Patrick Dangerfield tribunal hearing: Tribunal slaps Geelong star with three-match ban

Patrick Dangerfield has described his controversial suspension for a bump on Jake Kelly like being in a ‘murder trial’, as the Cats star was banned for three weeks.

Patrick Dangerfield appeared at the virtual tribunal with a cut on his head. Picture: Peter Ristevski

Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield has described the days following his controversial bump on Crow Jake Kelly as like being on “trial for murder”.

Speaking on SEN following his three-game suspension for the incident, Dangerfield said it had been hard to shut off from the opinion and noise swirling around him since Saturday’s 12-point loss to Adelaide.

“It’s hard to shut off from it, you feel like you’re on trial for murder,” he said.

“It’s an eye-opener for someone who hasn’t been through it before ... that was interesting.

“But, timing’s everything; in Round 1 when there aren’t too many other stories, it was big.

“It was definitely confronting.”

Watch the 2021 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. Every match of every round Live on Kayo. New to Kayo? Try 14-Days Free Now >

Patrick Dangerfield appeared at the virtual tribunal with a cut on his head. Picture: Peter Ristevski

Dangerfield recalled the incident from first seeing Kelly with the ball.

“I’ve moved to him as quickly as I possibly can, and as soon as the ball’s disposed of, then it’s bracing for impact,” the 30-year-old Brownlow medallist said.

“I’ve heard plenty of opinion around what I should have done, tackle once the ball’s gone, (but) you risk giving a free kick away, at the time there was no free kick, it’s easy to judge in hindsight when you freeze-frame it and review it, but in the split second of a game where you’ve got to make calculated decisions, it was less around a calculated decision and more around ‘impact’s coming, I’m bracing for that’.”

Dangerfield said he had spoken with Kelly but hadn’t offered an explanation as to why or how the incident occurred.

“I didn’t feel like I needed to offer an explanation, I don’t think he needed one, either,” he said.

“I felt it was within play, so in terms of, will I do it again? Well, clearly, not bump, but I didn’t go into details with him about what I do next, it was more: ‘How are you?’.”

Asked whether he’d already run the exercises as to what he’d do in the same situation next time, Dangerfield replied: “Well, not that, otherwise you’re going to risk a significantly lengthy suspension”.

Jake Kelly suffered serious injuries in the hit. Picture: Getty Images

But he said preventing concussion was a key part of the modern day and the bump was being increasingly fraught.

“It’s a difficult one ... because sometimes you don’t even think about it, all you’re doing is bracing for contact because contact is coming,” he said.

“There will always be accidents in games or incidents that occur, and sometimes (the bump is) not one that’s thought through with any great thought-process, it’s just contact’s coming.

“But you’ve got to be aware of it as a player. But let’s not kid ourselves, it’s a bloody hard game to play and it’s not always going to be perfect.”

Dangerfield said he wasn’t expecting to enjoy his three weeks out of the game.

“But I can’t change it now, so for me, it’s helping our guys as best I can in whatever role that is ... if it’s in the opposition yellow smocks at training, then that’s what it’s got to be.”

Straight after the tribunal, Dangerfield said the bump still had a place in football.

“The game is a collision game. There’s accidents that happen,” the Cats star said afterwards.

“There’ll still be a place for the bump within the game, but we’ve got to be respectful of minimising ­contact to the head where possible.”

Kelly will miss at least one match, according to a report from Adelaide doctor Marc Cesana. Dangerfield pleaded guilty to rough conduct, but his counsel, Ben Ihle, QC, argued unsuccessfully that the bump should not be classified as “severe”.

He quoted explanations from the Oxford and Macquarie dictionaries and then said he had asked Siri over his iPhone for her definition of severe - which was revealed as “very great, intense”.

But counsel for the AFL Jeff Gleeson QC said the tribunal had to take six matters into account when making its finding, including:

■ THE speed at which Dangerfield approached Kelly with Gleeson arguing Dangerfield “pushes off towards him”,

■ THAT his feet lifted off the ground, “it was relatively uncontrolled” according to Gleeson,

■ CONTACT was head to face, and

■ KELLY had no expectation that he would receive the impact.

The tribunal members who handed down the three-match suspension that will see Dangerfield miss games against Brisbane, Hawthorn and Melbourne were Richard Loveridge, Paul Williams and Jason Johnson. The tribunal was chaired by Ross Howie.

Gleeson said Kelly experienced a “significant” loss of consciousness, which he said occurred “probably happened instantaneously” from the moment of impact.

“He was motionless for a period of time and had to be stretched off the ground and didn’t return, he suffered a broken nose,” Gleeson said.

“The injury he suffered has to be treated as a significant head injury.”

And Gleeson said Kelly could have suffered even worse injuries.

“This high-speed collision could have resulted in Kelly suffering jaw damage, it could have resulted in him suffering cheekbone damage,” he said.

“Mr Dangerfield ran at Mr Kelly at speed, who himself was travelling at speed.

“The resulting impact was powerful and it was largely impact that struck Mr Kelly’s head and face, the injuries that were suffered were significant and the potential to suffer more serious injuries was significant.

“This was a bump suffered by a player who did not expect it and had no reason to expect it.

“It should be classified as severe impact.”

Ihle argued that on a “proper” reading of the case, the “appropriate” level of classification was high impact.

Ihle said Dangerfield “accepts” that in the modern game, when a player bumps another player, “they assume the responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of that bump”.

“Including inadvertent high contact by reason of heads clashing,” he said.

Ihle said Dangerfield “as an experienced player and the president of the Players Association” accepted “unequivocally” that the purpose of the rule was to reduce the risk of head injuries in the game.

But Ihle said Dangerfield contended that on a “proper” reading of all of the circumstances of this case the “appropriate” classification of the level of impact was high.

