What I want to see from the powers at the MFC

[beelzebub 22,724]

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.

firslty...might this be merged with red's thread... talking about sense ??

As presented as argument by redleg there sems more than a reasonable assertion that there are varying degrees of deliberation and the application of logic in the "how does one play footy " dept.

It stinks.. without doubt. The tenuous thread upon which Tinney hung his cause and the Tribunal ruled is , was it not for consequence, laughable. That a player would want a tackle to stick ,,,,as a bad thing ?? ffs.

I noted ..and was also by the club ( K O'D) that Trengove laid an almost identical tackle moments later on Smith...yet that was deeemed fair and ok.. Strnagely the same 'stickiness" was in evidence. The only difference being the outcome, or lack there of with reference to any injury. The somewhat ridiculous application of a "duty of care" here pays no attentionto how or such its to be applied. Apparently JT can ajudicate and temper his tackle according to the unknown and yet unexperienced outcome ?

The tribubal and its stooly Tinney have obviosly a desired result, with the blessing of teh AFL ( read Vlad ) and reverse engineered this trial to suit such a discourse.

In plain English...its just as Grimes summed......Bullsh!t !!!

[Tricky 340]

Agree. It's worth the appeal.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

firslty...might this be merged with red's thread... talking about sense ??

As presented as argument by redleg .....In plain English...its just as Grimes summed......Bullsh!t !!!

Ok. So you dont like the decision or the process. You have said that now what's your basis for going to appeal? What new evidence are you putting forward to address the assessed breach of the rule by the tribunal?

Here is Jack's assessment of Redleg's email which Redleg has acknowledged as being a reasonable assessment. Jack is a lawyer. No one likes the outcome but appealling just because you dont like the decision has all the merit and benefit of banging your head against the wall.

Redleg, what are the grounds for an appeal against a tribunal ruling?

My understanding is that there has to be some new evidence introduced upon which an appeal can be based.

Is it enough just to say that the tribunal made a poor decision?

I think not. It seems to me that the tribunal decided on the facts presented to them that Trengove was guilty of breaching the rule. To me, it's not the tribunal that dispensed "bad law" but that the law itself is bad and therefore needs to be changed (unless the consensus is that we turn the game into a form of netball played on grass).

The solution for the Melbourne Football Club and for Jack Trengove therefore is to take it on the chin in much the same way as it did with the Colin Sylvia incident last year and focus on the job ahead which is to overcome the adversity of the decision and the injuries that afflicted us during and after the win against the Crows. The group needs to concentrate its thoughts and energies on the weeks ahead rather than to fight costly legal battles against an unsympathetic AFL establishment. That battle is unlikely to see Jack Trengove exonerated but it might well become counterproductive to the ongoing fight for team improvement and premiership points.

We might be going into next week's round without some of our better players but we need to look at the game against North as a real test of this club's mettle and an extension of the challenge we faced last week when we took on Adelaide.

I like your sentiments but we're a football club and it should be business as usual now that the decision's been made.

[Kiss of Death 708]

I'll also donate some cash to this one. Time to pull out 20 identical/worse tackles that were not cited, let alone 3 weeks. If the club believes they have a legit reason to further appeal, I'm in.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'll also donate some cash to this one. Time to pull out 20 identical/worse tackles that were not cited, let alone 3 weeks. If the club believes they have a legit reason to further appeal, I'm in.

That is the issue. And pulling out 20 worse tackles wont get you anywhere to changing the verdict that the tackle breached the stated rule.

[beelzebub 22,724]

Melbourne likely to Appeal

GOOD !!!

[beelzebub 22,724]

Ok. So you dont like the decision or the process. You have said that now what's your basis for going to appeal? What new evidence are you putting forward to address the assessed breach of the rule by the tribunal?

Here is Jack's assessment of Redleg's email which Redleg has acknowledged as being a reasonable assessment. Jack is a lawyer. No one likes the outcome but appealling just because you dont like the decision has all the merit and benefit of banging your head against the wall.

Redleg, what are the grounds for an appeal against a tribunal ruling?

My understanding is that there has to be some new evidence introduced upon which an appeal can be based.

Is it enough just to say that the tribunal made a poor decision?

I think not. It seems to me that the tribunal decided on the facts presented to them that Trengove was guilty of breaching the rule. To me, it's not the tribunal that dispensed "bad law" but that the law itself is bad and therefore needs to be changed (unless the consensus is that we turn the game into a form of netball played on grass).

