11-5

[Teflon]

Dangerfield is a dog

[Sainter_Dad]

The one I thought was way worse was the mark interference 7 seconds left in the first against Henry - front on contact - running with the flight - does not touch the ball - tunnels Henry



Review the pic - there is no way his fist punches anything but Henry's arm - and he takes the body as well.

Led to Cameron's first goal to take the lead into quarter time.

[King Max]

So he's bending over with both feet on the ground...

You have to be allowed to contest the footy.

Danger wasn't anywhere near the football. Danger recklessly kicks him in a vulnerable area and he gets the free

Danger sucked in the ump

Not saying I called it, but I called it…

You talk about going for the footy as if it's open slather to do whatever you want. You can't. The sliding rule and below the knees rule was introduced to change player behaviour... wasn't it!?!

On a side note, the 'below the knees' rule is one of the worst in footy due to it rarely being used correctly. Its changed from protecting a player from another who is sliding in dangerously (like Goodes did), to rewarding players who aren't actually trying to win the ball and instead choose to 'run over' the player who's going lower knowing they'll get a free. No different from ducking to get a high tackle or diving to get a push in the back. But that's another debate

Very good call. The risk factor has suddenly become secondary and players are exploiting the literal interpretation by 'running over' a player and not even attempting to contest down low to where the footy is.

The umpires are a laughing stock aren't they? Can't believe they can get sucked in that easily.

I can understand the umpire for making an error and not really understanding what the rule was designed for...but the AFL needs again to change player behaviour if they're trying to milk a free out of the rule.

Why should Paddy Dangerfield get off scott free for a reckless act. Who was the player at risk? He knew exactly what he was doing. He was the perpetrator.

AFL needs to suspend him for rough conduct!! He staged for a free and hurt Stocker in the process.

The MRO needs to ask the question; was Dangerfield making a genuine attempt to contest the footy by hand or by foot? Where is the ball and where is his foot or his hands?

Just like they need to fine this Collingwood player for sucking in another umpire.

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/controve ... c-13970093

On this ....


Who is focused on the ball - I will give you a hint - rhymes with Locker

So how many weeks on the Webster scale?

Webster chose to bump, was late and made contact to the head causing injury. 7 weeks

Dangerfield chose to tackle, was late and made contact to the back causing injury. Nothing to see here?

[Sainter_Dad]

So how many weeks on the Webster scale?

Webster chose to bump, was late and made contact to the head causing injury. 7 weeks

Dangerfield chose to tackle, was late and made contact to the back causing injury. Nothing to see here?

Stocker gets 3 - Reckless, Low Impact (Below the Knees), High Contact (Contact was definitely made and it was higher on Stocker than Danger)