I note that the Tribunal hearing commenced at 6.31 Pm and the Tribunal adjourned to consider their decision at 7.34 PM. That means they were to consider the vision, evidence and submissions that took 63 minutes to present. Then shock of shocks they returned in 4 minutes and gave the guilty verdict. It is impossible for 3 men to discuss the evidence, vision and submissions made in 4 minutes. The aim of deliberation is to disect all of the evidence and compare it to the rules allegedly broken and that couldn't be done in 4 minutes by 3 individuals.

That leads me to one inescapable conclusion, that they knew their decision before leaving the room to consider the evidence. The question to then be asked is did they know their decision before the hearing began?

This hearing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The evidence of the player, tackling coach, biomechanist has been ignored. The fact that no umpire reported JT on the day has been ignored. The fact that there were no remonstrations by any Crows player has been ignored. The fact that the AFL called no witnesses to prove an offence had occurred, has been ignored. The fact that there was no head high contact by JT has been ignored. The fact that a medical report has probably led to the charge being laid has been ignored and that the author of the report has not been called to give evidence has been ignored. The fact that while the player charged called witnesses their evidence has been ignored without any evidence being called by the AFL from witnesses to say that the player's witnesses were in fact wrong in their evidence. These and several other matters cause me great concern over the whole process.

I would appeal until there is no avenue left to do so. The club must show absolute support to the player on this occasion and as a result it will receive the loyalty and support of the rest of the list.

Fantastic post, agree a million percent

Even if we fight in absolute futility do it anyway just for statement it makes

Couldn't agree more Redleg.

The tribunal chairman instructed the jury to take into account the conduct, not the consequence. I don't see how they did that when they came to this verdict. That is grounds to appeal, as is the 4 minute deliberation. I don't see how he got a fair hearing.

I hope the club takes the attitude this is not over. I can't remember who but someone posted that Dangerfield was off the ground prior to this incident for being shook up by a possible crunching encounter. Can anyone elaborate?

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by america de cali

I note that the Tribunal hearing commenced at 6.31 Pm and the Tribunal adjourned to consider their decision at 7.34 PM. That means they were to consider the vision, evidence and submissions that took 63 minutes to present. Then shock of shocks they returned in 4 minutes and gave the guilty verdict. It is impossible for 3 men to discuss the evidence, vision and submissions made in 4 minutes. The aim of deliberation is to disect all of the evidence and compare it to the rules allegedly broken and that couldn't be done in 4 minutes by 3 individuals.

That leads me to one inescapable conclusion, that they knew their decision before leaving the room to consider the evidence. The question to then be asked is did they know their decision before the hearing began?

This hearing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The evidence of the player, tackling coach, biomechanist has been ignored. The fact that no umpire reported JT on the day has been ignored. The fact that there were no remonstrations by any Crows player has been ignored. The fact that the AFL called no witnesses to prove an offence had occurred, has been ignored. The fact that there was no head high contact by JT has been ignored. The fact that a medical report has probably led to the charge being laid has been ignored and that the author of the report has not been called to give evidence has been ignored. The fact that while the player charged called witnesses their evidence has been ignored without any evidence being called by the AFL from witnesses to say that the player's witnesses were in fact wrong in their evidence. These and several other matters cause me great concern over the whole process.

I would appeal until there is no avenue left to do so. The club must show absolute support to the player on this occasion and as a result it will receive the loyalty and support of the rest of the list.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of what you have stated. 4 minutes ? They must have had a booking at 8pm at the Flower Drum.

Redleg, you make some great points here. Are you free for another crack at an appeal ?

I note that the Tribunal hearing commenced at 6.31 Pm and the Tribunal adjourned to consider their decision at 7.34 PM. That means they were to consider the vision, evidence and submissions that took 63 minutes to present. Then shock of shocks they returned in 4 minutes and gave the guilty verdict. It is impossible for 3 men to discuss the evidence, vision and submissions made in 4 minutes. The aim of deliberation is to disect all of the evidence and compare it to the rules allegedly broken and that couldn't be done in 4 minutes by 3 individuals.