The solution for the Melbourne Football Club and for Jack Trengove therefore is to take it on the chin in much the same way as it did with the Colin Sylvia incident last year and focus on the job ahead which is to overcome the adversity of the decision and the injuries that afflicted us during and after the win against the Crows. The group needs to concentrate its thoughts and energies on the weeks ahead rather than to fight costly legal battles against an unsympathetic AFL establishment. That battle is unlikely to see Jack Trengove exonerated but it might well become counterproductive to the ongoing fight for team improvement and premiership points.

We might be going into next week's round without some of our better players but we need to look at the game against North as a real test of this club's mettle and an extension of the challenge we faced last week when we took on Adelaide.

I like your sentiments but we're a football club and it should be business as usual now that the decision's been made.

seems you and the MFC are on Different pages....ffft !!!

[Tricky 340]

That is the issue. And pulling out 20 worse tackles wont get you anywhere to changing the verdict that the tackle breached the stated rule.

Looks like they are going to see what they can come up with - they may have to get creative...

Melbourne Plan Appeal

Edit: Oops. beat me to it BB

Edited May 10, 2011 by Tricky

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

seems you and the MFC are on Different pages....ffft !!!

I dont think so.

Here is what I said:

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.

This is from the article.

Demons' football operations manager Craig Notman confirmed today the club was exploring all options in a bid to have the suspension overturned.

''I can't say a real lot because we are going through the process of looking at a challenge through appeal, see if we can satisfy the AFL guidelines in regards to an appeal,'' Notman told SEN radio.

Dont knock yourself out with your torch!

[beelzebub 22,724]

.

Dont knock yourself out with your torch!

Dont get concussed rolling over either !!

now..about the mergiing of threads...or shall we continue with 2 or more ?

[DemonWA 3,653]

i dont understand why they went down the line of saying it was the perfect tackle.

If i was going to try and get him off i would have gone down the path of "what other choices did he have in the situation". Coming out and saying that they teach that technique and it was shown as a example of a perfect tackle is almost showing no remorse for the concussion. I think the AFL are so wound up about concussion that as soon as we showed little remorse they wanted to make an example of us.

Hope that in the appeal process they take a more measured approach

[Demon Dynasty 16,368]

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

A truly professional football club should be able to handle both

B)

[daisycutter 28,727]

The MFC must make a stand on this issue

Natural Justice has not been served and the issue has too many far-reaching implications not just for the MFC but for all clubs.

Apart from that Jack Trengove's reputation has been unfairly besmirched

I'm sure the majority of MFC supporters and in fact supporters of all clubs would applaud and support the MFC taking a strong stand

The AFL should also have the courage to admit it got the laws wrong, step in to annul the decision and make changes to the law to ensure there is a better definition of accidental versus negligence versus duty-of-care versus excessive-force

[beelzebub 22,724]

A truly professional football club should be able to handle both

B)

Absolutely correct

differing depts for differing jobs...not too hard

[Demon Dynasty 16,368]

i dont understand why they went down the line of saying it was the perfect tackle.

If i was going to try and get him off i would have gone down the path of "what other choices did he have in the situation". Coming out and saying that they teach that technique and it was shown as a example of a perfect tackle is almost showing no remorse for the concussion. I think the AFL are so wound up about concussion that as soon as we showed little remorse they wanted to make an example of us.

Hope that in the appeal process they take a more measured approach

If the AFL was truly concerned about concussion and facial injuries then they could easily make all players wear some sort of helmet to reduce the incidene/severity of concussions and avoid/reduce the possibility of serious facial injuries (eg., Johnno Brown/Hird/Dunstall/Neitz/Sylvia) etc. Had umpteen opportunities/examples yet i've never heard anyone from the AFL proactively raise this as an option to clubs

Edited May 10, 2011 by Rusty Nails

[Demon Tragic 0]

Ok. So you dont like the decision or the process. You have said that now what's your basis for going to appeal? What new evidence are you putting forward to address the assessed breach of the rule by the tribunal?

Here is Jack's assessment of Redleg's email which Redleg has acknowledged as being a reasonable assessment. Jack is a lawyer. No one likes the outcome but appealling just because you dont like the decision has all the merit and benefit of banging your head against the wall.

Redleg, what are the grounds for an appeal against a tribunal ruling?

