Trengove suspended for 2 ... now 3 weeks

[Rogue 585]

on twitter

The comments come from the twitter account of CarowhineWilson, a satirical Twitter account: http://twitter.com/#!/CarowhineWilson

[Striker475 696]

the twitter account is fake

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Jack-Trengove/208481419186150?sk=wall - the Free JT fan page

[... 11]

Effing C-Bombs.

I am furious.

I hope they all get thrush.

[rodney_g 62]

on twitter

Pretty sure that's CaroWHINE Wilson. It's a twitter parody.

[Jaded No More 57,887]

Ugh, bad day. Bring on Saturday.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Jaded

[Felix 92]

Pretty sure that's CaroWHINE Wilson. It's a twitter parody.

yes, my bad..

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I hope they all get thrush.

I almost choked on my tea!

[Hellish Inferno 992]

I think we had an ok defence but this is what I would have done...

1. Dangerfield took possesion of the ball with his left hand with Trengove his closest opposition player, standing 2-3m behind.

2. Dangerfield fumbles the ball slightly and Trengove moves in to tackle him at the waist whilst also grabbing hold of his hand to prevent the handball, which would be Dangerfields first option in that circumstance.

3. Dangerfield is unable to handball, therefore attempts to kick the ball whereupon Trengove pulls him the only way he could, backwards. This prevents him from kicking the ball and he is dispossesed. This is the perfect tackle in those circumstances.

4. Yes, Dangerfields head hits the ground as a result. Yes, a free kick may have been an appropriate decision but the umpire either missed it at the time or thought it was not a free kick.

5. But to SUSPEND a player for 3 weeks for doing EXACTLY what he should have to prevent Dangerfield from disposing of the ball is ridiculous. Especially since there was no malice or intent to hurt the opposition player. Yes, the impact and force of the tackle is strong, but that's exactly what the game of football is about and there are hundreds of tackles every week carried out with the same force.

Edited May 10, 2011 by trenners_09

[Carlos Danger 380]

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Jack-Trengove/208481419186150

So the problem here is that he grabbed Dangerfield's wrist? Watching the replay on this link, that's the only difference I can tell between that and any other effective tackle I've seen in AFL.

Shocking decision.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

A thought on how players can protest this. Go out there this weekend and tackle hard. Really hard. Use the same tackling motion. For preference I'd like to see every one of our players make exactly the same tackle. Let's see if the AFL has the balls to try to suspend an entire team. It may be a little hard on the North Melbourne players, but that's life.

If I were a Roo, I'd be afraid to take the field against Melbourne after this.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

From Melbourne Footy on Twitter:

MelbourneFooty MelbourneFooty

For anyone interested: AFL House Address: 140 Harbour Esplanade, Docklands 3008 Postal Address: GPO Box 1449, Melbourne, Victoria 3001

[Carlos Danger 380]

A thought on how players can protest this. Go out there this weekend and tackle hard. Really hard. Use the same tackling motion. For preference I'd like to see every one of our players make exactly the same tackle. Let's see if the AFL has the balls to try to suspend an entire team. It may be a little hard on the North Melbourne players, but that's life.

Love the sound of that idea, would hold a lot more water if McKenzie was in the mix though.

[titan_uranus 22,363]

I want us to appeal.

First ground for appeal: there is no discretion in a rule that needs it. We don't want players to be slung to the ground maliciously, but we shouldn't be penalising players for laying tackles such as this, which have no malicious intent, and are executed exactly as is taught.

Second ground: Dangerfield contributed to his injury by continuing to attempt the kick, rather than attempting to protect himself. Weak grounds, but from the footage I reckon you could argue that he chooses to go for the kick thinking he'd be OK. He is, after all, a very courageous and brave player.

Third ground: the length of the penalty is OTT. 3 weeks for this, but Campbell Brown gets 2 for a deliberate elbow to the head, off the ball, out of the play. I don't know the rules, but surely the Appeals board has grounds to change penalties at their discretion.