That leads me to one inescapable conclusion, that they knew their decision before leaving the room to consider the evidence. The question to then be asked is did they know their decision before the hearing began?

This hearing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The evidence of the player, tackling coach, biomechanist has been ignored. The fact that no umpire reported JT on the day has been ignored. The fact that there were no remonstrations by any Crows player has been ignored. The fact that the AFL called no witnesses to prove an offence had occurred, has been ignored. The fact that there was no head high contact by JT has been ignored. The fact that a medical report has probably led to the charge being laid has been ignored and that the author of the report has not been called to give evidence has been ignored. The fact that while the player charged called witnesses their evidence has been ignored without any evidence being called by the AFL from witnesses to say that the player's witnesses were in fact wrong in their evidence. These and several other matters cause me great concern over the whole process.

I would appeal until there is no avenue left to do so. The club must show absolute support to the player on this occasion and as a result it will receive the loyalty and support of the rest of the list.

Great post.

We should appeal again - irrespective of the 'avenues'. 3 weeks is a disgrace.

To offer a player 2 weeks if they 'submit' early to the gestapo and 3 if they don't is a pathetic pantomime of the real judiciary system. The MRP see, at most, 5 or 6 cases per week. It's not like they're saving tax-payers dollars by avoiding the court costs. This is a blatant 'I'm important and you're not' event.

Effing furious.

I note that the Tribunal hearing commenced at 6.31 Pm and the Tribunal adjourned to consider their decision at 7.34 PM. That means they were to consider the vision, evidence and submissions that took 63 minutes to present. Then shock of shocks they returned in 4 minutes and gave the guilty verdict. It is impossible for 3 men to discuss the evidence, vision and submissions made in 4 minutes. The aim of deliberation is to disect all of the evidence and compare it to the rules allegedly broken and that couldn't be done in 4 minutes by 3 individuals.

That leads me to one inescapable conclusion, that they knew their decision before leaving the room to consider the evidence. The question to then be asked is did they know their decision before the hearing began?

This hearing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The evidence of the player, tackling coach, biomechanist has been ignored. The fact that no umpire reported JT on the day has been ignored. The fact that there were no remonstrations by any Crows player has been ignored. The fact that the AFL called no witnesses to prove an offence had occurred, has been ignored. The fact that there was no head high contact by JT has been ignored. The fact that a medical report has probably led to the charge being laid has been ingnored and that the author of the report has not been called to give evidence has been ignored. The fact that while the player charged called witnesses their evidence has been ignored without any evidence being called by the AFL from witnesses to say that the player's witnesses were in fact wrong in their evidence. These and several other matters cause me great concern over the whole process.

I would appeal until there is no avenue left to do so. The club must show absolute support to the player on this occasion and as a result it will receive the loyalty and support of the rest of the list.

Must admit I thought the speed of the decision was also a surprise to me Redleg.....

I don't think you will be alone in thinking that they came to (announced) a premeditated conclusion. One that was decided prior to maybe the panel even being chosen. If this is true then there are great machinations at work within the AFL and the Match Review Panel, while not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist (too much) here, but the kid has no record and laid what was a legal tackle albeit with an unfortunate outcome for the other player. Our player has been made an example of. And that for all intents and purposes is a discretionary act.

But it goes further than that as I see it. The fabric of the game is always challenged with these types of decisions. What a player can and can't do within the rules changes by the week, what colours he wears, what the AFL feel they want to clamp down on that day, and who he may happen to be (she says while waving at Chris Judd). Consistency at this level is non-existent and therefore so is the players understanding of what is and isn't legal. The player twitter bomb proves that. What exactly is a tackle? No-one seems to know. Least of all the men playing the game.

Fantastic post, agree a million percent

Even if we fight in absolute futility do it anyway just for statement it makes

Spot on.

Fantastic post, agree a million percent

Even if we fight in absolute futility do it anyway just for statement it makes

Absolutely, no more harm can be done......

An appeal should now be an absolute.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of what you have stated. 4 minutes ? They must have had a booking at 8pm at the Flower Drum.

Redleg, you make some great points here. Are you free for another crack at an appeal ?

