I want to see them appeal, if they can.

and if the same ridiculous decision is found the club should come out at a press conference and say how pathetic this is and that we as a club will not stand for this.

They actually should be very strong in their wording on how bad they found this decision, I do not know how to word this at the moment due to how [censored] off I am.

Time for this club to stand up for itself.

I will throw in money to any fine.

I think they can appeal, can't recall what the process is.

They can, according to the bloke running the blog commentary on afl.com.au

Cost money I think.

Of course the only thing the afl actually care about.

I totally think we should continue to push this, it is a matter of principle for how the game is actually played

All other clubs and their supporters should be outraged

FFS the first time we play tough hard footy in a while and someone gets this garbage punishment for it

This is the first time Ive heard a tribunal decision go against us and just not been able to accept it

i will throw some coin in the afl cant get away with this

This is the time for our administration to stand up for the club and dare the AFL to push it. Let them fine us for commenting on the decision. Take it as far as it can possibly go, including taking out an injunction allowing Trengove to play while the matter is being decided. If we want to be one of the big clubs in the AFL we have to act like it, and now is a great time to start. To hell with fines and "please explain" letters. Make a stand and get the kid on the field this weekend.

Appeal and get some proper legal brains to represent us. The club should fight this out till Jack is cleared or to the bitter end.

problem 4 the club is how far do you take it at some point they need to move onto this weeks game or risk being distracted

All week, stuff this week, and after the North game keep it going until Trengove is back on the field.

Mark Macgugan: Trengove: the club teaches us that if you can grab an arm it's definitely acceptable because it will stop the opponent from disposing of the ball. It was an accident. I didn't intend for him to get concussed. Don't think I used any unusual level of force.

Mark Macgugan: Trengove: the club teaches us that if you can grab an arm it's definitely acceptable because it will stop the opponent from disposing of the ball. It was an accident. I didn't intend for him to get concussed. Don't think I used any unusual level of force.

Mark Macgugan: Trengove: the club teaches us that if you can grab an arm it's definitely acceptable because it will stop the opponent from disposing of the ball. It was an accident. I didn't intend for him to get concussed. Don't think I used any unusual level of force.

[Comment From DeeFanDeeFan: ] Mark, Is it likely that Melbourne can argue the fact head high contact wasn't made by the player, the interpretation of the law states that *contact* from *A* player constitutes head high contact....... is it likely Melbourne will go down that path?

Mark Macgugan: Question from tribunal counsel Tinney: Were you still holding Dangerfield's right arm when he hit the ground?

Trengove: In such a quick situation, I didn't have time to let his arm go.

Mark Macgugan: They haven't gone down that path at this stage,

Mark Macgugan: Tinney: you said you didn't put a great amount of force into the tackle. Didn't you put as much force as you could into it? Trengove: I don't think I did. I think the momentum was increased because we were both off balance.

Mark Macgugan: Tinney suggesting Trengove could have achieved what he was trying to without this amount of force. Trengove disagrees.

Tom williamson: ] Mark what do you think will happen

Mark Macgugan: I couldn't predict an outcome to be honest, Tom. Trengove has been impressive at the witness stand though. Very articulate and strong in his responses to questioning.

Mark Macgugan: Tinney now summing up. He says: in the past this tackle would have been seen as acceptable. But football as changed. It must be decided in the context of the rules as they now apply, not as they used to apply.

Mark Macgugan: Tinney reading through the rules on when a tackle may be considered unreasonably dangerous. Relevant here is that the arm of the player was being held, which made it 'a tackle of an inherently dangerous kind'. Dangerfield was unable to control his movements or protect his head. Also to be considered, 'a player may not be slung or driven into the ground with an excessive level of force'. Tinney suggesting the same outcome could have been achieved with considerably less force than was used.

Mark Macgugan: Trengove's advocate Iain Findlay now summing up.

Mark Macgugan: Findlay saying Trengove didn't sling Dangerfield. Trengove was knocked off balance.

Mark Macgugan: Findlay saying the umpires were right there and called play on. They saw it as a fair tackle.

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: There is a temptation to be distracted by the end result. But the tackle itself was a fair and reasonable attempt to dispossess Dangerfield and bring him to the ground. The end result was an accident. Draws a comparison to Jonathan Brown's facial injury earlier this season, suffered in an accidental collision.

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: The force Trengove used was legitimate and within the rules.

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: "This, I would submit to you gentlemen, was nothing more than an accident."

Mark Macgugan: Findlay: It's not Trengove's fault that Dangerfield was knocked out. He applied the tackle as he had been taught, within the laws and spirit of the game. We believe the charge should be dismissed.

