Trengove suspended for 2 ... now 3 weeks

[Hobbits's 17]

challenge it fcs, essendon and pies would.

[daisycutter 28,728]

Not on a site anywhere.

Please, be wrong!

was on 3aw 4oclock news

seemed to say he can "accept" a 2 week penalty implying it was a 3 weeker! no real details though

[John Crow Batty 8,377]

Dangerfield's got a soft head. About time he got himself a helmet.

[Guest Checker]

It's legit. This is ridiculous, if there had been no concussion no one would have thought twice about it. VERY unlucky.

[Striker475 696]

better bloody challenge it. not only was there no high contact, but the hit was simply an unintentional consequence of the tackle.

If he goes for 2 weeks it'd be terrible after the Campbell Brown crap

[Red Sox 2]

was on 3aw 4oclock news

seemed to say he can "accept" a 2 week penalty implying it was a 3 weeker! no real details though

BS!

What a joke. Even after one of our better wins there is something to sour the day.

Have to fight this one MFC. A Must!!

[Hobbits's 17]

It's legit. This is ridiculous, if there had been no concussion no one would have thought twice about it. VERY unlucky.

medical impact deemed to be high impact. wtf. there was no intent ! Intent was to tackle. It's nothing like the big Mummy's last year. how this can get same amount of weeks for one of campbell brown's is just ridiculous.

[Tony Tea 2,792]

Should have elbowed him in the head like Jackson or Tambling. Would have only got a week.

[Disco Demons 92]

challenge!!! umpiring was shocking all day.

[Rogue 585]

Sylvia's sniper didn't get weeks despite the significant impact a broken jaw has...

[DemonoidNumber9 7]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/two-game-ban-for-melbournes-jack-trengove/story-e6frf9jf-1226052693677

challenge.

[Samsara 65]

When that tackle occured, I said to my Dad "he will get suspended for that" to which he replied "you're [censored] joking me aren't you?". I am all for protecting the player, but there was no malice in what was a brilliant tackle. A warning would have sufficed to let Trengove know that he needs to avoid holding the opposition player's arm and slinging him to the ground.

[DemonWA 3,659]

CHALLENGE!

If dangerfield wasnt the AFL's latest poster boy / highlights rheel in SA this would have been a non issue

[reynolds46 823]

so basically the way this seems to work is because Dangerfield got injured Trengove should be punished even though he performed a legitimate tackle that was neither reckless or malicious. Had Dangerfield not been injured nobody would even bothered to look at the footage except for coaches wanting to show how to perform a great tackle.

It's actually embarassing how the MRP seems to work sometimes.

[Feldy 0]

I don't post often, but if that tackle ends up costing 2 weeks, possibly 3 with a challenge, then we may as well all start playing Tennis.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Feldy

[Dockett 32 1,213]

"A medical report from the Crows deemed contact between Trengove and Dangerfield was of a high impact."

This is a new one for me. What came first, the AFL report or the medical report and how are they related.

Is this a new can of worms that anyone can open if a player gets hurt?

Can somebody please help me out with an explanation?

[Hobbits's 17]

When that tackle occured, I said to my Dad "he will get suspended for that" to which he replied "you're [censored] joking me aren't you?". I am all for protecting the player, but there was no malice in what was a brilliant tackle. A warning would have sufficed to let Trengove know that he needs to avoid holding the opposition player's arm and slinging him to the ground.

sounds sensible enough, but your dad needs a stern talking to with taht foul language.

[daisycutter 28,728]

I don't post often, but if that tackle ends up costing 2 weeks, possibly 3 with a challenge, then we may as well all start playing soccer.

Grossly harsh - its not Netball

[beelzebub 22,762]

[No16 1]

From the AFL Website...

Trengove was charged with a level three engaging in rough conduct offence against Adelaide's Patrick Dangerfield in the third quarter of Melbourne's win on Sunday.

Dangerfield was helped from the ground and was immediately substituted off after hitting his head on the ground in a Trengove tackle.

The incident was assessed as negligent, high contact and based on a medical report from the Crows, was also classified as high impact, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match ban.

An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 243.75 and a two-match ban.

[Samsara 65]

sounds sensible enough, but your dad needs a stern talking to with taht foul language.

It might not be a direct quote, and I may have added a word for emphasise. The point is, football is getting softer and softer.

[Jaded No More 60,203]

3 weeks?! Get stuffed. He tackled him in the midst in battle. He had no intention to hurt him.

FFS we have to challenge this rubbish!

Massive overkill by the AFL and of course it has to come at the expense of one of our players.

[mauriesy 6,928]

The incident was assessed as negligent, high contact and based on a medical report from the Crows, was also classified as high impact, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match ban.

Where was the "high contact"? The tackle was made with one arm around Dangerfield's waist and the other hand holding on to his wrist. At no stage did Trengove contact his head.

[Redleg 38,636]

"A medical report from the Crows deemed contact between Trengove and Dangerfield was of a high impact."

This is a new one for me. What came first, the AFL report or the medical report and how are they related.

Is this a new can of worms that anyone can open if a player gets hurt?

Can somebody please help me out with an explanation?

He may be technically guilty but the penalty seems high when compared to say Tambling's deliberate elbow to the side of the face for 1 week and Brown's elbow to the face 2 weeks and Kennedy breaking Sylvia's jaw for no weeks. This was a tackle, to the body not to the head, nor a strike by fist or elbow. I would show film of the others mentioned and many more examples and then call an expert to show that his head was hurt only when falling to the ground as a result of a fair tackle.

I would also challenge it if it could be shown that he was only charged after the medical report. In other words no head high contact but head hurt in tackle and therefore he is charged. It is either illegal or not and as they have often said, as in Sylvia's case, the result doesn't make something illegal.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Redleg

[Curry & Beer 5,444]