THE JOB of the Match Review Panel has been described by one of its own as a "box-ticking exercise", but the case of Patrick Dangerfield on Monday will be anything but.  

Dangerfield's Brownlow Medal eligibility will come down to a pure judgement of whether his tackle on Carlton ruckman Matthew Kreuzer was reasonable in the circumstances or if the Geelong superstar used "excessive force".  

It's not a question of which box to tick under impact, because clearly Kreuzer was concussed, and if there is an offence to grade, it would be graded careless conduct, medium impact and high contact, resulting in a one-match ban.

But Dangerfield laid what Jude Bolton described as "the perfect tackle" early in the third quarter on Saturday night and there is an argument that his actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Brownlow cloud: Danger tackle KO's Kreuzer

With no sling or driving motion and only one action, the only questionable aspect of Dangerfield's tackle is the force with which he took his opponent to ground.

The reason that force is under question is because Kreuzer suffered concussion and was unable to return to the ground.  

"That is an absolutely perfect tackle," Bolton told Channel Seven, drawing on his experience as the third most prolific tackler in the game's history.   

"Against a 101kg man, you have to commit body, soul and fibre and he's got his head behind him trying to drag him down."

Bolton conceded that "by the letter of the law", Dangerfield was in trouble.

The 2017 Tribunal guidelines explain that a tackle can be judged to be dangerous when:

  • The player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (ie arms pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself.
  • An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force.

Not in Dangerfield's favour is that Kreuzer was in a vulnerable position with both arms pinned.

That Kreuzer didn't have the ball should be judged irrelevant, because Dangerfield doesn't appear to be aware, even appealing for holding the ball.  

But was the ruckman driven into the ground with excessive force, or were Dangerfield's actions reasonable in the circumstances?   

"I felt it was a fair tackle. There was no umpire's call at the time. I don't see an issue with it, but it's not up to me," Dangerfield said on Channel Seven on Sunday.  

I don't see an issue: Danger on tackle

There is a case for the MRP to find Dangerfield's tackle was reasonable in the circumstances and the outcome was unfortunate.

There are also examples of such tackles being cleared by the MRP this season, despite players suffering concussion as a result.

As recently as round 10 Hawthorn star Shaun Burgoyne was scrutinised for a tackle that ended Sydney forward Sam Reid's night after his head hit the turf.   

The MRP's explanation in clearing Burgoyne was that: "There was no sling motion or double-action in his tackle (and) Reid was not rotated or driven with excessive force into the ground."

In round six, GWS ruckman Shane Mumford was cleared of any wrongdoing for a tackle that left Western Bulldogs midfielder Tom Liberatore with concussion.

Again, the MRP chose to clear the player based on his actions, despite the medical report pointing to excessive force.

"Mumford did not lift or rotate his opponent in the tackle and the tackle consisted of one action (and) it was the view of the panel the tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstance," the Panel said in its findings.

It is the job of MRP members to draw on their football experience to decide if an action is reasonable in the circumstances.

Intentional strikes are a box-ticking exercise to decide how severe a penalty should be, with the offence never in doubt.

But a football action such as a tackle is more difficult, with the MRP first needing to decide if a reportable offence has even taken place before moving on to the box ticking. 

It is expected the box-ticking won't take place for Dangerfield and he will be cleared.