BAILEY ORDERED THE CODE RED!!

"...We use words like HONOUR, CODE, LOYALTY...we use these words of a life spent defending something..you use them as a punchline !"

Great movie.

Note the edit rogue...

I made it before you had even posted.

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

His job is to present the opposing view to the best of his abilities.

If he was so wrong we should have been able to rebut his assertions.

If we did so then the problem is, as I suggested, with the tribunal.

"...We use words like HONOUR, CODE, LOYALTY...we use these words of a life spent defending something..you use them as a punchline !"

Great movie.

was on Nine on Sunday night, can't believe how apt it has become

I made it before you had even posted.

But not before I clicked reply...hence I acknowledged your edit...

His job is to present the opposing view to the best of his abilities.

If he was so wrong we should have been able to rebut his assertions.

If we did so then the problem is, as I suggested, with the tribunal.

I understand his roll and my comment was fair...agree with the rest.

Demi Moore was pretty hot back then, even with that shouse haircut

I made it before you had even posted.

His job is to present the opposing view to the best of his abilities.

If he was so wrong we should have been able to rebut his assertions.

If we did so then the problem is, as I suggested, with the tribunal.

Hey Rogue, you seem to have a good handle on tribunal and legal matters, possibly operate in the field???

Just a question, in my limited exposure to law at uni it was mentioned that a duty of care was breached if it was reasonably forseeable that said action would result in negligence...hope I got that right, its been a while. With Mr Tinney declaring that a duty of care was owed to Dangerfield why cant we argue that it was not reasonably forseeable that Dangerfield would suffer a concussion as Trengove executed what many to believe a textbook tackle and that there could be up to 20 instances in a match where similar tackles do not result in concussions.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Hey Rogue, you seem to have a good handle on tribunal and legal matters, possibly operate in the field???

Just a question, in my limited exposure to law at uni it was mentioned that a duty of care was breached if it was reasonably forseeable that said action would result in negligence...hope I got that right, its been a while. With Mr Tinney declaring that a duty of care was owed to Dangerfield why cant we argue that it was not reasonably forseeable that Dangerfield would suffer a concussion as Trengove executed what many to believe a textbook tackle and that there could be up to 20 instances in a match where similar tackles do not result in concussions.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Redleg and Whispering Jack are the ones you should be asking; I think Redleg even posted earlier that he'd represented Melbourne players before the tribunal in the past.

I think the Dees did argue along the lines that you're suggesting; we'll see what happens tomorrow night.

As much as I don't want to see Trengove suspended, I don't think the MRP had much alternative than to acknowledge the injury to Pat Pangerfield. The type of tackling where players arms or hands are pinned and they are defenceless, is very dangerous and needs to be looked at closely. Think about that incident when Guerra pinned Bruce's arms and rammed him into the ground. It ruined a season that had begun brilliantly for Bruce and probably destroyed any appetite that he did have for the contest in the future. Remember how we bayed for Guerra's blood. The fact is, chicken wing tackles are going to result in a tragedy and the AFL needs to get fair dinkum in addressing it.

It has become clear that a great emphasis had been placed on tackling pressure and technique during the week. I do think Trengove has been really stiff and I loved the way he played on Sunday. He was doing exactly what he was told to do. That technique has been taught. He made every tackle stick and worked his butt off. At the game you could see that he wanted the Adelaide players to really know they had been tackled. He is a gem.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have a hope in hell as far as winning the appeal is concerned. The AFL cannot afford to backflip. Unless our legal team can produce some very clever evidence it seems like a the MRP's ruling will stick.

Edited May 12, 201114 yr by btdemon

Hey Rogue, you seem to have a good handle on tribunal and legal matters, possibly operate in the field???

Just a question, in my limited exposure to law at uni it was mentioned that a duty of care was breached if it was reasonably forseeable that said action would result in negligence...hope I got that right, its been a while. With Mr Tinney declaring that a duty of care was owed to Dangerfield why cant we argue that it was not reasonably forseeable that Dangerfield would suffer a concussion as Trengove executed what many to believe a textbook tackle and that there could be up to 20 instances in a match where similar tackles do not result in concussions.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

You're going down the right track, but there are issues here that you've missed.

The first is that this is a sporting game, in which players consent to various actions which, off the field, would be assault/battery/negligence. So it's too simplistic to just apply the regular notions of negligence to a sports game. When footballers talk about a 'duty of care' you should not necessarily equate that with a legal 'duty of care', it is more a duty to protect fellow players from incurring injuries that are outside of the spirit of the game.

Assuming Trengove did in fact owe Dangerfield a 'duty of care', to determine a breach requires an assessment of what he could have done to avoid the alleged breach and how difficult it would have been for him to take alternative action. It would also involve an assessment of what a 'reasonable person' would have done in the circumstances.

All in all, though, the phrase 'duty of care' is being bandied around the AFL without its proper meaning. What people are referring to is that players need to excercise a standard of care towards each other, and when they don't, they become liable to suspension from the MRP/Tribunal/Appeals Board. It's not really a legal term, and thus applying legal principles isn't terribly appropriate.