Quote

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.

Don't most tackles these days involve grabbing one arm to stop them handballing? Will they charge them all?

"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."

Sounds as if he's gone.....

  On 10/05/2011 at 09:18, RalphiusMaximus said:

Don't most tackles these days involve grabbing one arm to stop them handballing? Will they charge them all?

they sure do, this is a joke.

Mark Macgugan: Trengove's advocate Iain Findlay now summing up.

  Quote

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.

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.

Doesn't look great.

Mark Macgugan: Findlay saying Trengove didn't sling Dangerfield. Trengove was knocked off balance.

Mark Macgugan: Findlay saying the umpires were right there and called play on. They saw it as a fair tackle.

can anyone tell me what quarter and at what minute of the game, i wanna have another look at the tackle

  On 10/05/2011 at 09:22, Sturmmann said:

can anyone tell me what quarter and at what minute of the game, i wanna have another look at the tackle

i think it was the third

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: There is a temptation to be distracted by the end result. But the tackle itself was a fair and reasonable attempt to dispossess Dangerfield and bring him to the ground. The end result was an accident. Draws a comparison to Jonathan Brown's facial injury earlier this season, suffered in an accidental collision.

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: The force Trengove used was legitimate and within the rules.

  On 10/05/2011 at 09:22, Sturmmann said:

can anyone tell me what quarter and at what minute of the game, i wanna have another look at the tackle

Go to post 117.

like another poster wrote, Dangerfield was going for a kick which had him unbalanced hence the severity of the impact, 2 seconds later he does the same thing... WTF

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: "This, I would submit to you gentlemen, was nothing more than an accident."

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: It's not Trengove's fault that Dangerfield was knocked out. He applied the tackle as he had been taught, within the laws and spirit of the game. We believe the charge should be dismissed.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:27 Mark Macgugan

Ian Findlay = Perry Mason

I like his style B)

  On 10/05/2011 at 09:22, Sturmmann said:

can anyone tell me what quarter and at what minute of the game, i wanna have another look at the tackle

Check it out here:

  On 10/05/2011 at 09:26, Deeoldfart said:

Go to post 117.

Cheers, I found it.

Looks like he is getting 3 weeks for tackling a player, looks like there will be plenty of 3 week suspensions in the coming weeks...

I think we've made a very good argument on a number of grounds. If he still gets suspended then every player in the AFL will get suspended at some point for a tackle as the interpretation stands.

  On 10/05/2011 at 09:25, waynewussell said:

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: There is a temptation to be distracted by the end result. But the tackle itself was a fair and reasonable attempt to dispossess Dangerfield and bring him to the ground. The end result was an accident. Draws a comparison to Jonathan Brown's facial injury earlier this season, suffered in an accidental collision.

this is the main feature here - but conversely, also the SOLE reason why he was charged!!!!

AFL have tied themselves in a knot with this one!

Mark Macgugan: David Jones (tribunal chairman) instructing panel on factors to consider when deliberating. Reminds them to focus on the conduct, not the consequence to the tackled player.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 19:33 Mark Macgugan

  Quote

Mark Macgugan:

David Jones (tribunal chairman) instructing panel on factors to consider when deliberating. Reminds them to focus on the conduct, not the consequence to the tackled player.

If they stick to that he gets off. We see dozens of these tackles every week.

  Quote

Mark Macgugan:

David Jones (tribunal chairman) instructing panel on factors to consider when deliberating. Reminds them to focus on the conduct, not the consequence to the tackled player.

Based on that, he'll get off.

Mark Macgugan: Everyone has now left the room to allow the tribunal to come to a decision. Back soon.

  On 10/05/2011 at 09:34, Striker475 said:

Based on that, he'll get off.

seems so, but you never know with these kids...