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.

They should! After watching replay after replay I am astonished by their decision. A strong FAIR tackle if ever I've seen one. He simply tried to sling Dangerfield off his kick which he did successfully. Gee, I wouldn't have played much footy if that was an illegal tackle. Come on MFC show some common sense and APPEAL! Eddie and co would.

Sorry, I didn't read the other posts re the appeal. Hope it is successful.

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

Next time, read the thread before embarrassing yourself.

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.

That seems to be the only one that they can argue, so you're probably right.

All in all thats a great tackle . Trenners is blind sided as to whether Dangerfield has the ball still and the action was a single continuous one. Its pretty much the same as one he lands about 5 secs later !!

Its just alughable that its been cited.

1) was it a fair tackle ? yes

2) did Dangefield get hurt ? probably

3) was it malicious ? Cant see how

Memo to AFL..and MRP...sometimes players are going to get hurt !!! who'd da thunk huh !!! ffs

All in all thats a great tackle . Trenners is blind sided as to whether Dangerfield has the ball still and the action was a single continuous one. Its pretty much the same as one he lands about 5 secs later !!

Its just alughable that its been cited.

1) was it a fair tackle ? yes

2) did Dangefield get hurt ? probably

3) was it malicious ? Cant see how

Memo to AFL..and MRP...sometimes players are going to get hurt !!! who'd da thunk huh !!! ffs

The AFL do not consider a tackle that results in a players head making hard contact with the ground fair, I think that they have made this clear in the past. Although Trengove may not have intended to cause injury, he could have avoided this by not tackling the player in the manor that he did (pinning one arm and flinging him to the ground).

Regardless of whether we like it or not, it's the rules.

The AFL do not consider a tackle that results in a players head making hard contact with the ground fair, I think that they have made this clear in the past. Although Trengove may not have intended to cause injury, he could have avoided this by not tackling the player in the manor that he did (pinning one arm and flinging him to the ground).

Regardless of whether we like it or not, it's the rules.

yep.... no point taking a mark..or kicking..or anything really is there.....someone might just get hurt

Ironically...had Dangerfield hit the ground in some other awkward manner and say, broken his collar bone or such then that would have just been deemed part of the game, wouldn't it ?

In the same manner of nonsense arguments I put it to you it was all dangerfields fault as he had the opportunity of allowing Trengove easy access to the ball but chose in stead to take it upon himslef to interfere with such outcomes and in this manner brough it all upon himself. Its also incumbent upon Dangerfield as he couldnt be bothered to stand up in the tackle.

Its a game where tackling is allowed. Unfortunate outcomes will ooccur. It wasnt a double movement. He wasnt slung to the ground like a rag doll.. he ws brought to ground with fair efffort.

Yeah he was negligent. If you can feel you have the guys supporting arm pinned as well as he did, you let up as you feel him falling. The onus is on the player doing the tackling or bumping to protect his opponent's head. In that sense, I reckon we won't be seeing him for 3 weeks. You never know though. They might lower one of the gradings, make it a 1 weeker or so.

Sucks. I have him in dream team.

i rekcon there was a fair bit of "rag doll" about it. Trenners smashed him. Hopefully he'll get off though

It wasnt as if Trengove picked him up or slung him it was just a very robust circular style brounding of an opponent .

yep.... no point taking a mark..or kicking..or anything really is there.....someone might just get hurt

Ironically...had Dangerfield hit the ground in some other awkward manner and say, broken his collar bone or such then that would have just been deemed part of the game, wouldn't it ?

In the same manner of nonsense arguments I put it to you it was all dangerfields fault as he had the opportunity of allowing Trengove easy access to the ball but chose in stead to take it upon himslef to interfere with such outcomes and in this manner brough it all upon himself. Its also incumbent upon Dangerfield as he couldnt be bothered to stand up in the tackle.

Its a game where tackling is allowed. Unfortunate outcomes will ooccur. It wasnt a double movement. He wasnt slung to the ground like a rag doll.. he ws brought to ground with fair efffort.

You miss the point again. He landed on his head because of the way that Trengove tackled him. That is what the suspension is for.

God this games gettting soft !!!

You miss the point again. He landed on his head because of the way that Trengove tackled him. That is what the suspension is for.

Quite a lot of blaming the messenger these last few days.

I for one appreciate you putting forward a view which seems unhappily to show Jack may be in fact lucky to find a good defense.

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

Post # 104 in this very thread.

That we've broken the rule is not debatable. That the rule is sensible is.

I'm glad we're contesting, and would be happy with a one week suspension.

It would be nice though, if the other 4 million such tackles over the year attracted the same attention.

Let's have a look at what happened here.

1. He grabbed the trailing arm at the beginning of the tackle as it was the only thing he could reach. Interestingly, that action could have easily resulted in a dislocated shoulder, so it probably should be illegal to grab a player's trailing arm at the beginning of a tackle. After all, they want the "chicken wing" out of the game for the same reason.

2. He wrapped his other arm around the players waist. Honestly, I think the AFL might approve of this part, although it could be seen a staging for a free kick as it causes the tacklers head to make contact with their opponent.

3. He pulls the player backwards. This is clearly a problem as it creates the "slinging" motion they are so concerned about. Obviously he should propel the player forwards in the tackle as that is completely legal and within the laws of the game.

Hang on...

4. Dangerfield hits the ground. Clearly he should have just held Dangerfield in a loving embrace until another player relieved him of the ball and they could go about their business in peace, content in the knowledge that they had served the greater good and kept the game G rated. Once again, you can see the AFL's point. So many injuries occur because the players are touching the ground during play. Just think how many hamstrings and ACLs would be prevented if we simply outlawed players from touching the ground.

Of course, if you look closely you can see that Dangerfield actually hits with his hand first, so that pretty much shoots down the claim that his arms were pinned and he was unable to protect himself from the impact.

What we have here is a case where the only realistic options open to Trengove were to tackle as he did or concede the clearance, which no AFL player will do (or so we hope). It is somewhat similar to the charge on Nick Maxwell a couple of seasons ago for a bump against a WC player. His defence was that his only realistic option was to put a block on to allow his better positioned teammate to take the ball. I believe that the tribunal declared that he was guilty and should in fact have tackled his teammate rather than clear a path for him.

SO basically what we can see if we break things down and look at precedents is that:

A. Trengove had no realistic options other than to execute the tackle as he did.

B. Dangerfield was in fact able to cushion the impact with his left hand.

and

C. The powers that be don't give a stuff about reality and will slug him with an extra couple of games for daring to question their omniscience.

That Dangerfield did not return to the field because of concussion - combined with a damning post-match report from Crows medical staff - did not help the 19-year-old's cause.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

That Dangerfield did not return to the field because of concussion - combined with a damning post-match report from Crows medical staff - did not help the 19-year-old's cause.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

no-one is arguing that dangerfield didn't get hurt. players hit their head on the turf all the time and not just from tackles and in a minority of cases get concussed. its not so much hitting your head on the turf but the exact spot on your head and angle of contact.

anyway, whats the bet he fronts up for the Cows next week. if so, does that still constitute high impact?

Hope someone points out a tackle by definition pins the arms so the person tackled cant use the arms and second that under our laws to avoid an in the back you must rotate the person tackled in the tackle with the outcome being they can look like a sling.

I think we are running a big risk with this appeal based on the vision and outcome (not as clear cut as some psters have indicated) so these points need to be made to the tribunal.

That Dangerfield did not return to the field because of concussion - combined with a damning post-match report from Crows medical staff - did not help the 19-year-old's cause.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

so the MRP are now officially working ass-backwards... assess the gravamen of the injury - > if serious, charge player regardless of actual action...

I think Thomo said it above but where's the line with regard to intent?

For mine - smashing someone deliberately with a forearm (Tambling/ Brown) is 10x worse than any incidental contact incurred during a regulation play

Jumper punches, shoulder-run-throughs, headlocks, mule kicks, Stven Baker, etc are all designed to have malicious intent - whether they connect or not - and should be judged harshly

Players should be rewarded for playing fairly, not penalised MORE HARSHLY than intentional acts of violence! - do you really think Bails would be giving Jack the 10th degree about that spirited tackle? Or any other coach in their right mind??

Fk no!!

Jumper punches, shoulder-run-throughs, headlocks, mule kicks, Stven Baker, etc are all designed to have malicious intent - whether they connect or not - and should be judged harshly

Love it.

If I remember correctly, Dangerfield was hit heavily in a marking contest prior to the Trengove tackle. Isn't it possible he was already suffering some form of concussion from that, yet came back on the ground?

"so the MRP are now officially working ass-backwards... assess the gravamen of the injury - > if serious, charge player regardless of actual action..."

Thats the sort of result I'm coming up with.

Still unclear on any field umpire involvement however.

You miss the point again. He landed on his head because of the way that Trengove tackled him. That is what the suspension is for.

I honestly don't agree with you Thomo. That said, we'll wait til tonight. Tribunal convenes at 5pm I believe, not sure if Jack is up first.

Trengove puts nearly an identical tackle on Brodie Smith ...all but seconds later.. Because Smith didnt duck his head so much theres a differing result.. Somehow hes at fault the first time and not the second ?? Intention ...exactly the same on both acccounts.

This is all cow manure...fair dinkum !!

I can't believe this.

2 years in a row we have rammed his head into

The turf at the punt road end and I think he has had

Winge to the AFL. It's bad luck as far as I'm

Concerned, anyone saying it should warrant a reprimand

Or even 1 week is kidding themselves.

If he gets two weeks I will be fuming,

Maybe Dangerfield ought only play at McDonalds...its nice and soft there....like him !!

Danger-field ??....yep...the only danger is he might hit the field.!!!