Nick Vlastuin

[Razorgang2]

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.

I think you have nailed it Tiger. Recommended for gold post status this one.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yes that is what I am saying. It was an unfortunate and unavoidable accident where two players were drawn into a collision by the ball and neither had time to react.

What you are saying about the way the reporting process isn't correct. It does have to be either intentional or careless and the initial assessment of that is made by the MRO.

The tribunal only deliberate on that if the player or the AFL chooses to contest the MRO decision.

As per a) in the reportable offences you listed, the first determination is was the act intentional or careless. If it's neither of those things then it isn't a reportable offence, and when you look at the definitions or those terms it is clearly neither.

This guide spells out how it all works:

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2019/12/04/68a18e95-713c-4408-a269-06b2aef6db34/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

We will have to agree to disagree because the way I saw it, this was at the very least careless.

Given the rules as I quoted I would think that this was a clear case of needing to be referred to the tribunal. I'm not saying that Dangerfield should be found guilty automatically, but what I am saying is that, under the rules, given that it certainly looked at the very least careless , he had a case to answer.

What the AFL decided was that he had no case to answer, in that judgement they were clearly wrong.

DS

 

[123cups]

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

The AFL would say you’re allowed to knee or elbow someone in the head to knock them out cold, as long as it’s reasonable.

This was deemed a reasonable action.

I guess it’s like a defender spoiling the ball before punching his opponent.

It he hits the ball; it’s reasonable.
If he doesn’t hit the ball; it’s unreasonable.

Danger would argue to avoid contact he’d have to run away from the ball in a Grand Final. But he got proactive and did exactly that for the rest of the game, so all good now.

 

[TigerMasochist]

The AFL would say you’re allowed to knee or elbow someone in the head to knock them out cold, as long as it’s reasonable.

This was deemed a reasonable action.

I guess it’s like a defender spoiling the ball before punching his opponent.

It he hits the ball; it’s reasonable.
If he doesn’t hit the ball; it’s unreasonable.

Yep. Still an allowance for incidental contact in a collision sport.

Only way to avoid the collisions n contact would be to turn the game into a virtual sport, then the game can revert to being as brutal as it likes. Something the Lawyers n ambulance chasers are working flat out to achieve.

 

[fastin bulbous]

Can I also ask you and anyone else, what you think of his elbow continuing to fly forward after the collision with flossys head? I would of thought if you were tucking in to protect yourself, your arm would stay tucked in to the body or fly off to the side. After he hits Flossy hard enough to knock him out cold, his arm continues to travel away from his body. To me this means he has thrown an elbow rather than tucked his elbow in to his body. Not that any of this means *smile* anything, cos he was cleared by our "media experts" as soon as it happens cos he's such a great guy, and it was already a hard night for the poor fella. Meanwhile Big bad Tommy Lynch strokes hurleys beard and get's sent straight to the tribunural.

Yeh he’s a dirty little *smile*

 

[TigerMasochist]

Can I also ask you and anyone else, what you think of his elbow continuing to fly forward after the collision with flossys head?

If you check the slo mo footage of pretty much every collision in sport I think you'll find that players arms fly forward immediately after contact. Similar to a compressed spring being released.
From my point of view.
Clench would have been fully on the charge anticipating a marking opportunity.
Flossy's turned back into the Clench's space hoping to spoil or interrupt Clench's opportunity.
Split second reaction as Clench has realised Flossy's coming back at him was to knock the ball away, negating any chance Flossy might have on intercept marking. Clench makes contact with the pill, almost proceeds to pull back the arm but human reflexes take over at collision point n *smile* got ugly for Flossy who was unfortunately unbalanced, out of position n leading with his melon.

 

[momentai]

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.

Not so sure there Richo?

 

[DavidSSS]

Exactly right TM.

By some of the definitions being applied here, Dustin would get a week every time his don't argue went high, or a defender punching the ball made contact with the back of an opponents head. There is always going to be accidental and incidental contact in a collision sport and sometimes people are going to be hurt.

Someone being hurt though doesn't automatically mean there should be a report or a suspension, just the same as someone not being hurt doesn't mean the opposite.

Geez that is a very long bow you have just drawn.

The way Dangerfield moves his elbow looks at least careless, all I am saying is that it deserved scrutiny, not to be ignored.

Claiming some sort of parity with a slightly inaccurate Don't Argue or someone whacks another player when spoiling a mark is beyond pushing it.

DS

 

[UKTiger]

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.

We can't change anything that happened that day so debating it now months after is a waste of time IMO. TM, your comment is spot on as Danger will always be the loser

 

[DavidSSS]

I still think 90% of players would have been cited for that incident.

DS

 

[bairdy380]

I still think 90% of players would have been cited for that incident.

DS

I think danger received a suitable life sentence in the image of trying to stop dustys goal of the decade. I think Vlas would sleep happily with that knowledge.

 

[TT33]

It did get scrutiny. Like every other incident throughout the season it was reviewed by the MRO who decided no further action was appropriate.

As for the other, I think under your criteria, they would all be fronting up each week for those incidents.

We all know how frustratingly inconsistent the MRO is. This was just another example imo.

 

[Ice]

Lambert on radio said he thinks the injury maybe more than just a corked knee

Scans will reveal all

Fingers crossed

 

[mrposhman]

Lambert on radio said he thinks the injury maybe more than just a corked knee

Scans will reveal all

Fingers crossed

Hold on. But I thought Gawwy Lyon was indicating that we faked an injury to get our injury sub on and match Carltons??? Surely Gawwy wasn't making crap up again?

 

[tha8ball]

He collided with a blues player on his left knee then ran off and tried to kick the ball off the ground and there was an awkward movement with his right knee. Which was the knee they were looking at. Didn’t see any contact there. So reckon it doesn’t look good.

 

[theglove3]

He's had 2 interesting games poor old Floss.
Ran into a Danger fist, now this!
Must be due for some good luck soon Tigger!

 

[Ridley]

Gawwy Lyon Reckons Richmond may have activated the sub because Scumton brought on Oscar McDonald

Yeah no worries Gawwy; we'll sub off one of our most important defenders to match Carlton bringing on a cat like McDonald. If we were actually worried about McDonald and he was playing forward do you think we'd rather leave a defender on to combat him rather than bring on a young mid?

FFS he's an idiot. The footy media

 

[eddazol]

Gawwy Lyon Reckons Richmond may have activated the sub because Scumton brought on Oscar McDonald

Yeah no worries Gawwy; we'll sub off one of our most important defenders to match Carlton bringing on a cat like McDonald. If we were actually worried about McDonald and he was playing forward do you think we'd rather leave a defender on to combat him rather than bring on a young mid?

FFS he's an idiot. The footy media

They make it up as they go.

 

[tigerman]

Gawwy Lyon Reckons Richmond may have activated the sub because Scumton brought on Oscar McDonald

Yeah no worries Gawwy; we'll sub off one of our most important defenders to match Carlton bringing on a cat like McDonald. If we were actually worried about McDonald and he was playing forward do you think we'd rather leave a defender on to combat him rather than bring on a young mid?

FFS he's an idiot. The footy media

Whilst Lyon may have played the game, it's easy to understand why he never went down the coaching path. He embarrassed himself enough when he coached the international side against Ireland......clueless.

 

[Ridley]

Whilst Lyon may have played the game, it's easy to understand why he never went down the coaching path. He embarrassed himself enough when he coached the international side against Ireland......clueless.

His great contribution to coaching was as the lead on the panel that appointed Mark Neeld to the Melbourne job