Our case has enough meat on its bones to warrant the cost of going to the Appeals board. At the very least we'd be giving fans and the other 16 clubs some clarity.

[The Time is Now 1]

M.C.G turf just coped a three week ban from the MRP for knocking out Pat dangerfield. Duty of care issue.

[titan_uranus 22,363]

This is something that some people on here would be interested in: Hutchy on Twitter notes that the Appeals board is open to the AFL as well. So the option is there for the AFL to appeal this finding for the benefit of the players.

Not something I would advocate, nor do I think it is even remotely a chance of happening, but I'm sure that some people here would say that the AFL has to do this.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

I want us to appeal.

First ground for appeal: there is no discretion in a rule that needs it. We don't want players to be slung to the ground maliciously, but we shouldn't be penalising players for laying tackles such as this, which have no malicious intent, and are executed exactly as is taught.

Second ground: Dangerfield contributed to his injury by continuing to attempt the kick, rather than attempting to protect himself. Weak grounds, but from the footage I reckon you could argue that he chooses to go for the kick thinking he'd be OK. He is, after all, a very courageous and brave player.

Third ground: the length of the penalty is OTT. 3 weeks for this, but Campbell Brown gets 2 for a deliberate elbow to the head, off the ball, out of the play. I don't know the rules, but surely the Appeals board has grounds to change penalties at their discretion.

Our case has enough meat on its bones to warrant the cost of going to the Appeals board. At the very least we'd be giving fans and the other 16 clubs some clarity.

Fourth ground: Did not receive a fair hearing. Taking only four minutes to deliberate is farcical. The least they could have done is sit down and have a cup of tea to make it loo like they were being impartial.

[Pates 9,536]

It sickens me but does not surprise me. Trengove, a thus far very fair player, has been punished for doing exactly what he's taught to do and thugs like Brown get away with bloody murder playing outside the rules. AFL....you are now officially a disgrace.

And we'd better take this as far as it can go, untimely what do we have to lose now?

[Bay Riffin 1,415]

I know I am inm the minority but I wondered why we would contest this, unles of course we had inside knowledge.

The AFL have cracked down on contested situations where players have been concussed or have been in serious danger.

Was Dangerfield in serious danger? Yes he was. He was defenseless in his position. Did Trengove show malice? no, in his short career in fact he has shown he is a model footballer, tough but fair. Still doesn't mean Dangerfield could potentially have been a serious career ending injury.

Ask oursleves if dangerfield a hard tackler did the same to Trengove and injured his neck to end his career, what would you think ? and tell me that is out of the question when you watch he replay.

Thats all I ask.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

I know I am inm the minority but I wondered why we would contest this, unles of course we had inside knowledge.

The AFL have cracked down on contested situations where players have been concussed or have been in serious danger.

Was Dangerfield in serious danger? Yes he was. He was defenseless in his position. Did Trengove show malice? no, in his short career in fact he has shown he is a model footballer, tough but fair. Still doesn't mean Dangerfield could potentially have been a serious career ending injury.

Ask oursleves if dangerfield a hard tackler did the same to Trengove and injured his neck to end his career, what would you think ? and tell me that is out of the question when you watch he replay.

Thats all I ask.

Couldn't disagree more 'Bay Riffin'. I am a Physical Education teacher and Trengove's tackle was absolutely legitimate and fair. Just as I have taught secondary kids for many years in Victoria and WA. It had all the ingredients of a PERFECT TACKLE a) Arms pinned to lock the ball in and prevent a hand pass. b)Slinging or dragging opponent away from the ball to prevent the player from kicking or making good contact.( Trenners achieved both). It seems strange that the umpires were happy with the tackle which was right in front of their eyes. The injury to Dangerfield obviously has caused the ludicrous 3 weeks ban. No injury no problems. How can poor Trengove now be confident when he lays a similar tackle next time? Will he opt for the soft line and only half tackle his opponent? The timing was spot on and Dangerfield certainly was not slung to the ground behind the play. I am disgusted that the tribunal took such a short time to arrive at their 'decision'. Ron Barassi must be rolling his eyes in sheer disbelief at this very moment. With the AFL's present line of thinking Ron would have been lucky to play many games at all and no one has ever suggested that he was a dirty player! Shame on you AFL.You are bringing our great game into disrepute. Getting more and more like 'Aussie Kick' for 5 year olds. Appeal again Melbourne Football Club.

