They aren't even in the same ball park.
Its Geelong, they struggle with anything that goes against them.how deep a hole can he dig himself? I keep underestimating his entitled selfishness! Seriously you'd reckon he'd have a manager/ publicist to advise him, either he doesn't listen to them or they are just as dumb as he is.
This 100%, with the "down the ground" vision you can see he's actually lined him up & not even considered trying to smother...Yeah I agree. .... if you watch his action, clearly he launches at the last moment to create maximum impact, so this notion proffered by some that he went the bump and it's purely accidental is complete bs imho.
As for the perception of a pile-on regarding Dangerfield, I can only speak for myself and what pisses me off about him and these last 2 incidents is his complete disregard for the blokes that he's cleaned up after the event and I'm not sure I've ever heard any public statement from him wishing them well either.
"So is it OK to clean someone up as long as you show care after the event?"So you don't think players try and create maximum impact when they bump? You don't think Stack was trying to hurt Viney? Did Stack go back and check on his welfare or send him a text after the game? Does Pickett not aim for maximum hurt when he bumps? What about Lynch? Its a physical sport.
So is it OK to clean someone up as long as you show care after the event?
Personally I still want to see our players inflicting maximum physical hurt wherever possible. Dangerfield deserved his right whack, he got it wrong, he left his feet and went too high which brought into play the head clash.
Kelly was exposed because of the situation,. I suppose its a personal thing as to whether you endorse him being legally hurt. If clanger went slightly lower and got him in the ribs and broke his ribs what would the opinion be then?
I don't think there was an outcry on here when Cotchin concussed Shiel in the 17 prelim, reality is he cannoned into Shiel, hit him in the head and arguably should have been suspended if you take your richmond hat off. He wasn't, essentially because it would mean he would miss a GF. Yes the ball was there but reality is Shiel played the ball and Cotchin used the opportunity to inflict maximum physical damage on him. Watch a replay and see Cotchin go low and launch into Shiel whose hands were on the ball. Cotchin's first objective was not the ball. Even though he went low he got him in the head and forced him out of the game. Judged on todays criteria that is a suspension.
Cotchin saw an opportunity to win the ball and inflict hurt. It was smart and brutal, basically how Cotchin plays. And I hope he never changes.The game has changed. If you want a game where players try to inflict maximum physical hurt on the opposition, I suggest you take up UFC. It's no longer part of Australian Rules Football.
As for the Cotchin reference, I don't see how it's valid to Dangerfield. The ball was being contested. You claim Shiel had his hands on it but that would have been a split second before Cotch and Shiel didn't have control of the ball. Cotch's eyes at all times were on the ball, he never deviates to look at where his opponent is and line him up. Cotch's forward motion is directly at the ball. Yes there was contact but again both players heading for the ball. After the hit Shiel is nursing his shoulder. Dave Astbury gives Shiel a decent hit not long after which is just as likely to have caused any concussion. So in summary, nothing at all like the Dangerfield hit over the weekend.
ridiculous. Its the same as its always been, culture and level of scrutiny has changed, but basically a fair hit is still a fair hit, and a dirty act is still a dirty act.Physically hurting the opposition is no longer part of AFL? Is "contact" about to be added to the umpires vocabulary?
Dangerfield is a reckless sniper. Two games running he has knocked blokes out and more importantly has show zero remorse to those players. Its all been about himself.Cotchin saw an opportunity to win the ball and inflict hurt. It was smart and brutal, basically how Cotchin plays. And I hope he never changes.
Physically hurting the opposition is no longer part of AFL? Is "contact" about to be added to the umpires vocabulary?
Dangerfield deserved his 3 weeks, I'd reckon he'd get the chair if PRE decided it.
Not sure why you want to raise this topic from the dead again Lazarus, but if you must. Though there is nothing in common with the Dangerfield hit this weekendCotchin saw an opportunity to win the ball and inflict hurt. It was smart and brutal, basically how Cotchin plays. And I hope he never changes.
Dangerfield is a reckless sniper. Two games running he has knocked blokes out and more importantly has show zero remorse to those players. Its all been about himself.
I dont want him to receive the chair. Not winning a premiership is enough punishment for me.
Skipper is see ball get ball. His body is a log that goes where the ball is. It's what makes him an elite team player. He has no concern for himself.Not sure why you want to raise this topic from the dead again Lazarus, but if you must. Though there is nothing in common with the Dangerfield hit this weekend
Cotchin seeing an opportunity to deliberately inflict hurt is a narrative Christian, Robbo and a few others wanted to get out there. Drama before the Grand Final.
If you've watched Cotch over his career you can with confidence say Cotch was 100% determined to get that ball. That was his only focus. He never deviated off the ball and never looked to see where his opponent was. His dive at the ball, where some think was a deliberately attempt to hit Shiel in the head, is nothing more than Cotch putting his body between the ball and the opposition to secure it. Watch it in slow motion and as many angles as you want, but you will never see Cotch look to see where Shiel was nor deviate off his straight beeline for the ball. Any player with any intent to deliberately hit or hurt an opponent will look to see where they are so they can time that hit right.