Danger’s Tackle

Written by Schwarzwalder on July 31 2017

By now we’ve all seen the footage and we’ll know the MRP’s decision in the next few hours……..Was that tackle from Dangerfield a reportable offence?

From a Supercoach point-of-view it’s fairly irrelevant since practically everyone has Dangerfield in their team.  What really hurts his case is that Kreuzer didn’t return to the field.  He suffered a minor concussion and was kept on the bench.

For what its worth, I don’t think Danger has a case to answer.  He wasn’t aware that the ball had been knocked free and at no point did he sling or rotate Kreuzer in the tackle.  There have been many references to Danger ‘pinning’ Kreuzer’s arms but that’s how I’d envision a decent tackle.  It comes down to a question of excessive force.  Was the tackle excessive?  I’d still say no.  It’s an unfortunate result from a good tackle, much like Shaun Burgoyne on Sam Reid earlier in the year (which also got the all-clear).

What do you make of it, Coaches?  Does Dangerfield have a case to answer?  Or will he get the green light in the next few hours?

9
0


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

28 thoughts on “Danger’s Tackle”

  1. Should he lose a Brownlow over that? NO
    Should he get suspended for a week? NO
    Will he get suspended for a week? NO

    They’ll find a way out for him surely.

    14

    4
    1. With all the rule changes in relation to MRP rulings the AFL really need to look at exemptions to the no suspension rule to be eligible to win Charlie.

      Back in the day you had to dislodge someones head from there shoulder’s to be ineligible , not the case today

      anyway my 2 bobs worth

      13

      1
    2. With the Brownlow a 2 horse race i think he will get off.

      Now RB are you going to the game this Saturday night? I will be there around 6pn if you want to catch up in the bar for one before the game. I don’t think we will be fighting a crowd to get a drink.

      I will even help you make a few changes to your SC Team as i think we are playing a final in SCT3 if your Team is Derm’s Don’t Argues.

      1

      0
      1. Derm’s Don’t Argues isn’t my team. Like the idea of a pre game drink but I’m unlikely to be able to make it to the game this week. Sorry DA.

        0

        0
    1. What a farce. You used to get suspended for being deliberately violent and cowardly towards an opponent. AFL are turning the game into a non contact sport. It will be touch footy soon.

      14

      2
  2. Based on similar incidents in the past year, he should definitely get 1 week. But the AFL will rort the system and let him off, let’s be honest…
    The match review panel is the biggest load of crap going around.

    He pinned his arms, he drove his head into the ground, he gets concussed. A good tackle and he would have rotated Kreuzer right, but he chose to rotate him left which exposed his head to the ground

    14

    15
  3. Reckon he’ll challenge it? Has to, Cats are fairly safe for 2 weeks without him, so risk is moderate, but the reward is enormous.

    12

    1
  4. At least this should put to rest the conspiracy theories… unless they’re saving face by waiting for his challenge to let him off?

    7

    2
  5. Has to challenge, can’t believe that this is the incident that suspends a Brownlow favourite after Cotchin’s two incident’s, dusty’s punch, Selwoods elbow and I believe there has been a few others, can’t quite remember, but I would say that would be the most innocuous of all of them.
    The MRP must just take outcome as the most indicative factor. Danger is one of the fairest guys on the field probably takes more punishment than anyone.
    My two cents.

    14

    6
  6. Do you guys think this tackle even comes into question if Kreuzer got up, just continued playing and didn’t cop a concussion????

    16

    0
    1. Nope. It should have no reflection on the injury. It should be about the interpretation of the tackling style. If pinning the arms could result in hard contact then make that type of tackling illegal as a general rule. Don’t sit back and assess only based on results.
      If it’s still considered a week suspension then so be it, but is deserving of potentially missing a brownlow, hell No!

      8

      3
  7. I love him I own him but he deserves a week. Forget the Brownlow because it shouldn’t b a factor. IMO it was a low act that left a player concussed and unable 2 continue playing. In effect he chicken-winged Kreuzer and drove him head 1st into the ground. And TBH I’ve noticed a few of these same tackles from him before. You can’t let reputation cloud ur judgement.

    12

    13
  8. As soon as it happened and before Kruz went off i thought he’s going to get a week for that. Sad way to lose a Brownlow and of course i had money on him. Dusty better be careful he does’nt get that other strike.

    5

    0
  9. Surprised to see you all think he shouldve got off. The afl has made it pretty clear in the past (mccarthy, waite etc) that if you pin the arms youre responsible for what happens to the player when they hit the turf.

    Rules might be shit, but theyre the rules of the MRP and shouldve been fairly predictable.

    11

    1
  10. My problem with the issue is this – its not about any particular player its about the rule.

    The rule says – if you tackle a player fairly and he does not dispose of the ball correctly, you get a free kick (paraphrased).
    So, coaches work with the umpires on rule interpretation at the start of each year.
    They then train the players how to tackle (don’t go the head, don’t take out the knees etc) these are all illegal and you get a free kick against you.
    BUT – you can grab them around the waist, pin their arms and win a free kick.

    When tackling the latter way, you cannot ‘sling’ tackle or ‘spear’ tackle and drive their head into the ground – this is illegal (free against) and dangerous (leads to suspension)
    So, in Dangers case, did he perform any of the last two things? No umpire decision paid on the day suggests no and they had good sight of the incident?
    But, Kreuzer gets hurt and Danger gets a week or two……because of the result of the tackle, but not because the tackle was illegal? So what did he do wrong within the rules of the game?

    Judging a player after the game on a result (player hurt) instead of the action (legal) seems wrong. As a mug punter watching the game, I cannot see this as fair for the tackler. Players do get hurt in legal motions (going for a mark) and is not a legal tackle just part of the game?

    confused………

    6

    1
    1. It’s because the AFL’s ruling is that if you pin the arms you’re responsible for the player’s safety. So if you pin arms and then concuss the player – you’re responsible for the concussion, as happened to Danger. The same reason why Danger gets no penalty if Kreuzer is okay – he would have done his duty to not injure a helpless player in that case.

      It’s written that way in order to prevent excessive force being used when players are in a helpless situation, but often gets in the way of decent tackles that have unlucky results.

      5

      0
  11. Don’t really care that he’s missing a week, it’s more that he misses the Brownlow cause of this. Crazy!!

    5

    2
  12. No choice really.

    With Geelong still fighting for top 4, they couldn’t risk him missing 2 weeks.

    I suspect his foot is still a bit sore and he could probably do with a week off anyway.

    It sucks Paddy will miss out on another Brownlow. Somehow I think he may win a couple more anyway.

    With the increased focus on concussions in our game it doesn’t surprise me he has been suspended.

    I think Paddy did everything in his power to protect Kreuzer. But when he can’t play out the rest of the game and the doctors report concussion. He was always going to miss a week.

    Remember Dusty has 2 strikes already this season and could easily miss a week himself if he is not careful.

    Personally I think J Kelly from GWS is an outside chance. He had a very good start to the year and should poll in most of the Giants victories.

    2

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *