On 09/05/2011 at 05:55, Clay Sampson said:

I just finished re-watching the game and it there was no malice to it at all. Would be extremely unlucky. Must challenge this.

Definately challenge. The kids got a clean record & is cit of the right stuff.

Ps: You can bet Carltoon or the pies or bombnerds would scream Black & White, till their Red faces turned Blue.

If I recall well, it appeared Patrick landed on his right side first and then his head bounced on the ground. I think this may be worth appealing but I don't think we would get the same sympathy that the filth get when they appeal a suspension. Whatever happens, its great to see some robust tackling from us. Whens the last time we had a suspension?

Bartram tackles like this every week, just hasn't done it to anyone with a floppy neck yet.

  On 09/05/2011 at 06:42, No16 said:

From the AFL Website...

Trengove was charged with a level three engaging in rough conduct offence against Adelaide's Patrick Dangerfield in the third quarter of Melbourne's win on Sunday.

Dangerfield was helped from the ground and was immediately substituted off after hitting his head on the ground in a Trengove tackle.

The incident was assessed as negligent, high contact and based on a medical report from the Crows, was also classified as high impact, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match ban.

An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 243.75 and a two-match ban.

the negligent aspect is debatable

high contact for an arm tackle is just ridiculous

CHALLENGE it MFC

How about accidental, low contact, high impact - NOT GUILTY

Match review panel should be taken out back and flogged to within a inch of their sorry pathetic lives, then the afl and the toss pots who come up with this system. A system where you can kick a guy in the nuts, deliberately and get off, king hit a guy with the elbow and only get two weeks.

They are a joke, this sport is becoming embarassing and hard to stomach, I would rather the club come out and say that was a perfect tackle and we will contest this cos it's rubbish, the MRP are rubbish, and we as a club will not put up with our players being given 3 weeks for that. I'd rather see him miss 3 than plead guilty to a good tackle, he has the ball the whole time, and unlike Brown it was not his intention to grab the arm and slam his head into the ground, it happened, like it's happened for years and will happen for years more until we get so soft that we add flags to the uniforms and play touch football.

This must be challenged, I don't see how it could be called negligent. It was a tackle in the heat of battle.

Negligent is when somebody gets punched intentionally...ie Campbell Brown.

Colin Sylvia says hello whilst drinking a smoothie through a straw.

i am so sick of the MRP, the rules are moved weekly.

MRP are the most disjointed part of the game. NFI. I understand they don't want to see the NRL 'chicken wing' tackle, but there was no malice in this, yet he appears to me made an example of.

High contact! the MCG turf should get 4 weeks because JT never touched his head.

I'd argue ACCIDENTAL instead of NEGLIGENT given that Dangerfield only had one arm pinned in the tackle, he still had an arm free to brace himself for the fall.

I'd also argue that the contact was not high between the two players. I'd also argue that Adrian Anderson is a complete toss pot and if he expects us to believe that this process is completely independant and there is no AFL intervention then is he treating the sporting public with contempt! Ridiculous report, MUST challege!

Tks Redleg.

There has to be doubt re the negligent accusation under the circumstances.

325 points!!

That's probably more than the combined career total for Cambell Brown and Jarred Waite and will take another three weeks off total competition suspensions to catch up.

Something is very silly here. Does not stack up.

  On 09/05/2011 at 07:04, daisycutter said:

the negligent aspect is debatable

high contact for an arm tackle is just ridiculous

CHALLENGE it MFC

How about accidental, low contact, high impact - NOT GUILTY

you doing anything tomorrow night daisycutter QC?

  On 09/05/2011 at 07:12, Demon Tragic said:

I'd also argue that Adrian Anderson is a complete toss pot

You would win that argument everytime. stop talking so much sense. what he played at uni blues or something didn't he. the umpires have more sense than him, they don't want grey areas. Adrian just keeps on creating them.

Jarryd Waite kicks a bloke in the Cod area in Round 1 and is free to play the following week. Trengove gets 2 weeks for a tackle going for the ball.

"Better get a lawyer son, Better get a real good one" Tex Perkins & the Cruel Sea...

  On 09/05/2011 at 07:21, why you little said:

Jarryd Waite kicks a bloke in the Cod area in Round 1 and is free to play the following week. Trengove gets 2 weeks for a tackle going for the ball.

"Better get a lawyer son, Better get a real good one" Tex Perkins & the Cruel Sea...

Why they've got people in HIGH places, and they Own AFL property. So the AFL must cut them blues some slack.

  On 09/05/2011 at 06:42, No16 said:

From the AFL Website...

Trengove was charged with a level three engaging in rough conduct offence against Adelaide's Patrick Dangerfield in the third quarter of Melbourne's win on Sunday.

Dangerfield was helped from the ground and was immediately substituted off after hitting his head on the ground in a Trengove tackle.

The incident was assessed as negligent, high contact and based on a medical report from the Crows, was also classified as high impact, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match ban.

An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 243.75 and a two-match ban.

Negligent - this implies the player made contact without due regard to the rules. However, I would suggest that he did, considering the tackle was made well within the rules (Dangerfield had the ball, was made in correct area of body etc). The only thing possibly out of place was the holding of the arm, which 9/10 tackles do now in order to stop a player from handballing.

High contact - contact above the shoulders. Trengove did NOT make contact above the shoulders, it was entirely around Dangerfield's waist. The only contact above the shoulders was that of Dangerfield's head impacting the ground.

Injury report - Okay, forgive me for being Dees-biased, but they've based it off a Crows report, not an independent one.

I'm bloody shocked that THAT was a 3-week offence.

  On 09/05/2011 at 07:15, Grimes to Watts said:

you doing anything tomorrow night daisycutter QC?

I'd just take out an injunction, drag it out for 6 months or more till they crumble - tosspots is too generous!

Haha. This is seriously a joke. I understand the AFL's desire to protect players but FFS....

Out: Trengove, Grimes......FFFuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu are out.

Fair tackle that ended unfavourably for Dangerfield, that's all there is to it.

If you bump a player and he does a hammy, will you get done for that too?

What a joke.

  On 09/05/2011 at 07:41, Deez Nutz said:

Fair tackle that ended unfavourably for Dangerfield, that's all there is to it.

If you bump a player and he does a hammy, will you get done for that too?

What a joke.

yes......if the hammy is above the shoulder

THE MFC showed fight on field this week, I trust we will do the same off it.

We must defend this kid, it is a very serious charge against his character and can impact in many ways.

No one wanted to see Dangerfield hurt, I imagine least of all Trengove.

Probably an unfair analogy but one wonders what Kennett or Eddie would be saying if JT were one of theirs.

Trengove's tackle was dangerous and he injured the player. You can't pin a blokes arm and fling him into the turf. As soon as I watched it I thought he would get reported.

However the problem for me is the consistency. Trengove, with a clean record, carelessly tackles someone with the ball and gets two weeks, repeat offender Judd splits someone’s face open or eye gougers them and the AFL say it's fine. Serial sniper Campell Brown's King hit is not as bad as Trengoves tackle? The AFL corruption in the match review process is astonishing.

just saw this on the news. disgraceful. 3 weeks with no early plea?? are you serious?????

this is nearly as bad as brent moloneys no contact suspension

isn't james mcdonald on the tribunal commitee

  On 09/05/2011 at 07:48, Dockett 32 said:

THE MFC showed fight on field this week, I trust we will do the same off it.

We must defend this kid, it is a very serious charge against his character and can impact in many ways.

I agree that MFC should stand up. But only after:

1. making a careful study of previous similar events and outcomes

2. finding out how much the penalty would be reduced if some of the elements were disproved (eg the head high contact fairy-tale)

3. from this, working out the probability of success, presenting it all to Trengove and asking him if he personally wants to take the risk, putting no pressure on him either way.

edit adding: Of course this is all made difficult by the corruption of the process, but still needs to be worked through. Now if only the MFC tells them that Trengove is transferring to carlton next week....

Ridiculous, it was a great tackle, Jack couldnt help how Dangerfield fell. The MRP is pathetic

As soon as it happened I thought Trengove would be reported but I thought only a reprimand at best. Im sure Jack didnt mean to concuss him and 3 weeks is a disgrace. If Dangerfield plays this week then Jack should be let off. Im not sure weather its a risk fighting it. he would be a huge loss for 3 weeks.

Maybe melbourne could speak to the storm because they have had to deal with the chicken wing tackles before.

Trengove would be a massive loss. I dont know to who would replace him