-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Paddy Dangerdive
- Thread starter Bullarto Tiger
- Start date
Which is why a small regret of mine is that we didn't try and return serve.
Liam Baker's sneaky flying elbow on Selwood was the best of them.
Great read
no one has mentioned if a send off rule should apply. We lost a key player and they gained a benefit. Although accordionists to the mro he was innocent
no one has mentioned if a send off rule should apply. We lost a key player and they gained a benefit. Although accordionists to the mro he was innocent
Of course it warrants a suspension. Players have been suspended for “POTENTIAL to cause injury”. Just 3 weeks ago Ben Long got suspended for a bump on Jack McRae where McRae got right back up .
The head is sacrosanct even if it’s accidental. Or it was.....
Whether its Danger going to the forward line or Scott, its evident that they don't provide the same freedom we provide to Dusty. I agree to be the great that he is, we have allowed Dusty to pretty much dictate where he feels he can influence the game best and he can choose when he makes that move. Its the whole Richmond team ethos, ie. Dusty is that good that the rest acknowledge the benefit to the team, and commit to defending his positions that he vacates.
Whether Scott doesn't give Dangerflog the same freedom or whether collectively they decided wrongly to leave him in the forward line (which made no sense at that time of the game) I'm not sure.
Don’t even dare suggest the send off rule
How many times would Tom Lynch have been sent off this season - unjustly?
Astounding how much geelong flop for free kicks.
It's really ingrained in the way they play, led by Selwood.
When the heat came, they got even worse. Almost every contest Dangerfield was involved in was exaggerated. Greg Brian is the heir to the throne and Menegola could whinge for Australia.
Really unlikeable club.
It's really ingrained in the way they play, led by Selwood.
When the heat came, they got even worse. Almost every contest Dangerfield was involved in was exaggerated. Greg Brian is the heir to the throne and Menegola could whinge for Australia.
Really unlikeable club.
He had the arm extended to tap the ball, he tapped the ball and then protected himself. Different if he raises the arm
Without tapping the ball. I can’t stand him but this is just an unfortunate football incident imo. If he drops his arm he ends up unprotected?
Maybe he shouldn’t have tapped it like he did?
In a morbid sort of way, be interesting to see if the Cats suffer the same physical and mental let down as Crows and Giants did after their GF maulings by the Tigers.
Unless you’re Patrick Dangerfield. Mind you, I think Gaz would have also gotten away with it.
Funny thing is the media were saying pre-game the Danger could spend more time up forward than the earlier meeting so it was Geelong's advantage. After the GF they are saying Geelong erred by leaving him up forward in the third.
The media seem incapable of saying he played poorly offering him all sorts of excuses.
The media seem incapable of saying he played poorly offering him all sorts of excuses.
Plenty of players have been suspended due to not intentional, but reckless. His choice to raise his arm to quickly first punch the ball in an attempt to gain an advantage for his team. But the attempt to gain advantage raised his arm to the same height as the player he could clearly see coming directly at him. Definitely time to make a different decision but decided that trying to gain advantage took precedence over the duty of care he had to the oncoming player.
Clear case of unintentional, hence no remonstrations.
Also a clear case of reckless. High contact. Severe impact.
IMO should have received at least two weeks due to the force of contact. Houli got 2 weeks for unintentional but reckless and the afl in the only time they’ve EVER appealed a tribunal decision said ‘manifestly inadequate’ and upped the suspension.
Danger’s was a 2 week minimum.
Duty
Of
Care
Clear case of unintentional, hence no remonstrations.
Also a clear case of reckless. High contact. Severe impact.
IMO should have received at least two weeks due to the force of contact. Houli got 2 weeks for unintentional but reckless and the afl in the only time they’ve EVER appealed a tribunal decision said ‘manifestly inadequate’ and upped the suspension.
Danger’s was a 2 week minimum.
Duty
Of
Care
Last edited:
agree Mac totally - do you think the AFL will appeal the decision also
That's right. Isn't the decision "Manifestly unjust"? (The 'Bachar" rule)
