What would of happened if a holding the ball decision was paid. That would be extremely embarassing for the AFL and it could of happened Dangerfield didn't correctly dispose of the footy, an umpire on the right angle could of easy awarded a free kick to Trengove. This is scary you can lay a legal tackle on Sunday get a free kick and be rubbed out on Monday.

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by drdrake

The problem I have with this whole system is that it has no feel for the game.

And also that they have their favourites in there. Judd would NEVER get suspended for this tackle. Ever. Tinney would be told by Vlad to argue that "it was forceful but part of the game".

I'm sick of our players being made examples of. It was a rubbish citing, a rubbish ruling and a rubbish decision, and we're weak if we don't take this to the next level and appeal, on principle if nothing else.

Agree 100%. You can bet your last dollar if it was Judd there is no way he would have even got cited let alone 3 weeks.

Better than that. Compile a list of all similar incidents and send it to Carro or Grant Thomas on Footy Classified, watch them turn the blowtorch.

If the club just lays down and accepts this then they are wishy washy, week kneed fluffs. Eddie McEverywhere would appeal to the courts or whatever it took to deal with.

This is an injustice and we need to be heard at whatever level it takes.

C'mon Melbourne make some noise and get this decision overturned, because no reasonable judiciary could reasonably find in this manner!

There are many previous similar happenings that were not dealt with in this same way.

If the club just lays down and accepts this then they are wishy washy, week kneed fluffs. Eddie McEverywhere would appeal to the courts or whatever it took to deal with.

This is an injustice and we need to be heard at whatever level it takes.

C'mon Melbourne make some noise and get this decision overturned, because no reasonable judiciary could reasonably find in this manner!

There are many previous similar happenings that were not dealt with in this same way.

I actually hope that someone like Eddie comments on this is as this is bigger than just a MFC issue as its a disgraceful decision that devalues a fundamental component of the game.

I actually hope that someone like Eddie comments on this is as this is bigger than just a MFC issue as its a disgraceful decision that devalues a fundamental component of the game.

Eddie on Triple M this morning commented on it saying he believes it was a joke of a decision which was back by Darcy.

The slinging concept is more a cause of the players being tackled constantly dropping there knees trying for the 'in the back' free kick its just that the elevation and head contact made it so worse. If anything, the AFL should give the MCG turf a couple weeks for the negligent contact to the head.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-plan-appeal-against-jack-trengove-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1226053760226

Luke Darcy's comments on the "precedent" case of Mumford v Ablett

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=94242

Interestingly in that case Mumford went to the tribunal and whilst facing three weeks he got two weeks as the charge was downgraded.

This stinks...Bruce McAvaney stating that Adelaide had sent a DVD re: Tippet not getting free kicks...Damning medical report from Adelaide...Tribunal told to disregard the medical report and look solely at the action of Trengove...4 minutes worth of deliberation...I smell a rat.

Luke Darcy's comments on the "precedent" case of Mumford v Ablett

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=94242

Interestingly in that case Mumford went to the tribunal and whilst facing three weeks he got two weeks as the charge was downgraded.

This stinks...Bruce McAvaney stating that Adelaide had sent a DVD re: Tippet not getting free kicks...Damning medical report from Adelaide...Tribunal told to disregard the medical report and look solely at the action of Trengove...4 minutes worth of deliberation...I smell a rat.

From that article:

I wish the match review panel would follow a similar rule. I’d call it the Mumford Rule. If a member of the panel is in doubt on whether to suspend a player on the basis of a technical legal charge - such as ‘negligence’ - then he/she should defer to the lesser charge or the alternative of finding the player not guilty.

Had a laugh reading that article stating that Darcy thought himself a QC after 3 appearances at the tribunal in quick succession. I think he made a good move at the time requesting that the vision be reviewed in real time rather than frame by frame.

I think this weekend against Norf the club should wear black arm bands for the death of common sense.

Seems Trengove's got the full support from the playing group:

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

Great to see the players showing their frustration

''I can't say a real lot because we are going through the process of looking at a challenge through appeal, see if we can satisfy the AFL guidelines in regards to an appeal,'' Notman told SEN radio.

''Watch this space, some things may happen during the day. We assessing it as we speak.''

I think Melbourne should supply all Norf players with US gridiron helmets for this weeks game

How's that for duty of care?

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.

See stinga's post.

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.

This is actually a quite relevant case study - this is the Rule/ Law Trenners was charged under:

"Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a player's head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending player. By way of example, should the player tackle another player around the waist, and as a result of the tackle, the tackled player's head make forceful contact with the fence or ground, the contact in these circumstances would be classified as high even tough the tackle was to the body".

Hansen was nearly hospitalised for a spinal injury!!!! Chapling should've been facing EXACT SAME 3 WEEK BAN - but more reasonably so, as he deliberately pushed a guy into a fence (as opposed to, yknow, tackling a dude!!!)

WHERE'S THE PARITY!???

Emmett Dunne, Wayne Schimmelbusch and Wayne Henwood.

So apparently these are the blokes that decide what the game of AFL football is today

Proposed banners for Kangas match:

DON'T TACKLE!!!

BAILEY ORDERED THE CODE RED!!

View from an experienced tribunal watcher

Trengove tackle ban threatens fabric of game

I heard the US marines sent in J Trengove to Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden by Tackle.....

Superman got tackled by Trengove, thats how Christopher Reeve ended up a Paraplegic....

The AFL acted on behalf of the US government, prior to playing for the dees, he was employed by Saddam Hussein as the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION....

/ok thats enough now.....

biggest joke about trengove getting 3 weeks is he still gets 0.25 carry over points.

This may have already been said in the past 12 pages....

Wtf are you on about ?

Wtf are you on about!

It's obvious, we must continue to be aggressive at the ball and the contest. NOT return to the way we were playing. Really simple HT.. Basic football element.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-plan-appeal-against-jack-trengove-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1226053760226

We are appealing it. Well done MFC that is excellent. Must and are appealing it if we are to be taken seriously, even if we lose, they will think twice before putting us and JT through such rubbish next time!

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/113615/default.aspx

Trengove can be named in the starting 22 on Thursday. If the suspension remains, he will be replaced with an emergency by Friday at noon.

I like the 'Bailey ordered the Code Red' banner. That'd be awesome.

So let me get this right ... you can kick an opposition player in the nuts/balls behind play yet you cant tackle him when he has the ball.

Very interesting precedent this decision might set.

Edited May 11, 201114 yr by hangon007