Nick Vlastuin

[mrposhman]

It’s pretty common for new rules to be applied in frustrating ways that were never intended. For example, the above could‘ve resulted in Jack Riewoldt getting removed in the last quarter of the Prelim.

Adding an emergency to your own team looks to have less grey area than removing a player from the opposition team to level it out. Something should happen though. We were lucky Vlastuin’s concussion wasn’t the difference in deciding the premiership.

I agree its far more equitable to replace an injured player than it is to remove players from the other team, sort of an eye for an eye. Don't like it. Much prefer a sub rule.

Easy way to stop teams manipulating it, is if you are replaced in the team due to the injury sub / subs then you become ineligible for the following game. That will remove all the rorting immediately.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I just ope Nick's concussions don't start to become an issue for him.

 

[Quickdraw]

I finally watched the GF edition of AFL360 last night. They showed the passage of play where Greg/brain marked the ball from an errant Tiger kick, I think it was by Short. What I did particularly notice was that the pressure was applied by Diverfield, his method of pressure was to dive full length with BOTH of his forearms "cocked" to inflict the maximum damage. I think that most players would have dived with their arms outstretched to try & tackle.
To me it shows what Diverfields real go to is. It also shows me that his real intent was to forearm Vlossy.

I had noticed that previously too. Was against Broad wasn't it?

 

[BillyJean17]

I agree that whether Dangerfield looked back or not could be read in a number of ways, you can't assume it meant he knew what he did. If I decked someone I'd probably look back to check it out, so who knows.

I dunno if they still use the high /deliberate reckless/impact categories. But for me, high (above the shoulder), at least reckless (IMO deliberate but that's subjective), high impact (Vlas out for the game and would have missed the next game if there was one).

Should have gone to the tribunal and got at least 1-2 weeks IMO.

Again completely subjectively I think DF deliberately leaves the arm up, elbow cocked, he could have easily dropped it to his body and turned away from impact. No duty of care for the other player. Again IMO.

Fully concur , if he indeed had a duty of care for his opponent which underlines the reporting framework then he would have made some attempt to drop that stiff forearm rather than keep it out like a bumper bar , he didn’t , not one bit

 

[kiwitiger]

My opinion,

I dont think it was a deliberate act , im going to hit Vlastun in the head , but i do believe he was aware running into contact with forearm that high to hit the ball , could put his opponent coming from the opposite direction in a vulnerable situation ,

So for me . did he try to do it deliberately ? not exactly , was he aware it could be dangerous ? yes

 

[Eddie from Elwood]

Fully concur , if he indeed had a duty of care for his opponent which underlines the reporting framework then he would have made some attempt to drop that stiff forearm rather than keep it out like a bumper bar , he didn’t , not one bit

Yeah, yeah....all of that, but how the he'll was it not a free kick? They bounced the ball for *smile* sake after he was stretchered off!

 

[DavidSSS]

I don't follow you there, David? They followed their rules exactly.

It was treated in the same way every single incident is, reviewed by the MRO who determined the next action, which in this case was no further action.

I've posted this before, the rules state:

22.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(a) intentionally or carelessly:
(i) striking another person;
(ii) kicking another person;
(iii) kneeing another person;
(iv) Charging an opponent;
(v) engaging in Rough Conduct against an opponent;
(vi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football;
(vii) head-butting or making contact to another person using the head;
(viii) making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of another person;
(ix) making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face of another person;
(x) scratching another person; or
(xi) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;

See page 61 of the Rules of Australian Football 2020 as published by the AFL.

The point being, if one player strikes another, and it does not have to be intentional, they are reported, You could also put this under unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face of another person. Then the tribunal sorts out whether it was careless, deliberate or accidental and if any penalty is to apply. But, there is no doubt according to the rules above that Dangerfield should either have been reported by the umpire or referred by the MRO.

Are you seriously telling us that Dangerfield did not strike, or, make unreasonable or unnecessary contact with Vlastuin's face? Seriously?

DS

 

[code yellow and black]

I've posted this before, the rules state:



See page 61 of the Rules of Australian Football 2020 as published by the AFL.

The point being, if one player strikes another, and it does not have to be intentional, they are reported, You could also put this under unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face of another person. Then the tribunal sorts out whether it was careless, deliberate or accidental and if any penalty is to apply. But, there is no doubt according to the rules above that Dangerfield should either have been reported by the umpire or referred by the MRO.

Are you seriously telling us that Dangerfield did not strike, or, make unreasonable or unnecessary contact with Vlastuin's face? Seriously?

DS

I agree with this. intentional or not (which I think most people would agree) if u strike a player to head with your arm and the players is concussed then you should be reported or referred to tribunal and imo suspended. Accident or not. Pretty sure Astbury or Grimes got suspended 2 or 3 years ago for attempting to punch the ball but punched the opponent in the head.

 

[DuD_Delist]

Was an accident however he knew he would have collected Vlas in the head.99.9% of players would have at the very least showed somekind of concern.
Just shows what a *smile* of a bloke Danger is.

