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.

That is one of my beefs. If you have to contact some one high for it to be high contact then this one is not. If however contact can be high without personal contact, say pushed over and hits head on fence or ground or another players boot, then you are guilty of high contact for a legal push. That can't be right. That means if something is legal and then there is accidental contact with something or someone else you can be found guilty, that is a nonsense. That is like saying you bump into someone accidentally in the street and they fall over and therefore you are guilty of assault if they are hurt, but not guilty if they are not as it was an accident.

This was not a spear tackle, nor the pinning of both arms and then driving a player head first into the ground. This was one arm held and a grab around the waist and then swinging the player around and down to the ground. In the words of Robert Walls it was a "perfect tackle".

This must be challenged.

Just like Shane Mumford last year, I fear Jack will be a victim of what is a flaw in the points system of the MRP.

The MRP deemed that Trengove made rough conduct that was HIGH CONTACT and HIGH IMPACT. This is factually incorrect.

It was Dangerfield's contact and impact with the GROUND that was high, not Trengove's contact with him - which, at the end of the day was a tackle that was deemed too rough.

Fair enough if they want to outlaw those type of tackles in my opinion, but Trengove's suspension will be way higher than it ought to be, based on the points system which has deemed it to be over 300 points (i.e. 3 games), simply because they are determining that it was Trengove making the high contact and impact with Dangerfield - and not an unfortunate result of a rough tackle, which at the end of the day probably deserves a reprimand at most.

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.

You get no argument from me on that point... but let's face it, since when has the MRP ever been consistent in it's application of "justice"? I would make the same argument about intent... if a player goes in with a swinging arm intentionally and misses, then I believe that player should get the same penalty they would have received if they had connected - if you are going to eradicate certain "behaviour", then intent and actual contact should be regarded equally (but that is a whole different kettle of fish).

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.

i appreciate that the Sling Tackle has always been outlawed - in the "classical" sense, that you weren't allowed to grab a player by the jumper and swing him 360 to the ground - its excessive and unwarranted.

However, this is a TACKLE! A Dangerous Tackle (in anyone's language) would be a spike tackle, or regulation dumping. Players are taught to tackle the person to the ground!

(am also disgusted that AFL have all but abandoned the 'dropping the ball' as holding the ball these day, which DField did, but comment for another time)

i would have ZERO problem if this had occurred to one of our players

i hardly think its a lost cause - as stated above, the technical definition of the rule applies here (notwithstanding its a CROWS medical relied upon!) - but it is commonplace that a tribunal comprised of former players will look at this objectively, likely have regard to where else they have applied a 2 week penalty (Brown, Tambling), and come to legit conclusion that it was a LEGIT TACKLE which had unfortunate consequences which were unavoidable!

By this setting a precedent, in turn, meaning to 'untrain' players in their methods of tackling, is unfeasible!

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?

He is a smaller bodied player who puts his weight into the tackle to bring the player down. He has an arm free to protect himself but chooses to try and get a kick away instead.

Well, let's hope you are right AllenIsLord13... but I still get the feeling he is gone regardless. One thing though, I think this querying of the medical report simply because it was a club doctor's report doesn't hold much water. These people are qualified practitioners and stand to lose a lot if they are found to be "tampering" - if a doctor's report based on a player's condition at that time cannot be trusted, then what other options are available?

WE ARE CONTESTING!

HUN Article

MFC Website

Well, let's hope you are right AllenIsLord13... but I still get the feeling he is gone regardless. One thing though, I think this querying of the medical report simply because it was a club doctor's report doesn't hold much water. These people are qualified practitioners and stand to lose a lot if they are found to be "tampering" - if a doctor's report based on a player's condition at that time cannot be trusted, then what other options are available?

yea i realise it will likely be impartial - just wanted to throw in some topical bias

Interesting quote from the Hun:

Trengove's suspension comes after the Dees turned to former Melbourne Storm skipper Robbie Kearns for a swift lesson in tackling, an area badly lacking in the loss to West Coast in Round 6.

"Robbie came and spoke to us ... about the culture that Melbourne Storm have, how tackling is their major focus," Colin Garland said yesterday.

BLAME THE NRL!!!!

GOOD

... 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......

No joke, he has one arm free. He didn't have both arms pinned. Having one arm free has got to give a better chance of breaking fall than none. It was such a fast tackle that he either didn't have time or was too focussed on trying to get a boot to the ball and using that arm for balance. Its quite feasible that a perfectly legal, very fast tackle, where tacklee has both arms free could still strike head on turf, so the fact that a player hits head on turf because of a tackle does not mean the tackle was illegal

It was a very well executed fast tackle and granted it was brutal, but this does not in itself make it illegal. Any time a tackle takes a player to the ground there is a possibility of the head hitting the turf. Are we to ban tackles that take player to the ground?

I emphasised the fact that ti was a fast tackle, because it was one single action. It wasn't a case of tie up player, pause, then drive him into the turf.

Based on the Mumford case see link

http://tinyurl.com/3v672bu

i think we are shagged

Good to see we are contesting this.

What are they constesting? The charge, the grading or the severity? Cantact was high according to the rules, impact was proven to be high impact.

The AFL made it clear with Mumford that they want this out of the game. I think the three matches will stand.

Cantact was high according to the rules

Which rule is that? If you're that confident, quote it.

At least they are appealing and not accepting a poor decision.

What are they constesting? The charge, the grading or the severity? Cantact was high according to the rules, impact was proven to be high impact.

The AFL made it clear with Mumford that they want this out of the game. I think the three matches will stand.

High?!

Trengove was closer to his little head than his big head...

What are they constesting? The charge, the grading or the severity? Cantact was high according to the rules, impact was proven to be high impact.

The AFL made it clear with Mumford that they want this out of the game. I think the three matches will stand.

Can we argue that no negligence was shown.Trengove did not pin both arms, leaving the player with one arm free to brace for the fall. He tackled the player with intent to bring him to ground on his side or back, the fact that Dangerfield turned in the air as a result of his attempt to kick the ball, not a poorly laid tackle by Tregove.

Few points to go on there.

Which rule is that? If you're that confident, quote it.

someone quoted it on page before:

"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".

so theoretically, to stretch this analogy to its most ludicrous conclusion, you could push a player in the side - he falls into an opposing players shin - gets a broken jaw = high contact/ 3 weeks!

"he would have been better off Mule kicking him in the plums" +1. (from the HUNs comments section.)

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.

Best post on this site. While we think the penalty seems inappropriate the whole point of the MRP process is take away from the decision-makers the subjective assessments which subsequently lead to inconsistencies (at best) and accusations of bias (at worst). But the MRP has a grading system which , to me, needs further refinement. It's not the MRP's fault - it's the ranking criteria they have to use.

If nothing else, I would hope the Trengove and Brown cases cause a review of the parameters under which the MRP operates. The logic of the MRP/appeal process is sound, but the gradings given are out of whack. In my view an off the ball incident should be penalised more than something which occurs in play. (Of course, under such a weighting Tappy might have been suspended rather than reprimanded for his off the ball bump a week or two ago.)

The AFL have to wipe these kinds of injuries out of the game. No one wants to see a player sustain a serious brain injury. Trengove and others will learn to temper the sling on their tackles to avoid injury which is a good thing. Personally a reprimand would of sufficed but that's the MRP. Anyone calling the game soft for these kinds of rule amendments is a fool. The games more physically demanding than at anytime in it's history. The fact that the AFL has virtually stamped out striking and is now protecting player welfare should be applauded. I'm just not sure what's so tough about hitting a player with eyes for the ball or slamming an opponents head into the ground but that's me.

Pretty sure the AFL want to rule out tackles such as this one where both arms are pinned then you are driven into the ground...

Trengove's is nothing like this...

Would have a better chance if Mick Gatto took on the job.

No we wouldn't, we play Carltoon in a couple of weeks. Lookin' forward!

And the good news is...

Trengove to challenge!

Great call by the club. Knock this on the head right now and lets get the kid on the field against North this weekend.

FFS... this is a no-brainer. Trenners had slung Dangerfield all in one motion and WHILST he was trying to dispose of the ball! It wasn't like the Milburn tackle - THAT was careless and unnecessary and after disposal of the ball (such is Milburn though).

As for Mumford's... remember that the guy is a 100kg+ ruckman!!! Dangerfield is probably heavier with more muscle mass than Trengove? It's all relative!

This should never have gone this far... it was a superb tackle with ILLEGAL DISPOSAL. Players get hurt, such is footy. It was a textbook tackle (not a chicken-wing!). Simply bad luck to Patrick.