He has his arm outstretched for the ball. All fine up to there. Arm then started to drop. He saw Vlastuin coming, arm again raised with elbow out. At best, its reckless. I will give him the benefit of the doubt but reckless, high impact to the head is still a suspension. That it was let go with no case to answer is disgraceful

I'm with you overall. Posters need to take their (understandable) emotions out of it. Try imagining it in reverse; that one of ours made the contact. Firstly, it happened at high speed; do not base an opinion on slow-mo. This happened in less than a second, and the ball was there. Danger has every right to punch the ball away. Then Floss is about to cannon into him. Every player has the right/need to protect themselves.

Maybe he could/should have retracted his forearm, but barely time. However, if you watch him try to fend off tackles, his technique is to raise and use it often. He was doing so when pinged for the HTB later on by Prestia.
If he had have lowered his arm then his shoulder would have hit Floss. Doubt the outcome for him would have been much better. Floss was just so damn brave.
My initial reaction, and later considered, remains the same. It happened in the blink of an eye with the ball in play. I wonder if it would have been treated differently if another player. Yes, could have been looked at more. Maybe a suspension for 'reckless, high impact to the head'.

But not a hanging offence for one of ours' or any player. Influenced by no longer-term damage to Floss, apparently? Maybe.

He got the benefit of the doubt. Reasonable in the circumstances? Just.

 

[tigertim]

And remember when outright thuggery like this earned a suspension?

Tigers ruckman fails to have striking ban overturned

Ivan Soldo was charged with striking Hawthorn's James Worpel during the second quarter of the game at the MCG on Sunday.

thewest.com.au

 

[leon]

I thInk the commentary was something like “and Selwood still fighting to the very end”. I think it was Brucey.....

Of course, it was. Insipid, wet Bwuce!

 

[Althom]

I'm with you overall. Posters need to take their (understandable) emotions out of it. Try imagining it in reverse; that one of ours made the contact. Firstly, it happened at high speed; do not base an opinion on slow-mo. This happened in lees than a second, and the ball was there. Danger has every right to punch the ball away. Then Floss is about to cannon into him. Every player has the right/need to protect themselves.

Maybe he could/should have retracted his forearm, but barely time. However, if you watch him try to fend off tackles, his technique is to raise and use it often. He was doing so when pinged for the HTB later on by Prestia.
If he had have lowered his arm then his shoulder would have hit Floss. Doubt the outcome for him would have been much better. Floss was just so damn brave.
My initial reaction, and later considered, remains the same. It happened in the blink of an eye with the ball in play. I wonder if it would have been treated differently if another player. Yes, could have been looked at more. Maybe a suspension for 'reckless, high impact to the head'.

But not a hanging offence for one of ours' or any player. Influenced by no longer-term damage to Floss, apparently? Maybe.

He got the benefit of the doubt. Reasonable in the circumstances? Just.

There's little need for any emotion to be involved.
Simple fact - other players have been suspended for significantly lower impact impacts to the head and suspended even whilst it was designated as accidental.
Players have been suspended for not taking sufficient actions to avoid an accidental head clash.
Why not Dangerfield?
It's the inconsistency that peeves me.

 

[Althom]

And remember when outright thuggery like this earned a suspension?

Tigers ruckman fails to have striking ban overturned

Ivan Soldo was charged with striking Hawthorn's James Worpel during the second quarter of the game at the MCG on Sunday.

thewest.com.au

"The AFL's legal counsel, Jeff Gleeson, argued that the reasonable action for a player to brace for contact would be to tuck his arms in, rather than raise them as Soldo did."

There you have it.

So Dangerflog not tucking his arm in should therefore be seen by the AFL's Legal Counsel as unreasonable.

 

[leon]

"The AFL's legal counsel, Jeff Gleeson, argued that the reasonable action for a player to brace for contact would be to tuck his arms in, rather than raise them as Soldo did."

There you have it.

So Dangerflog not tucking his arm in should therefore be seen by the AFL's Legal Counsel as unreasonable.

One difference may be that he did not raise the arm for impending contact. No, his arm was already raised and extended to punch the ball away from close opposition players, which he does. Might come down to if he could/should have lowered his arm. Was there even time? That's my key question.
Tough one; I'm 50/50.

 

[Althom]

One difference may be that he did not raise the arm for impending contact. No, his arm was already raised and extended to punch the ball away from close opposition players, which he does. Might come down to if he could/should have lowered his arm. Was there even time? That's my key question.
Tough one; I'm 50/50.

Beg to differ.
When you watch the vision from Vlastuin's perspective it's clear that Floggerfield started to drop his arm to brace and then decided to go the elbow.

 

[TigerPort]

One other thing with Dangerfield which I found interesting was his post match answer to the Vloss hit.

He said there were 3 Tigers running at him. I am not sure if there really was, and I am not going to suggest for a second that he is soft or was scared, but in reality I don't think that was the case.

It makes we wonder about what mindset Danger was in during the game. Clearly he might have just been saying that to justify what happened, but it seems a strange comment.

Not sure if answered already

Dangerfield had Grimes on his back.

Vlastuin was running towards him with Short about 4m behind Vlastuin and Cotchin a couple meters behind Short. Neither Short nor Cotchin would have got to the contest but would have been in Dangerfield's line of sight. Houli was to Dangerfield's left towards the boundary but too far away to impact the contest.

Cotchin and Short were able to turn as the ball went past them after Dangerfield hit it away. Cotchin was able to tackle Ablett

 

[Coburgtiger]

It looked accidental to me. It looks like he pulls his arm in when the contact comes, which also raises it.

 

[tigertim]

I thInk the commentary was something like “and Selwood still fighting to the very end”. I think it was Brucey.....

“I was just giving him resuscitation, honest. Ah ah ah ah staying alive staying alive”

 

[Butch67]

I think the frustration here lies with that if it was lynch that did the same action, there would be calls for a public hanging. A couple of other incidents also swept aside, selwood on baker and duncans gesture to the crowd, again nothing major but it would suit the media narrative about richmond to highlight our lack of culture if these actions were done by tiger players

 

[17]

The grey area calls become subjective.
As such, it depends on how much pressure the footy media, led by Ch7 and Fox, immediately (in some cases before the game is finished) place on the Match Review Panel (one guy, Michael Christian) to carry out their agreed sentence after their trial by media.
The head is sacrosanct - Vlaustin copped a massive elbow to the head, knocked out minutes into a GF.
The MRP will take into account impact - Vlaustin was ruled out with concussion, unable to return. Not good for Vlaustin, Richmond a man down.
I can argue both sides of this case but in light of the AFL's stance on "the head being sacrosanct", concussion, and most importantly "you choose to bump you take the consequences", I lean to the side of Dangerfield being suspended.
One player had his eyes on the ball and only the ball, and one player had his eyes on the ball and then on impending impact with Vlaustin.
The fact that Dangerfield was cleared of wrong doing to me has more to do with his squeaky clean, McAveney-approved image as the uber fair, boy next door, ball player.
That image ignores the fact that he has previously form for barrelling players from behind, and indeed he got Broady the same way a little while after the Vluastin hit.
The subjectivity in the decision would be illustrated if it was Tom Lynch that had committed the act.
After the Richmond-hating media (looking at you Damien Barrett, Blobbo & co) built up Tom Lynch to be an axe murderer this year, do people seriously believe he would have been cleared?
Lynch would have missed the first four of 2021 and his "image" forever tarnished.

 

[waiting]

There's little need for any emotion to be involved.
Simple fact - other players have been suspended for significantly lower impact impacts to the head and suspended even whilst it was designated as accidental.
Players have been suspended for not taking sufficient actions to avoid an accidental head clash.
Why not Dangerfield?
It's the inconsistency that peeves me.

EXACTLY.
That’s all we wanted.

 

[waiting]

I'm interested in how the people who see it as 'deliberate, dog act, blatant, lifted his arm etc' explain the complete lack of any remonstration from any Richmond player, despite the game being completely stopped for over 7 minutes and the incident being replayed multiple times?

Doesn't seem very Richmond man to watch one of your team mates be intentionally knocked unconscious and just stroll off into the huddle for a chat? The photo shows Nathan Broad standing next to Dangerfield right afterwards, and he certainly isn't backward in coming forward to fly the flag for his team mates.

To me the logical explanation is they all felt it was a normal footy collision with a really unfortunate outcome.

Maybe no one wanted to be changing Cotchins little ones nappies anymore with 50 metre penalties etc.?

Look we all have opinions as football like all sports is ‘emotive’.

Leon & BR have put their views and we take them on board ... but...

 

[Willo]

I'm interested in how the people who see it as 'deliberate, dog act, blatant, lifted his arm etc' explain the complete lack of any remonstration from any Richmond player, despite the game being completely stopped for over 7 minutes and the incident being replayed multiple times?

Doesn't seem very Richmond man to watch one of your team mates be intentionally knocked unconscious and just stroll off into the huddle for a chat? The photo shows Nathan Broad standing next to Dangerfield right afterwards, and he certainly isn't backward in coming forward to fly the flag for his team mates.

To me the logical explanation is they all felt it was a normal footy collision with a really unfortunate outcome.

One point you’re missing is that it may not have been deliberate but under the guidelines the MRO has espoused is that careless, high contact, high impact has been deemed worthy of suspension.
so has “potential to inflict damage”
Dangerflogdiver had choices,
he could have taken possession of the ball and wore any forthcoming contact.
he could have turned sideward with his arm tucked in
he didn’t do any of the above. He chose to punch the ball away and raised his forearm to protect himself. He should wear the outcome.

As to your statement other Richmond players could have, would have remonstrated
Grimes was behind him and may not have seen the forearm out
Cotchin and Short were trailing Vlaustin, so he was between their vision and the point of contact. They may have thought it was a face to face clash.
How do you know that they weren’t instructed by Dimma to stay focussed on the game and avoid any transgressions ie as he had already voiced his displeasure with being undisciplined in the past couple of matches.

Talk about a flimsy argument to suit your own narrative

 

[Baloo]

Unless things have changed it was always elbow or forearm to hurt, shoulder to protect.