I hope that at the club understand the supporter base demands an appeal here, he is a clean, talented kid who plays hard, he is not a thug

I know that there is a code of conduct for this site and foul language should not be tolerated but i think the moderators should make an exception for this particular thread. What an absolute fuc**ng joke that Trengove has been suspended for 3 weeks and 2 if he accepts an early guilty plea. What an absolute fuc**ng joke. Shame on you Match review panel and more importantly the AFL who should have control over a body that make big decisions that effect all key stakeholders in the game. What an absolute disgrace i dont think ive ever been so outraged when it comes to footy. Trenners laid a great tackle which was perfectly legitimate and unfortunately for Dangerfield his head hit the ground upon impact. That is just bad luck and i hope he recovers. The two questions i want to ask though are

1. What else is Trengove meant to do? By setting this precedent they are effectively saying that you cant tackle someone to the ground because there is always a chance that the head will hit the ground especially when both arms are pinned

2. How the hell does Campbell Brown get 2 weeks for belting Callan Ward 100 metres of the ball with his elbow which too knocked the victim out? and trenners gets 3 for a great tackle.

Shame on you match review panel and the AFL. All credibility you ever had (if any) is now down the bloody toilet. Lets hope this is appealed and justice and common sense prevail. What an absolute disgrace.

Mannnn im still just sooooooo angry about this!!!

I think people may be venting in the wrong direction here. The MRP do not have discretion in applying a penalty. They have a set of very rigid guidelines to work within. If a club disagrees with the result they are able to take it to the tribunal where there is far greater flexibility. It's not the MRP that is at fault here but the people who made the sling tackle rule.

Regarding the report of high contact, once again the finger must be pointed sat the rule-makers. They determined that in this one special instance consistency can be thrown out. The rule states that should the tackled players head make contact with the ground it will be deemed as high contact. From the standpoint of a poorly designed rule the penalty applied is 100% correct.

Fortunately there are checks and balances in place in the form of the appeals system. The club can choose to take it to the tribunal and lawyer up. There they can argue that the tackle was 100% legal and bring precedent into play, siting such points as if we are to punish legal acts on the basis of injury to a player then every ACL needs to result in a 10 week suspension, the ultimate lack of consistency in a rule that says that identical acts will be punished differently depending on the result, and indeed that Dangefield contributed significantly to his own injury by refusing to attempt to protect himself and instead hurling himself into the air in n ill-advised attempt to kick the ball while being tackled.

With a bit of luck the club will back Trengove to the hilt, bring in the big guns and dare the AFL to follow through on this suspension.

I think people may be venting in the wrong direction here. The MRP do not have discretion in applying a penalty. They have a set of very rigid guidelines to work within. If a club disagrees with the result they are able to take it to the tribunal where there is far greater flexibility. It's not the MRP that is at fault here but the people who made the sling tackle rule.

Regarding the report of high contact, once again the finger must be pointed sat the rule-makers. They determined that in this one special instance consistency can be thrown out. The rule states that should the tackled players head make contact with the ground it will be deemed as high contact. From the standpoint of a poorly designed rule the penalty applied is 100% correct.

Fortunately there are checks and balances in place in the form of the appeals system. The club can choose to take it to the tribunal and lawyer up. There they can argue that the tackle was 100% legal and bring precedent into play, siting such points as if we are to punish legal acts on the basis of injury to a player then every ACL needs to result in a 10 week suspension, the ultimate lack of consistency in a rule that says that identical acts will be punished differently depending on the result, and indeed that Dangefield contributed significantly to his own injury by refusing to attempt to protect himself and instead hurling himself into the air in n ill-advised attempt to kick the ball while being tackled.

With a bit of luck the club will back Trengove to the hilt, bring in the big guns and dare the AFL to follow through on this suspension.

Yes indeed, a player in laying a tackle is unable to calculate the various balances of probability of his opponents head hitting the ground. In fact it would be difficult to deliberately lay a tackle with a view to causing a concussion. The ACL analogy is a good one. You can't justifiably single out one inadvertent consequence and not another. What about Staker on Brown?

One of the interesting things about the points accrued in the charge is that it is assessed as high contact. Correct me if im wrong but Trengove doesnt contact Dangerfield high, the ground does. Could be a legal avenue.

One of the interesting things about the points accrued in the charge is that it is assessed as high contact. Correct me if im wrong but Trengove doesnt contact Dangerfield high, the ground does. Could be a legal avenue.

The following para ex an AFL 2010 TRIBUNAL downloadable PDF herein applies.

I suspect that the AFL might have saved a few quid by having Adrian Anderson draft it personally (perhaps on the back of a beer coaster):

"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".

WE should be thankful that the example, decorously, does not involve a player's groin making forceful contact with a fence or the ground.

So to put it simply, where a Medical Report indicates significant injury to a tackled player's tackle, the tackler may be cited for high tackle impact and high tackle contact notwithstanding that the actual tackle was low and did not directly impact the tackle.

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by CHAMP

What a joke.

We should challenge and challenge hard on this one, and risk fines by criticizing it all publicly if we fail to overturn the decision. We should call members of the MRP and AFL committee to testify on a decision making process that can give Brown and Trengove the same penalty. Rules and regulations are important but natural justice is crucial. We've been screwed too often. Eddie would burn Etihad down before he let Collingwood take the field without a player suspended in these circumstances. Hell, he'd try and call the game off even if his player was obviously guilty!

Edited May 9, 201114 yr by pitchfork

Reading the Hun this morning I was surprised there was zero commentary on any outrage, surprise or criticism of this decision.

Surely someone from the club should have been beating it up with the press

This would not happen at Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn etc

Why are we so [censored] timid in these issues?

Reading the Hun this morning I was surprised there was zero commentary on any outrage, surprise or criticism of this decision.

Surely someone from the club should have been beating it up with the press

This would not happen at Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn etc

Why are we so [censored] timid in these issues?

Was too late in the day, only came through at 4pm.

So are we meant to teach kids these days to make sure they don't hold any arms in the tackle so their opponent is able to get the ball away correctly?

What a joke.

We should challenge and challenge hard on this one, and risk fines by criticizing it all publicly if we fail to overturn the decision. We should call members of the MRP and AFL committee to testify on a decision making process that can give Brown and Trengove the same penalty. Rules and regulations are important but natural justice is crucial. We've been screwed too often. Eddie would burn Etihad down before he let Collingwood take the field without a player suspended in these circumstances. Hell, he'd try and call the game off even if his player was obviously guilty!

thats exactly right!!we cant let ourselves be screwed. We need to make a stand on this one, risk getting fined by publicly stating what a joke it is, it is worth it if we rally behind a young gun who is the future of our club and one of the hardest but fairest players in the comp

The incident was assessed as negligent, high contact and based on a medical report from the Crows, was also classified as high impact.

Presume that the Crow's Doctor will resign as a result of this. Walking a player off the ground rather than getting a stretcher for a player who has received high impact to the head is clearly a risk to the players welfare. Doctor has failed in his duty of care.

The club has got to take a stand even if we do lose him for 3 weeks. It's a worthy case and they should fight it all the way. Gotta be agressive off field too.

Was too late in the day, only came through at 4pm.

somehow I don't think that would have stopped Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn etc

somehow I don't think that would have stopped Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn etc

It does stop the next-day opinionating in the papers. You very rarely get a counter-argument in the next day's paper, just an outline of the MRP findings. I'd think there will almost certainly be one tomorrow. Didn't help that there was a game - a very, very good game - on last night.

And they were talking about it on On The Couch last night.

Here it is on utube

note Dangerfield has one free arm to break fall (which he is unsuccessful with)

Also note dumb commentator comment that he had no way of protecting himself

Also notice he repeats the same tackle on another crow about 3 secs later. Gotta like his 2nd efforts.

Here it is on utube

note Dangerfield has one free arm to break fall (which he is unsuccessful with)

Also note dumb commentator comment that he had no way of protecting himself

Also noticed that Dangerfield didn't get a foot to the ball. Should have been incorrect disposal!

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by Demon Tragic

I'm not saying it warrants 2 or 3 weeks, but that was a dangerous tackle in anyone's language... and to say that Dangerfield had an arm free to save himself with is an absolute joke; get someone to tackle you at that speed and with the same ferocity and see how you go protecting yourself. Most of the people making all of the noise here would probably be making even more noise if instead of Dangerfield it had been one of our players who was tackled and the tackler got off scott free.

I would be very surprised if the club appeals as I'm sure they will realise it is better to lose him for 2 rather than 3 weeks - no point in making a "statement" when it is essentially a lost cause.

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by hardtack

At worse he should get a reprimand/warning that he has to avoid doing it in the future. He is a young gun with no record to speak of, and 2 weeks is a joke.

Dangerous Tackle!?

What is the game coming to when you can't bring a bloke to the ground who feels and tackle and tries to get a kick away.

Not in the back, not too high, doesn't pin both arms. Its a contact sport where sometimes players accidently get hurt. Trengove does absolutely nothing wrong.

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.

BASED ON A MEDICAL REPORT FROM THE CROWS!!!

The judiciary in this league is an absolute circus.

Dangerous Tackle!?

What is the game coming to when you can't bring a bloke to the ground who feels and tackle and tries to get a kick away.

Not in the back, not too high, doesn't pin both arms. Its a contact sport where sometimes players accidently get hurt. Trengove does absolutely nothing wrong.

The tackled player is not moving and a tackle could equally well have been made without slinging the player to the ground in that manner; when head injuries and concussion are very prominent issues at the moment, do you seriously believe the MRP is going to overlook that?

The tackled player is not moving and a tackle could equally well have been made without slinging the player to the ground in that manner; when head injuries and concussion are very prominent issues at the moment, do you seriously believe the MRP is going to overlook that?

They over look it every match when players don't get concussed by it. The sling tackle is either illegal and whenever it's applied a player should be suspended (there were half a dozen of these in the match last night). Or it's legal. You can't just single one out cause the player who's been tackled is more prone to concussion then others.