[Comment From nicknick are melbourne able to use video evidence of the same tackling technique were players were tackled aggresively yet un injured , basically pointing out that the concussion was incedental and not intended

Mark Macgugan: Yes, they did that Nick. They showed a very similar tackle by Trengove on Brodie Smith in the next passage of play.

[Comment From SimonSimon: ] Prediction?

Mark Macgugan: I'm not going to make any predictions, Simon. Sorry. Mark Macgugan: David Jones (tribunal chairman) instructing panel on factors to consider when deliberating. Reminds them to focus on the conduct, not the consequence to the tackled player.

Mark Macgugan: Everyone has now left the room to allow the tribunal to come to a decision. Back soon.

[Comment From BeauBeau: ] It's not David Rhys-Jones is it? That'd be handy for the Dees.

[Comment From GoDeesGoDees: ] How long can deliberation take?

Mark Macgugan: We've been called back into the room. Just waiting for the Demons contingent to return and we should receive a verdict.

Mark Macgugan: Trengove found guilty and receives 325 demerit points, as originally charged by the MRP. He's out for three matches.

[Comment From benben: ] can the demons appeal?

Mark Macgugan: Hi Ben. Yes, there is an appeal process the Demons can undertake if they wish.

Everyone should Phone the AFL and Voice their Disgust

AFL House Contact Details:Telephone 03 9643 1999

As well as contact our Club and ask them to take it all the way in protest

If there's a fine for taking this further, I'm contributing.

As well as contact our Club and ask them to take it all the way in protest

Already tweeted Schwab. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I agree we need to let the club know that we want them to take it further. It's not just an onfield matter, it's a case of how far we're willing to let the AFL beat on us. The powers that be have just walked on us in the assumption that we're small fry and can't fight back. It's a nice convenient was to show the world that they're protecting the head without repercussions. We need our club to show them how wrong they are.

Already tweeted Schwab. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I agree we need to let the club know that we want them to take it further. It's not just an onfield matter, it's a case of how far we're willing to let the AFL beat on us. The powers that be have just walked on us in the assumption that we're small fry and can't fight back. It's a nice convenient was to show the world that they're protecting the head without repercussions. We need our club to show them how wrong they are.

Absolutely agree with you 100%

Count me in on any fighting fund too. Though, we should be able to find a Demon barrister willing to put in a little pro-bono time...

Appeal and get some proper legal brains to represent us. The club should fight this out till Jack is cleared or to the bitter end.

It can't get any worse so I say fight it.....

I Just cant fkn believe this!!!!!!!I think we should protest all the way.wat happens if we just play trengove!!!!????

I Just cant fkn believe this!!!!!!!I think we should protest all the way.wat happens if we just play trengove!!!!????

The game won't start if he's on the field. We'll cop a huge fine.

Likewise, if we were to refuse to take the field, massive fine. Not really an option I would think.

I would prefer to see our boys beat the living hell out of the opposition for the next three weeks as a protest. See if we can get so many players suspended that we can't field a team. They wouldn't be able to fine the club then and would loose a fortune in revenue.

Once again, this is not a realistic option, but it would be very nice to see it happen.

Just judging by what I am reading from supporters of all clubs in several different web locations the overwhelming opinion is that this is a disgrace to the game. I am sure the papers will reflect this tomorrow and I'm holding out for some sort of overturnment due to public dissapproval as a chance. If they rollover, they look bad, if they uphold the suspension they look worse

i have emailed mr Tinney him self, in some attempt to calm my self down! i urge all to do the same

I'd certainly back this.

Just judging by what I am reading from supporters of all clubs in several different web locations the overwhelming opinion is that this is a disgrace to the game.

Yeah they are all worried that this can and will happen to one of their players in the future.....

Unless the Club have a red hot argument to convince the tribunal that the tackle does not full within the rule, we should put our torches down and save the money.

The decision sucks. Lets move on and get the Club focussing on the North game and how we are going to cover the loss of Jamar, Spencer and possibly Martin.

Unless the Club have a red hot argument to convince the tribunal that the tackle does not full within the rule, we should put our torches down and save the money.

The decision sucks. Lets move on and get the Club focussing on the North game and how we are going to cover the loss of Jamar, Spencer and possibly Martin.

god thats soft... you roll over merchant

Ther is provision for appeal and it ought to be pursued out of course. The decision disregards any common sense in application of logic and was obviously driven from a prearrived verdict. The club cannot sit by idly. It goes to the core of the game.. the tackle.

Time to bring to bear all the club's boy's network and bring to bear as much legal talent as it can muster.

Only a wimp would take this lyiing down... Pure Kangaroo Court this!!

....

Just talking some common sense. You appeal the decision on the basis that you have a plausible case that would lead to the overturning of the decision. If MFC have that case then they should appeal. You dont just appeal because you dont like the decision or you dont like the process. You just waste your time and money. MFC need to think smarter than what is being shown here.