“The important distinction ... is that when considering the level of impact it’s not a question of whether the body-to-body impact was severe,” he said.

“It is whether the high contact was severe, that is the head-high contact.

“It is a really important distinction when it comes to this case, because the body-to-body contact — had there not been a head clash — would not have resulted in this matter being referred by the match review officer.”

Kelly had to be stretchered from the field. Picture: Getty Images

Ihle said it was not a bump to the head rather it was “a bump to the body which results in incidental or accidental head contact”.

He said Dangerfield’s technique for the bump was “legal” and he had made every effort to stay low and tuck his elbow in and this actually lessened the impact of the head clash.

He pointed to three other recent incidents – a Jeremy Cameron hit on Harris Andrews in 2018, Alex Neal-Bullen’s tackle on Adelaide’s Will Hamill last year and Ben Long on Sean Darcy from Fremantle last year — as examples of what is severe impact and what is high impact.

Tribunal chairman Ross Howie questioned whether the bump technique issue was “relevant” given that Dangerfield had already admitted he was careless.

“He admits it was careless so why would him doing it the way he had been trained would matter,” Howie said.

After a brief deliberation the Tribunal dismissed the argument that Dangerfield’s bump wasn’t severe impact.

“The jury have considered their verdict and their finding is that the level of impact was severe,” Howie said.

“They came to that conclusion having regard principally to the extent of force and the nature of the injury sustained, having particular regard to the medical report of the significant loss of consequence.”

Nick Riewoldt says the Dangerfield bump and suspension was a ‘breaking point’ moment.

‘BREAKING POINT’: ROOEY BACKS DANGER BAN

St Kilda great Nick Riewoldt said public reaction to a “breaking point” moment would be interesting.

“We all accept that fans want footy in its purest form, we want speccys we want Dusty Martin fend offs and goals,” Riewoldt told Fox Footy’s AFL 360.

“But what we don’t want is we don’t want concussions and what we have all learnt about CTE and concussion over the past couple of years, there will be people who will come out and defend Patrick and say it isn’t fair.

“But the AFL they are past the point of what’s fair, in fact this is breaking point now. We’ve had eight years of flipping and flopping and back and forth that are now lost to change that behaviour.

“This is breaking point and for me this needs to happen for the good of the game.

“I feel for Patrick Dangerfield, I really do because I was in that exact same situation 10 years ago.

“I genuinely felt, I was absolute in my beliefs, that I had no other alternative in that situation but the alternative was before you get to that point where it becomes subconscious... it is very difficult to control at that point and that speed.

“What now needs to happen is that training needs to occur on what happens before you get there and a subconscious act is going to result in someone getting a concussion.

“I was shattered (at his one match ban, down from three), I was absolutely shattered at the time. For two reasons, I broke Brad Symes’ jaw and I was one of the cleanest players in the game.

“I was devastated and I wanted to fight the suspension... that’s the one blip on my record and it is eerily similar.”

Riewoldt’s cousin Jack backed the ban.

“I’m pretty comfortable with three weeks, it’s a fair punishment,” The star Tiger said on AFL 360.

“As soon as you choose to make contact you have to face the consequences.

“I think coaches will be very wary of players choosing to bump. We had Sydney Stack laid out Jack Viney in an Anazc Day eve game and everyone was like woah how good is this.

“But you have to tackle, you just have to tackle or have to choose to smother and I think guys will be second guessing themselves given the severity of this punishment.

“I think it will be hard for Dangerfield to change because he is such a bull... that sort of cannonball action with him, this is not a one-off, and I’m not saying he goes out there to hurt people but he just goes for the ball.”

COACH BAN: IS THIS THE END OF THE BUMP?

—Marc McGowan

The bump could soon be extinct in AFL football, with coaches actively encouraging their players not to use it.

Giants coach Leon Cameron revealed in the wake of Patrick Dangerfield’s weekend bump on Jake Kelly – which left the Crow concussed and with a broken nose – that he instructed his players to tackle every time.

Greater Western Sydney’s post-match analysis even includes trying to understand why a footballer opted to bump instead of tackle, as part of the process to eliminate the age-old act.

Cameron’s Port Adelaide counterpart Ken Hinkley also said the Power were trying to reprogram players to “choose the option of tackle more than bump”.

Giants coach Leon Cameron has banned the bump. Picture: AFL Photos/Getty Images

“We talk to our players all the time about not bumping anymore,” Cameron told Fox Footy on Monday night.

“We talk about when you go in and approach a contest, or an opposition player, to tackle at every given time.

“Now, clearly, habit has been there for a long time for these players and it’s not always going to be perfect … so we have little incidents all the time where you have a choice to tackle.

“We review it, but you might have bumped and we say, ‘Well, why did you take the bump there?’.

“But, in saying that, habits don’t change overnight, and it’s hard to change the bump you’ve been doing for 10 or 15 years as a junior and now into AFL footy.”

Hinkley agrees with the AFL’s “strict liability” approach to bumps, where if a player chooses to make contact they must deal with the potential consequences if the opponent suffers injury.

“It will make the game safer,” Hinkley said.

“(Dangerfield’s) intent was to disrupt the ball – it wasn’t to cause injury and harm to the player … (so) there will be consideration to what was the intent, and I think that’s OK, but the injury is the biggest and most important factor in the whole thing.”

However, Hinkley said it wasn’t as straightforward as people might think to remove the bump from the sport.

“It’s a combative game and we usually welcome the combativeness of the game, but the game is now changing,” he said.

“The instruction now is, ‘Tackle or go at the ball and pick the ball up’, and if you go at the ball really hard and the ball’s on the ground, that’s easy.

“But if it’s in doubt and the oppo’s got the ball, yes, I think tackle is the first option.”