[The Big Ticket 94]

http://www.findlaw.com.au/lawyer/6448/andrew-tinney.aspx

Go crazy boys and girls.

[Rogue 585]

http://www.findlaw.com.au/lawyer/6448/andrew-tinney.aspx

Go crazy boys and girls.

Why? He was doing his job.

If you want to petition someone, petition the people who actually made the decision.

It wasn't Tinney, it was Emmett Dunne, Wayne Schimmelbusch and Wayne Henwood.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

James mcdonald was not there as I understand.

Note the edit rogue...that's who not James.

Some of what Tinney had to say however lacked insight into playing the game.

Edited May 10, 2011 by s-t-i-n-g-a

[Hellish Inferno 992]

Is this a potential contradiction to the decision?

Lachie Hansen was pushed into the fence by Troy Chaplin in Round 6. Check out 13 mins into the last quarter. He runs onto a handball in the goalsquare and pokes it through with his boot, then Chaplin pushes him and he hits his face into the fence. He didn't play the next week.

It is a reportable offence to "throw or push another player after that player has taken a mark, disposed of the football or after the football is otherwise out of play"

I believe the rules of the game assess the fence/ground to be essentially the same thing.

In that case, even though Chaplin only nudged Hansen, as a result of that nudge he hit the fence with HIGH impact and HIGH contact. So why wasn't he charged in the same manner? Trengove's tackle itself was not high contact or high impact, it was the resulting impact with the turf that caused the injury.

I know they're difference circumstances i.e. tackle vs bump where the tackle involves a player maintaining a hold throughout whilst the bump is a transfer of physical contact. However, the 'injury' received in both cases was a result of the physical contact from the other player. Chaplin was negligent in making the bump given the momentum of Hansen and likelihood he would cannon into the fence.

[green_machine 36]

Is this a potential contradiction to the decision?

Lachie Hansen was pushed into the fence by Troy Chaplin in Round 6. Check out 13 mins into the last quarter. He runs onto a handball in the goalsquare and pokes it through with his boot, then Chaplin pushes him and he hits his face into the fence. He didn't play the next week.

It is a reportable offence to "throw or push another player after that player has taken a mark, disposed of the football or after the football is otherwise out of play"

I believe the rules of the game assess the fence/ground to be essentially the same thing.

In that case, even though Chaplin only nudged Hansen, as a result of that nudge he hit the fence with HIGH impact and HIGH contact. So why wasn't he charged in the same manner? Trengove's tackle itself was not high contact or high impact, it was the resulting impact with the turf that caused the injury.

I know they're difference circumstances i.e. tackle vs bump where the tackle involves a player maintaining a hold throughout whilst the bump is a transfer of physical contact. However, the 'injury' received in both cases was a result of the physical contact from the other player. Chaplin was negligent in making the bump given the momentum of Hansen and likelihood he would cannon into the fence.

Demon supporters should compile a list of all incidents like the one above and deliver a please explain to the AFL and MRP. There does not have to be injury as consequences should not be taken into account.

Criteria are

1) Tackled / bumped player unable to prevent the head collision, due to either one hand being held or in the case of the bump above having no opportunity to prevent the head high contact. If both arms are pinned then even better

2) Forceful contact to the head / potential for forceful contact

As I said there does not have to be an injury as consequences should be irrelevant to the act. I do not have time or the skill to compile a list of incidents but if we can put together the list then the trengrove incident can be shown to be an arbitrary example dished out to an under resourced club.

From what little other football I watch Cyril Rioli always pins his opponents arms and is worth looking at.

[Dockett 32 1,213]

"It's important we don't go back into our 'Passive Shell'."

+1