Geelong captain Patrick Dangerfield has been cleared for his harmful deal with on Sam Walsh on Friday evening, after a tense listening to that featured a number of terse exchanges between the Cats star and the AFL’s appointed lawyer.
Dangerfield conceded a free kick within the opening minutes of the Cats’ loss to Carlton, after tackling the Blues star from behind and pinning his arms, with Walsh taken ahead within the deal with and hitting his head on the bottom.
AFL Match Evaluation Officer Michael Christian graded the incident as careless conduct with medium affect and excessive contact to set off the one match ban, however the Cats sought to problem the decision, claiming Dangerfield’s deal with was not unreasonable within the circumstances and due to this fact shouldn’t be graded as tough conduct.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal overturned the suspension, clearing Dangerfield for a crunch conflict with Essendon on Saturday evening.
The decision comes after a tense listening to the place Dangerfield repeatedly clashed with AFL counsel Andrew Woods over the league’s declare his deal with on Walsh violated his obligation of care.
“My first response is to seize him [Walsh], deal with him, pin him first after which as you see within the imaginative and prescient, carry him to floor, absolutely conscious of the place the principles of at, cognisant of being first to the bottom and of how exhausting and forceful my deal with is,” Dangerfield stated, in response to Fox Footy reporter David Zita.
“I knew I used to be tackling him from behind, I used to be aware of not driving by means of Sam as that will end in a free kick.
“So my first response as soon as I grabbed Sam and had a maintain of each arms was pulling him again to cease each us shifting ahead… then I slid my legs beneath his to soak up the drive as soon as I’d taken him to floor.
“I get you may freeze body and sluggish something down and body an argument round it. However the information are you don’t deal with on this approach until you’re actually aware of what the touchdown mechanism is.
“Should you needed to bury him, you’d preserve your legs behind him. That is the exact opposite of that.”
Dangerfield additionally claimed pinning each Walsh’s arms was his ‘solely approach… to affect how exhausting I lay the deal with’.
“If I have been to launch one arm, I’ve completely no management excessive of his physique,” he stated.
When challenged by Woods that he ought to have launched one in every of Walsh’s arms to permit the Blue to brace for contact and keep away from his head hitting the bottom, Dangerfield replied “You possibly can recommend that, however I don’t agree with you.”
“I’m not disputing I pinned each arms, however I’ll argue all day with you that not pinning them [would have] supplied much less contact,” he added.
“I simply can not settle for that.”
Zita famous on X that the interplay with Woods was ‘as nasty as Patrick Dangerfield has ever been’.
Cats counsel Ben Ihle claimed the uncontrollable circumstances of Walsh’s knees ‘digging into the bottom’ and him touchdown on the soccer contributed extra to his head hitting the bottom than Dangerfield’s deal with, saying the Cat’s obligation of care in direction of his opponent was not violated.
“That is nonetheless a recreation the place tackling is permitted, and tackling by holding a participant by each arms remains to be permitted,” he stated, including that the league’s tips solely ask for ‘affordable care’ to be taken in a deal with, slightly than the league’s push for ‘perfection’.
“It is a accountable, considerate participant appearing fairly,” Ihle summed up.
In explaining the choice, the Tribunal deemed it a ‘uncommon, even distinctive case’, saying Dangerfield confirmed ‘appreciable care’.
“Though not instantly obvious and never actually obvious till all angles and imaginative and prescient and nonetheless photographs had been fastidiously thought-about, the proof is obvious right here Dangerfield instantly swung his legs beside and ahead of Walsh, and pulled again with appreciable drive to aim to stop Walsh being pushed into the bottom,” the Tribunal assertion reads.
“Imaginative and prescient reveals Dangerfield managed to drag him again in order that at one level Walsh’s torso was virtually vertical.
“Wouldn’t it have been fairly attainable for Dangerfield to launch one or each of Walsh’s arms? Sure it will, however that’s not the check. The query is whether or not it was unreasonable within the circumstances not to take action.
“From the appreciable care that Dangerfield went to in a brief area of time in a fast paced piece of play to do what he might to keep away from or minimise harm to his fellow participant, we discover that this was not tough conduct.”
