AFL360 | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

AFL360

So Elmer Fudd went off his big, fat, bald head over the Zac Williams incident - and not just on one show but two nights running - citing the disgrace it was, the AFL needs to be serious about this, it deserved a bigger penalty blah blah blah....

What does he reckon Clangerfield should receive ?
Too busy calling Tom Lynch a dog and Nick Vlastuin a cheat (tho he was *smile* hilarious defending Vlaustins reputation yesterday on radio.... go figure! )
 
To his eternal credit, David King gets this when so very, very few in the footy community do.

He is dead right when he talks about the action of running at a defenceless opponent being the one that needs to be stamped out because it is that precipitous action that magnifies the chances of a horrible injury occurring.

Focusing on 'the outcome' or the 'accidental' nature of the head clash or even peripheral stuff like whether he left the ground or raised an elbow is missing the point.

Like David King, I find it hard to believe anyone could argue, in the current climate and under the AFL's grading of the incident, that Dangerfield should get anything less than 3-4 weeks to sit in the grandstand and ponder the meaning of 'duty of care'.

If the AFL tribunal does not send the required message this time around, when will it?
When a Richmond player is referred directly to the tribunal...
 
Dangerfield's a bit unlucky but in the end he didn't have to lay that bump, just as if DTLD had've Houli'd Plowman he would've been looking at a month off.

It's been consequences (and luck) rather than intent for quite a while now.
 
Dangerfield's a bit unlucky but in the end he didn't have to lay that bump, just as if DTLD had've Houli'd Plowman he would've been looking at a month off.

It's been consequences (and luck) rather than intent for quite a while now.
Yep. Spot on. Generally same as real life.

drink and drive and kill someone different consequence to blowing high in the bag.
 
Dangerfield's a bit unlucky but in the end he didn't have to lay that bump, just as if DTLD had've Houli'd Plowman he would've been looking at a month off.

It's been consequences (and luck) rather than intent for quite a while now.
Disagree. Kelly is unlucky he had his face caved in. Dangerfield has zero duty of care and it was only a matter of time he put someone in hospital. Always accelerates into contests and has been lucky so far. Should have got weeks for the GF incident where he had options to slow down, gather the ball and brace for contact, but he went the gutless option of raising the arm and using the elbow to protect himself. He's gutless. Watch Dusty who goes in hard for the ball but he's always aware of his surroundings and always shows duty of care for his opponent. If the AFL is serious about concussion, then he should get 5+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I got doubts on Port.

White hot pressure finals footy and they just put it on Charlie’s head.

And they can cough it up. Boak, Wines, Rockliff, Powell pepper, none of em are dependable by foot.

The sludge equalised both sides in our PF against them, along with the fact they are twice as good on their own dung heap.

If we play off against Port at the G in the big dance we will win comfortably.
Yep I agree we'd slap them on the G in a GF.

TBH they are a side I wouldnt at all mind being up against if we get there just to smack them and become the immortal side of the era.

Shut them up a bit they are front runners and mouthey flogs.

A bashing like the Cats gave em in 07 or the way we put the Sherbies to the sword on GF day 2019 would be a marvellous result for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Mince reckons he should get 3.

Personally, 7 sounds like the right amount to me.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
genuine question: if Dangerfield had been knocked out in the head clash but not the other bloke, would he have been reported?
 
I got doubts on Port.

White hot pressure finals footy and they just put it on Charlie’s head.

And they can cough it up. Boak, Wines, Rockliff, Powell pepper, none of em are dependable by foot.

The sludge equalised both sides in our PF against them, along with the fact they are twice as good on their own dung heap.

If we play off against Port at the G in the big dance we will win comfortably.
Port will finish top 2 and be our biggest danger. Only injuries will see them fail to improve on last year.
 
The Port love reminds me of ‘17 when the ‘experts’ wanted to give the cup to GWS before a ball had been bounced in anger. We all know how that worked out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Port? We showed the rest of the comp that if you match them in the clearances then you can beat them. Their inside mids struggle to spread
 
Disagree. Kelly is unlucky he had his face caved in. Dangerfield has zero duty of care and it was only a matter of time he put someone in hospital.
I would agree if only the shoulder had made contact with Kelly. I'm sure Dangerfield didn't intend to smash Kelly with his head.
 
genuine question: if Dangerfield had been knocked out in the head clash but not the other bloke, would he have been reported?

That is a bit too hypothetical as Dangerfield was the aggressor and therefore in a far better position to make sure that his face was not going into Kelly. It was Dangerfield who ran into Kelly, who had already disposed of the ball, and Dangerfield who had the advantage of knowing that contact was about to happen and far more control over the situation.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users