DANGER ZONE

Brownlow Medal hopes hang in the balance

PATRICK Dangerfield’s decision to pin Matthew Kreuzer’s arms in a dangerous tackle is the single threat to his Brownlow Medal chances. The Geelong star yesterday defended the tackle that concussed Carlton ruckman Kreuzer, adamant it was a “fair tackle”. Brownlow Medallist Adam Cooney and former North Melbourne star Nick Dal Santo said yesterday Dangerfield would be suspended for a week.

It is understood the three chief discussion points for the match review panel to assess a dangerous tackle are a lifting moment, double movement, or rotation of the body to build speed and momentum.

Dangerfield’s tackle had none of those qualities but his decision to pin Kreuzer’s arms as he rode him to the ground creates a problem.

That could be enough for the MRP to rule his tackle had “excessive force”, which would lead to a suspension.

Dangerfield’s tackle again sparked calls for an overhaul of the Brownlow criteria, Cooney ada- mant the league should drop the “fairest” element.

Dangerfield told Channel 7: “I actually thought he still had the ball, so that’s why I’ve turned around and put my hands in the air (to appeal for a free kick).’

“I haven’t been cited for anything.

“I felt it was a fair tackle, there was no umpire’s call at the time so I don’t see an issue with it, but it’s not up to me.

“It wasn’t paid a free kick at the time but, like I said, we will have to wait to see how it plays out.”

Cooney said the decision to pin Kreuzer’s arms meant Dangerfield had a duty of care to the Blues ruckman.

“You would think given the precedents set he has to miss one week for this,’’ he told SEN.

“It’s not a sling, it’s not a dump, but you know if you have a player’s arms wrapped up and you know you can hurt them.”

Dal Santo said: “I would love to see him get off but from what we have seen and what has been deemed to be unacceptable this year, I think it’s worth at least one.”

FROM the moment Patrick Dangerfield tackled Matthew Kreuzer in the third quarter on Saturday night, everybody in the football world had an opinion on whether the reigning Brownlow medallist would or should be suspended.

It speaks to how new media allows information to travel so quickly that people across the country could share their views long into the night and well into yesterday afternoon before the AFL match review panel had even sat down to assess the incident.

Today will be no different: talkback radio will make sure they use all of the seconds available to them to discuss and dissect every minute detail of the tackle. But just what is there to discuss? What exactly will the MRP look at?

Kreuzer was unable to take any further part in the match after being assessed by Carlton’s medical team and ruled to have concussion. But will that come into the MRP’s thinking when it comes to making a ruling on Dangerfield’s guilt or innocence?

Geelong coach Chris Scott certainly doesn’t think so.

“When a player is hurt, and goes off the ground, there is an extra dimension there that attracts scrutiny,” Scott said

“But I think the powers that be have been very clear that the severity of any injury only comes in to play when you acknowledge that there has been a breach of the rules. And I just don’t see that when I watch it.

“It’s not about the end result, it’s about the action, and whether the tackle was justifiable in the circumstances. He had the ball, tried to turn him in the tackle and roll him … once you acknowledge those things, the ramifications or the seriousness of the injury are moot.”

Panel member Nathan Burke said on the ABC yesterday that assessing tackles was difficult.

“Tackles are a really, really difficult one to be totally honest, no two tackles are really the same,” Burke said. “The outcome is not necessarily the thing we look at at the start because what you’ve got to look at, at the start, is was the actual tackle transgressing the rules?

“There are dot points we look at (that cover) was there a sling, was there a lift, was there a rotation, was he driven into the ground with excessive force and was he in a vulnerable position?

“So we go through all of those points and we tick or cross, and basically from there we say yes it was a reportable incident or no it wasn’t, and once we’ve made that determination, then we look at … the impact.” So, is Dangerfield in trouble? Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception that the MRP errs on the side of the player when they are Brownlow Medal fancies, but that should not impact the decision-making process.

Kreuzer may be deemed to have been in a vulnerable position given he had both arms pinned, but the fact he did not have the ball is unlikely to be considered as Dangerfield was unaware of that and was legitimate in his plea for a holding-the-ball decision.

Burke is right that no two tackles are the same, but Dangerfield can take some comfort from the ruling the MRP made on Shaun Burgoyne’s tackle on Sam Reid earlier in the season. Reid, too, was concussed but Burgoyne escaped suspension.

There is also a strong argument that his actions were, as Scott discussed, reasonable in the circumstances.

But given football commentators were divided across the weekend as to whether the Geelong midfielder should be suspended, it highlights Burke’s view that these acts are tough to make judgments on.

The Shane Mumford tackle on Tom Liberatore — which left the Bulldog with concussion — was another case study that experts were keen to refer to, and again, Mumford was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Burke said that incident emphasised that accidents can and do occur in contact sports.

“Look at Mumford on Tom Liberatore,” he said.

“He was concussed in a tackle and yet we could not tick any one of those sling, lift, drive, rotation … none of those could be ticked with Mumford’s tackle, therefore the outcome was just an accident, and sometimes accidents do happen in a game of football.” Cameron Ling: Adam Cooney: Patrick Dangerfield: Nathan Brown: Kane Cornes: Chris Scott: