With the two week suspension of Geelong star midfielder Patrick Dangerfield for a dangerous tackle, this case would appear to be closed.
But the incident opens a broader question about Dangerfield’s intent when he made the tackle on Carlton’s Matthew Kreuzer.
The Match Review Panel have three discussion points when judging if a dangerous tackle has taken place. If there is a lifting moment, double movement or rotation of the body to increase speed or momentum. Dangerfield had none of these yet still got suspended.
Geelong coach Chris Scott thought the star midfielder wouldn’t get sighted by the MRP and was confident he’d be cleared.
“I think the powers at be have been very clear that the severity of any injury only comes into play once you acknowledge there’s been a breach in the rules,”
“I just don’t see that” he said.
On AFL Game Day, Patrick Dangerfield said it was a ‘fair tackle’ and the umpires didn’t award a ‘free kick against me’ so there was no reason for the MRP to look at the tackle.
– YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
However Kreuzer’s concussion trumped Dangerfield’s intent and if both player and AFL coach were convinced nothing wrong had taken place, some clarification would benefit both parties.
In a survey conducted by the AFL on whether or not the MRP got the Dangerfield decision wrong or right, the public were evenly split. 52% of people said they got it wrong and 48% of people said they got it right. This further highlights the grey area in the MRP’s definition of a dangerous tackle and the whether or not the outcome decided Dangerfield’s fate.
Does the MRP rely too heavily on the outcome of an injury when judging a player’s sanction and does the intent of a player even matter once an injury has occurred from the associated action?
Matthew Kreuzer was concussed after the Dangerfield tackle and took no further part in the game. He has however been named to face the Bombers in tomorrow’s clash at the MCG, which adds fuel to the already existing debate.
The suspension got mixed reviews from the football community with many experts saying it was the wrong decision.
Patrick Dangerfield addresses the media
In an article written by Chief football writer of the Herald Sun, Mark Robinson says “In nine weeks when Patrick Dangerfield polls the most votes on Brownlow night, the AFL will be embarrassed,”
“On Monday, the MRP made the wrong decision”.
On SEN’s Afternoons show, recently retired superstar, Nick Dal Santo said, “I don’t like that he got rubbed out for that but I understand why he did. By the letter of the law, he should’ve been suspended”.
The grey area in Dangerfield’s suspension has prompted rule changes by many experts including former Australian cricketer, Darren Berry.
Berry was very passionate in his assessment of the situation.
“It is a disgrace that Dangerfield got reported for that, an absolute disgrace. How can someone get a fine for intentionally punching someone (referring to Dustin Martin in his fine against Nick Robertson of the Brisbane Lions) and Dangerfield gets a week for tackling someone?” he said.
He then conceded that by the ‘letter of the law’, the decision was correct.
“Under the current system, he should get suspended but the MRP has to change the way it judges penalties,” he said.
“They will realise this once Dangerfield polls the most votes at this year’s Brownlow”.
Dangerfield has never been suspended in his 196-game career and has never shown the propensity to intentionally hurt someone.
Dangerfield’s case is especially interesting because he, along with Richmond’s Dustin Martin, are the front runners for this year’s Brownlow medal. He is now ineligible for the award and will have to sit at this year’s ceremony while AFL CEO, Gillon McLaughlin reads ‘P. Dangerfield, 3 votes’ many times throughout the night.