 

[momentai]

.....I'm not even sure he knew he went down at the time because he doesn't seem to look that way, he just heads after the ball.

Thanks for your views Richo. This is where we differ.

 

[123cups]

I was livid when it happened, but after re-watching it a few times I’m fine with the non-decision... as long as the next generation of players learn from it.

It was normal, unavoidable contact from an unpredictable ball movement in the early minutes of a GF when all players are charging at the ball with their life.

I’ll accept the contact was unavoidable and that Danger’s elbow was reactive/unintentional. And it’s probably too late for Danger’s generation to rewire such instinctive reactions.

But there were other reactive ways to brace that wouldn’t have inflicted maximum damage to the opposition’s head.

Early in a player’s career, they learn to be content in protecting themselves in the way Danger protected himself. This needs to change for the next generation.

This was heightened by the fact Danger is also a marking forward, so his mindset in particular is to hurt the opposition with his knees and elbows when leading at the ball, such as the case here 60m from goal. Danger wanted to hurt, and felt no obligation to avoid inflicting concussion as collateral damage.

Some will say “it’s a Grand Final, it’s not your obligation to avoid inflicting injuries on your opposition - you’re well within your rights to hurt them”, to which I’ll raise you Richmond’s treatment of Gary Ablett.

In a Grand Final, we let one of Geelong’s best players play the game. We didn’t test the shoulder. We didn’t even test it cleanly in a fair contest.

We respected the opposition’s health. Our attitude is correct. It’s just a game.

As CTE becomes better understood, this will all become more obvious and common sense in the future. I expect people will cringe when they look back at this event with the benefit of hindsight.

So yes... Danger’s elbow was completely unintentional in the moment, but preventable if you go back 10 years and have all players learn to brace more effectively for everybody’s benefit, re: concussion.

Hopefully even without the public hanging of Danger as an example, the AFL is taking this matter seriously behind the scenes.

 

[tommystigers]

The real issue is why it was not awarded a free kick. The free kick was not a discretionary thing. The umpires failed in their duty of care to a player.
Every single week we see some rubbish interpretation or non-free kick paid by one of three umpires. How each of these failed to see the contact is ridiculous and a perfect example of umpiring inconsistency and an indictment on the current umpiring system and moronic rule of the week practice.

 

[bigwow]

I know it's a pointless hypothetical exercise, but I wonder what the reactions, ramifications etc. would have been if the situation was reversed, and Vlastuin KOéd Danger? I imagine the media would have been up in arms, and Nick would be rubbed out until 2025.

 

[BillyJean17]

I agree with this. intentional or not (which I think most people would agree) if u strike a player to head with your arm and the players is concussed then you should be reported or referred to tribunal and imo suspended. Accident or not. Pretty sure Astbury or Grimes got suspended 2 or 3 years ago for attempting to punch the ball but punched the opponent in the head.

Nank did v Adelaide from memory

 

[BillyJean17]

I know it's a pointless hypothetical exercise, but I wonder what the reactions, ramifications etc. would have been if the situation was reversed, and Vlastuin KOéd Danger? I imagine the media would have been up in arms, and Nick would be rubbed out until 2025.

Yep thought crossed my mind or dare I say it , what if it was lynchy

 

[Butch67]

A lot of defending of Dangerfield raising the elbow to protect himself! Why didn't Vlaustin do that?

At the very least Dangerfield should have fronted the tribunal

 

[Tenacious]

I had a bit of a look at it last night and formulated a theory as to how the incident unfolded which explained this but then I realised it was akin to serving pork chops to vegans and stood down and stood by.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell if you’re talking pork chops or pork pies

 

[Eddie from Elwood]

I had a bit of a look at it last night and formulated a theory as to how the incident unfolded which explained this but then I realised it was akin to serving pork chops to vegans and stood down and stood by.

In the formulated theory, can you explain how Nicky wasn't awarded a free for high contact?

 

[TigerMasochist]

His only reaction was to check his elbow to see if there was any of Vlossys teeth there.

Reckon it was also the point where the Clench lost all chance of having a major influence on the game.

While I'm happy to present the outraged Tiger supporter at any Geelol fan, I'm pretty much in the same boat as TBR. Red hot contest at the ball n Flossy unfortunately got his melon into the wrong spot at the wrong time ( should always have been a free though ).

From memory, the Clench spent a fair bit of the injury time as Flossy n Scablett came off the ground. Staring into space n trying to rationalise wtf had just happened. Plays hard when he's going, not dirty does Clench n I reckon the way Flossy went down completely threw his focus into the *smile* bin. Got worse n worse as the game went on.

Flossy got a three peat that he will probably never remember much of n Clench got SFA that he'll remember all his life, reckon that's a fair balance.

 

[Streak]

At the very least Dangerfield should have fronted the tribunal

Absolutely. Ridiculous that he wasn’t even asked to explain.

I have mentioned this before, but Ken Hinkley did very similar to Tony Hall in a grandfinal years ago and got weeks, even though it was accepted as accidental.

And this was years ago, before we were worried about long term brain damage.

Not to forget either that in this instance, Hall was trying to iron out Hinkley.