wow

3 is a bit harsh

better off hittin a bloke behind the footy cambell brown style

a fuking disgrace AFL! Same penalty as elbowing someone in the head youve go to be joking. This comp is a joke!

+1. Ridiculous decision, what a joke...

register your displeasure directly to the great man himself

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

Isnt he supposed to get some sort of discount as he has a clean record?

He could have accepted two weeks, that was his 'discount'. Oh well, Crows have the last laugh. They played like garbage, but get a giggle over causing this. Next time one of our players gets hurt, I hope we kick up a stink and cause the MRP to have a hearing. All 17 teams should - then the system would become so unworkable, it would fall over. It's called 'civil obedience' - insisting on the enforcement of your rights by a system that isn't capable of enforcing everyones!

Watch out North - you had better not sneeze on any of our players and give them a cold - or it's the tribunal for you!!!!

(*NB: protest does not = start a new thread

they can appeal - and should!

AFL boxed themselves in irreparably and stupidly here...

Evidence was that that is how players are TAUGHT to tackle

Laws of AFL now state you can't tackle like that - so for us to challenge it meant they had 2 options:

1) agree with the MRP, and make it known that now every tackler has been taught wrong, and every player will now have to adjust EVERY tackle they make from hereon in - BUT the Laws are correct!

Or

2) overule the MRP, thereby making a mockery of their particularly incompetent, and never road-tested Laws!

This all evolved from the MEDICAL REPORT of DField - ie the RESULT/ IMPACT! Thereby negating the fact that the tackle WAS actually legit!

Seriously - i saw 2 of these tackles in last nights game, but nobody with a predisposition to concussion was tackled, thereby there will be NO report!

Ass-backwards logic of the Laws has just shunted the game back decades, long-term, and hurt the Demons badly (and Trengove's fine record) in the short-term for NO JUST RESULT!!

I hope someone on here knows how to get some reporters to convey some of our thoughts.

This is an absolute travesty

Very tempted to watch as many games as possible this weekend, put together a compilation of the same tackles that do NOT cause a concussion and send it to Footy Classified or something.

Can someone explain to me how he gets charged for high contact when it is actually the turf that contacts his head?

If Dangerfield had of broken his arm from the tackle, which is a far worse injury, the activation points would not be as great due to high contact being ommitted, and he would get less weeks. Doesn't make any sense to me, and I think we should challenge this further.

I honestly can't believe this result.

wot a load of carp, the afl stinks of foul smelling stale fish !

Who the [censored] is this Andrew Tinney?? Who'd he play for? Where did he get his footy experience?

Couple of tweets:

Col Sylvia: Can not believe it - guilty @jtren9 to miss the next 3weeks, shattering for him & the team!!! I'm scared to tackle now...

Luke Tapscott: @Real_ColSylvia are we allowed to tackle anymore?

James Frawley: I thought my mate played for the Melbourne demons.... Not the Melbourne vixens!!!

Mark Robinson: lack of duty of care, said tribunal. lack of understanding, says most of the rest of us

Brad Green: Duty of care??? It was the perfect tackle...

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by Striker475

register your displeasure directly to the great man himself

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

Settle down. As much as I think the decision stinks for the spirit and the future direction of the game, Tinney is the Tribunal Advocate. His role is to argue the case for the charge, much like the prosecution in a legal case. Firing off e-mails to him will achieve nothing.

In the immediate term, all the club can do is appeal, and in the long run lobby to have the tribunal penalty system revised so a strong tackle in the heat of the game doesn't get as much of a penalty as a sniping elbow behind play.

Expected result. The AFL are now clear on the fact that a negligent tackle resulting in the head hitting the ground, is worse than a king hit with a fist to the head. Seems like a strange way of judging it.

register your displeasure directly to the great man himself

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

I guess his email box will be full tomorrow morning! My 2c is there! :) :) :)

Am I right in thinking that Tinney plays the role of "prosecutor" in this tribunal?

Brad Green - Duty of care??? It was the perfect tackle...

Bring on the real appeal. We are well within our rights to take this to arbitration outside of the AFL system. That way we avoid the unholy influence of Vlad and co. No way in hell can the charge be realistically upheld in an impartial court.

Can someone explain to me how he gets charged for high contact when it is actually the turf that contacts his head?

If Dangerfield had of broken his arm from the tackle, which is a far worse injury, the activation points would not be as great due to high contact being ommitted, and he would get less weeks. Doesn't make any sense to me, and I think we should challenge this further.

Trengrove grabbed Dangerfield around the waist - apparently that is the new 'too high'. If you grab around the legs, it is tripping. Next week expect to see players grabbing each others buttocks - because that's about the only area left available for tackling now!

How is Jeff White's face not high? Colin Sylvia's jaw? Has the AFL really thought this one through?

I didn't think it possible, but this decision is worse than the Moloney decision of "he didn't make contact but he could have" back in 2007.

Very tempted to watch as many games as possible this weekend, put together a compilation of the same tackles that do NOT cause a concussion and send it to Footy Classified or something.

I would love you to do that !!! I dare say you could pull at least 30 + tackels where players grab a arm and sling them to ground !!!

Settle down. As much as I think the decision stinks for the spirit and the future direction of the game, Tinney is the Tribunal Advocate. His role is to argue the case for the charge, much like the prosecution in a legal case. Firing off e-mails to him will achieve nothing.

In the immediate term, all the club can do is appeal, and in the long run lobby to have the tribunal penalty system revised so a strong tackle in the heat of the game doesn't get as much of a penalty as a sniping elbow behind play.

It is obvious given his previous instances re Steven Baker/Steve Johnson case that he goes beyond what is called for as the tribunal advocate and his healthy ego requires him to leave his stamp on proceedings. I fail to see how a lawyer can question or adjudicate on matters of tackling technique and whether Trengove could have used less force.

Question is why didnt Kennedy get 3 weeks for breaking Sylvia's jaw???

register your displeasure directly to the great man himself

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

Not much point going after Tinney. He didn't make the decision. Bombard Vlad, the AFL, their facebook page...

Can someone explain to me how he gets charged for high contact when it is actually the turf that contacts his head?

If Dangerfield had of broken his arm from the tackle, which is a far worse injury, the activation points would not be as great due to high contact being ommitted, and he would get less weeks. Doesn't make any sense to me, and I think we should challenge this further.

Tinney said we were playing on our "home turf" hence making Trengove responisble for the turf.

Joke lol