News Injuries & Suspensions
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
https://www.afl.com.au/news/568830/follow-it-live-dangerfield-pleads-guilty-says-impact-not-severe
HEY SIRI....
Dangerfield's lawyer has asked Siri to define severe. The definition he shares with the jury is: "very great or intense".
Does this apply, he asks, to the impact Dangerfield made to Kelly "at head level, not body level".
HEY SIRI....
Dangerfield's lawyer has asked Siri to define severe. The definition he shares with the jury is: "very great or intense".
Does this apply, he asks, to the impact Dangerfield made to Kelly "at head level, not body level".
https://www.afl.com.au/news/568830/follow-it-live-dangerfield-pleads-guilty-says-impact-not-severe
HEY SIRI....
Dangerfield's lawyer has asked Siri to define severe. The definition he shares with the jury is: "very great or intense".
Does this apply, he asks, to the impact Dangerfield made to Kelly "at head level, not body level".
HEY SIRI....
Dangerfield's lawyer has asked Siri to define severe. The definition he shares with the jury is: "very great or intense".
Does this apply, he asks, to the impact Dangerfield made to Kelly "at head level, not body level".
https://www.afl.com.au/news/568830/follow-it-live-dangerfield-pleads-guilty-says-impact-not-severe
HEY SIRI....
Dangerfield's lawyer has asked Siri to define severe. The definition he shares with the jury is: "very great or intense".
Does this apply, he asks, to the impact Dangerfield made to Kelly "at head level, not body level".
HEY SIRI....
Dangerfield's lawyer has asked Siri to define severe. The definition he shares with the jury is: "very great or intense".
Does this apply, he asks, to the impact Dangerfield made to Kelly "at head level, not body level".
They came to that judgement considering the level of force and injuries sustained with particular reference to the Adelaide medical report.
Looks like more than 3 weeks now
I'll just leave this here...
The recent footage of Danger lining up Kelly from about 2km out is pretty damning. I think he will struggle to convince the tribunal that he was protecting himself as there didn't appear to be any intention to tackle. So he bumped and caused max damage to Kelly (concussed, broken nose). Danger has the duty of care in this situation and he ****ed up (no matter what Kane Cornes says...).
People jumping off are doing so because it is at least three weeks. I have already
People jumping off are doing so because it is at least three weeks. I have already
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 5,910
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Danger ban: Tribunal comes down hard on superstar Cat
GEELONG superstar Patrick Dangerfield has been handed a three-match ban for rough conduct after an accidental head clash with Jake Kelly left the Adelaide defender with "significant concussion" and a broken nose.
Dangerfield, who was referred directly to the Tribunal on Tuesday night, pleaded guilty to careless conduct and high contact after choosing to bump Kelly in Saturday's clash at Adelaide Oval and causing a head clash between the former teammates.
The Brownlow medallist challenged the Match Review Officer's severe impact grading, however, failing to have that grading overturned and receiving a three-match ban that will sideline him until round five
A grading of high impact would likely have seen the ban reduced to two weeks in a best-case scenario for the 30-year-old.
Dangerfield did not give evidence on Tuesday night as he was not challenging the careless conduct charge, with his lawyer stating at the outset that he understood he was liable for any damage done in a head clash under AFL rules.
An Adelaide medical report provided the crucial evidence, stating Kelly had suffered a "significant loss of consciousness" as a result of the head clash and required ongoing treatment under the AFL's concussion protocols.
Dangerfield will miss matches against Brisbane, Hawthorn and Melbourne
https://www.afl.com.au/news/568644/danger-ban-tribunal-comes-down-hard-on-superstar-cat
GEELONG superstar Patrick Dangerfield has been handed a three-match ban for rough conduct after an accidental head clash with Jake Kelly left the Adelaide defender with "significant concussion" and a broken nose.
Dangerfield, who was referred directly to the Tribunal on Tuesday night, pleaded guilty to careless conduct and high contact after choosing to bump Kelly in Saturday's clash at Adelaide Oval and causing a head clash between the former teammates.
The Brownlow medallist challenged the Match Review Officer's severe impact grading, however, failing to have that grading overturned and receiving a three-match ban that will sideline him until round five
A grading of high impact would likely have seen the ban reduced to two weeks in a best-case scenario for the 30-year-old.
Dangerfield did not give evidence on Tuesday night as he was not challenging the careless conduct charge, with his lawyer stating at the outset that he understood he was liable for any damage done in a head clash under AFL rules.
An Adelaide medical report provided the crucial evidence, stating Kelly had suffered a "significant loss of consciousness" as a result of the head clash and required ongoing treatment under the AFL's concussion protocols.
Dangerfield will miss matches against Brisbane, Hawthorn and Melbourne
https://www.afl.com.au/news/568644/danger-ban-tribunal-comes-down-hard-on-superstar-cat
Totally agree with result, having seen more angles than I saw on the weekend.
Totally disagree with using outcome to determine penalty, unless it is deemed malicious.
Some players are tougher and more resilient than others. Hit a "toughy" who bounces up, and get off. Hit a "petal" that collapses like an old lawn chair, get weeks.
Having said that, if a player deliberately, and maliciously does something that will in all likelihood injure/hurt a player, I believe his suspension should start from when that injured/hurt player is passed fit to play again.
Totally disagree with using outcome to determine penalty, unless it is deemed malicious.
Some players are tougher and more resilient than others. Hit a "toughy" who bounces up, and get off. Hit a "petal" that collapses like an old lawn chair, get weeks.
Having said that, if a player deliberately, and maliciously does something that will in all likelihood injure/hurt a player, I believe his suspension should start from when that injured/hurt player is passed fit to play again.