My understanding is that there has to be some new evidence introduced upon which an appeal can be based.

Is it enough just to say that the tribunal made a poor decision?

I think not. It seems to me that the tribunal decided on the facts presented to them that Trengove was guilty of breaching the rule. To me, it's not the tribunal that dispensed "bad law" but that the law itself is bad and therefore needs to be changed (unless the consensus is that we turn the game into a form of netball played on grass).

The solution for the Melbourne Football Club and for Jack Trengove therefore is to take it on the chin in much the same way as it did with the Colin Sylvia incident last year and focus on the job ahead which is to overcome the adversity of the decision and the injuries that afflicted us during and after the win against the Crows. The group needs to concentrate its thoughts and energies on the weeks ahead rather than to fight costly legal battles against an unsympathetic AFL establishment. That battle is unlikely to see Jack Trengove exonerated but it might well become counterproductive to the ongoing fight for team improvement and premiership points.

We might be going into next week's round without some of our better players but we need to look at the game against North as a real test of this club's mettle and an extension of the challenge we faced last week when we took on Adelaide.

I like your sentiments but we're a football club and it should be business as usual now that the decision's been made.

I would introduce several grounds for appeal.

1. The tribunal neglected to properly asses the incident, spending only 4 minutes in deliberation. This alone suggets that they went into the process with a pre-conceived outcome.

2. I would also introduce the marking contest just prior to the tackle after which Dangerfield was slow to get up, thus bringing into dispute the cause of his concussion.

3. I would contend that Dangerfield's head did not hit the ground with sufficient force to cause a concussion. (Since the AFL is the arbiter of neseccary force, this would cause them to determine exactly how much force was in the impact).

I think a poor application of the prescribed process is excellent ground for appeal added to that we can introduce new evidence and thus argue new points.

FWIW I think our defence of 'that's how we were taught' was substandard and ill conceived.

[Tricky 340]

I would introduce several grounds for appeal.

1. The tribunal neglected to properly asses the incident, spending only 4 minutes in deliberation. This alone suggets that they went into the process with a pre-conceived outcome.

2. I would also introduce the marking contest just prior to the tackle after which Dangerfield was slow to get up, thus bringing into dispute the cause of his concussion.

3. I would contend that Dangerfield's head did not hit the ground with sufficient force to cause a concussion. (Since the AFL is the arbiter of neseccary force, this would cause them to determine exactly how much force was in the impact).

I think a poor application of the prescribed process is excellent ground for appeal added to that we can introduce new evidence and thus argue new points.

FWIW I think our defence of 'that's how we were taught' was substandard and ill conceived.

Agree. We seemed to be under prepared. No representation for JT (is that correct?)

The fact that clubs are actively encouraging the "chicken wing" tackle would surely only serve to reinforce the need to make an example of the incident.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Herald-Sun poll:

Did Jack Trengove deserve a three-game ban?

* Yes 9.24% (245 votes)

* No 90.76% (2406 votes)

Total votes: 2651

[Dusty_Hill 184]

We are appealing it. Well done MFC that is excellent. Must and are appealing it if we are to be taken seriously, even if we lose, they will think twice before putting us and JT through such rubbish next time!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-plan-appeal-against-jack-trengove-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1226053760226

[Arrow 1,257]

I would introduce several grounds for appeal.

1. The tribunal neglected to properly asses the incident, spending only 4 minutes in deliberation. This alone suggets that they went into the process with a pre-conceived outcome.

2. I would also introduce the marking contest just prior to the tackle after which Dangerfield was slow to get up, thus bringing into dispute the cause of his concussion.

3. I would contend that Dangerfield's head did not hit the ground with sufficient force to cause a concussion. (Since the AFL is the arbiter of neseccary force, this would cause them to determine exactly how much force was in the impact).

I think a poor application of the prescribed process is excellent ground for appeal added to that we can introduce new evidence and thus argue new points.

FWIW I think our defence of 'that's how we were taught' was substandard and ill conceived.

Hardly, for the previous 150 years of Australian Rules Football this has not been a 'reportable offence'.

The AFL/Tribunal has in a sense stated they are drawing a line in the sand so to speak with this case and beginning this new law as of this suspension. With Melbourne unable to know that, and with so many cases like this being thrown out before it, it would have been stupid to go in with anything too fancy when a basic argument should have won the case.