This will be downgraded to ONE week..... Wait and see.... Still pathetic, but better than 2 or 3

Mark Macgugan: Trengove says he is aware of his duty of care to other players. Doesn't believe he did anything wrong in this tackle. Says he was technically correct, and didn't use excessive force.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:01 Mark Macgugan

19:02 [Comment From GD GD: ]

Surely consequences only come into it if he's proven to be negligent....? if he's not negligent then it's a football incident.. the same as curnow.. the same as someone diving across someone's leg to make a smother.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:02 GD

Mark Macgugan: Trengove: As he grabbed the ball, I grabbed his hand. Reason for doing that was to prevent him from handballing. Next thought was he'd then try and kick it. To prevent him from doing that I pulled him back, as taught by the club.

BAILEY ORDERED THE CODE RED!!!

Mark Macgugan: Trengove now recalling a tackle on Brodie Smith in the very next sequence of play. Says he used the exact same technique in that tackle with no consequence.

Mark Macgugan: Trengove now recalling a tackle on Brodie Smith in the very next sequence of play. Says he used the exact same technique in that tackle with no consequence.

Now that is smart work by the club.... Brodie Smith is obviously not a [censored] like DangerMouse!

Mark Macgugan: Trengove: the club teaches us that if you can grab an arm it's definitely acceptable because it will stop the opponent from disposing of the ball. It was an accident. I didn't intend for him to get concussed. Don't think I used any unusual level of force.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:05 Mark Macgugan

Trengove now recalling a tackle on Brodie Smith in the very next sequence of play. Says he used the exact same technique in that tackle with no consequence.

Beauty.

Tinney will find a way to give him three weeks, though.

If Trenners misses weeks for this, it will totally change his tackling technique in the future....

MRP = Ruining young kids careers/Taking the real tough blokes out of the game

Unacceptable!

Comment From DeeFan DeeFan: ]

Mark, Is it likely that Melbourne can argue the fact head high contact wasn't made by the player, the interpretation of the law states that *contact* from *A* player constitutes head high contact....... is it likely Melbourne will go down that path?

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:06 DeeFan

Mark Macgugan: Question from tribunal counsel Tinney: Were you still holding Dangerfield's right arm when he hit the ground? Trengove: In such a quick situation, I didn't have time to let his arm go.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:07 Mark Macgugan

Mark Macgugan: Trengove: the club teaches us that if you can grab an arm it's definitely acceptable because it will stop the opponent from disposing of the ball. It was an accident. I didn't intend for him to get concussed. Don't think I used any unusual level of force.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:05 Mark Macgugan

The accident part, shoulda left that out!

Mark Macgugan: Tinney: you said you didn't put a great amount of force into the tackle. Didn't you put as much force as you could into it? Trengove: I don't think I did. I think the momentum was increased because we were both off balance.

Mark Macgugan: Tinney suggesting Trengove could have achieved what he was trying to without this amount of force. Trengove disagrees.

Mark Macgugan: Trengove says he is aware of his duty of care to other players. Doesn't believe he did anything wrong in this tackle. Says he was technically correct, and didn't use excessive force.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:01 Mark Macgugan

Where are you getting your live information about the hearing from??

BAILEY ORDERED THE CODE RED!!!

Gold!

I'd be pushing the precedent angle. If he gets weeks for this then every single tackle where an arm is pinned as player is tackled to the ground should be reported. The outcome, injury-wise is irrelevent. Are they prepared to suspend multiple players every week who will inevitably use the same technique? I doubt it.

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by Goodvibes

This is all a loud of rubbish. The tribunal have seen the video. They would of made up their minds already anyway.

challenge!!! umpiring was shocking all day.

I have to agree with you there - apparently it is ok for Adelaide players to trip Melbourne players in front of the umpire, because red and blue = invisibile. Just like our boys weren't getting pulled off the ball all day, and Crows weren't gifted four of their eight goals. I even saw one of the spectators run to the barrier and offer the umpire his OPSM cut out spectacles - if it wasn't so sad it would have been funny!

BAILEY ORDERED THE CODE RED!!!

You can't handle the truth...

I'm wondering if Tinney ever played football at a high level. Some of his questions reveal remarkable (deliberate?) ignorance of how the game is played.

Mark Macgugan: Tinney now summing up. He says: in the past this tackle would have been seen as acceptable. But football as changed. It must be decided in the context of the rules as they now apply, not as they used to apply.

Where are you getting your live information about the hearing from??

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113488/default.aspx?utm_source=AFL+and+club+newsletters&utm_campaign=35c7d17fa3-Runner_R8a&utm_medium=email

not so sure i would've called the Tackling Coach - coz basically, what they are inviting the Tribunal to do is say that type of tackling is ILLEGAL!

Tribunal: Damned if they do (suspend, then everything every junior footballer all around country is taught, is WRONG!)

Damned if they don't (no suspension, rules are a joke!)

very risky strategy - Tom Cruise would approve...

Mark Macgugan: Tinney now summing up. He says: in the past this tackle would have been seen as acceptable. But football as changed. It must be decided in the context of the rules as they now apply, not as they used to apply.

surely this now sets a precedent over this type of tackle, its now an immediate 2 weeks, irrespective of the outcome... pretty much you can not tackle anymore

Mark Macgugan: Tinney reading through the rules on when a tackle may be considered unreasonably dangerous. Relevant here is that the arm of the player was being held, which made it 'a tackle of an inherently dangerous kind'. Dangerfield was unable to control his movements or protect his head. Also to be considered, 'a player may not be slung or driven into the ground with an excessive level of force'. Tinney suggesting the same outcome could have been achieved with considerably less force than was used.