While I have appeared before the AFL tribunal as an advocate previously, I am unfortunately busy the next couple of days in other proceedings. I also think I am so disappointed in this process that my anger and club bias would affect an impartial representation if we did appeal and I was asked to appear. I would however if asked, be only too happy to help, as I have done many times for our players in the past.

Great post Red legs, and the player out cry has been more prominent then ever before, which shows how confused they all are

I would appeal until there is no avenue left to do so. The club must show absolute support to the player on this occasion and as a result it will receive the loyalty and support of the rest of the list.

And this from someone who actually understands the legal system.

Redleg, offer your services and go get our boy off. The free footy world needs you!

At the very least please email your thoughts to the club.

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by Jaded

Excellent thread.

We must appeal. Whatever the cost.

It's outraged not only all of us, but footy fans in general. Even North fans think he should get off.

Unfair, lacked any sort of sensible judgement and delivered one of the harshest penalties.

Fight.

Only flaw that I can see is the question of how long the Ted Richards deliberation took earlier in the night (although I have a feeling it took longer)

The Ted Richards deliberation was closer to half an hour. Yes, the moment we were told they had come back I thought the fix was in. There was no way they could have discussed it in detail in the amount of time they took.

Edit on Richards. time of Deliberation 1806-1822. That's 16 minutes as opposed to 4 for Trengove. Nobody can claim that they gave due consideration to the evidence in that time.

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by RalphiusMaximus

Looks like Trengove is this years martyr for the concussion rule. Someone had to be made an example of.

Only flaw that I can see is the question of how long the Ted Richards deliberation took earlier in the night (although I have a feeling it took longer)

Richards hearing went 60 minutes and Tribunal deliberated for 18 minutes. All they needed to decide was whether he bumped him in the head and the vision showed it clearly and yet that took 18 minutes. I smell an even bigger rat in that JT's was only a 4 minute deliberation less the time to leave the room and come back into it. So they walked out of the hearing room and just about straight back in.

I note that the Tribunal hearing commenced at 6.31 Pm and the Tribunal adjourned to consider their decision at 7.34 PM. That means they were to consider the vision, evidence and submissions that took 63 minutes to present. Then shock of shocks they returned in 4 minutes and gave the guilty verdict. It is impossible for 3 men to discuss the evidence, vision and submissions made in 4 minutes. The aim of deliberation is to disect all of the evidence and compare it to the rules allegedly broken and that couldn't be done in 4 minutes by 3 individuals.

That leads me to one inescapable conclusion, that they knew their decision before leaving the room to consider the evidence. The question to then be asked is did they know their decision before the hearing began?

This hearing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The evidence of the player, tackling coach, biomechanist has been ignored. The fact that no umpire reported JT on the day has been ignored. The fact that there were no remonstrations by any Crows player has been ignored. The fact that the AFL called no witnesses to prove an offence had occurred, has been ignored. The fact that there was no head high contact by JT has been ignored. The fact that a medical report has probably led to the charge being laid has been ignored and that the author of the report has not been called to give evidence has been ignored. The fact that while the player charged called witnesses their evidence has been ignored without any evidence being called by the AFL from witnesses to say that the player's witnesses were in fact wrong in their evidence. These and several other matters cause me great concern over the whole process.

I would appeal until there is no avenue left to do so. The club must show absolute support to the player on this occasion and as a result it will receive the loyalty and support of the rest of the list.

Here's a possible explanation:

The adelaide player had no control over his own body he was pinged and couldn't gain any control or brace his fall, ultimately and unfortunately for Trengove the MRV panel had no choice, it is actually in the rules now.

I was watching the live updates on the AFL site and the verdict seemed to be very quick, meaning the tribunal had no choice to find him guilty according to the rules now written. So really it is not the MRP or tribunal fault they went off the rules with the verdict, it is just the rules that have to be questioned.

MRP having no choice.

Here's a possible explanation:

MRP having no choice.

I would dispute he "couldn't brace" for his fall, because he had an arm free. His arm & hand hit the turf simultaneously with his head hitting the ground. It was just unfortunate.

MRP having no choice.

MRP had little choice. The Tribunal is another matter entirely. They have far more leeway and are able to consider factors other than the points system when reaching their verdict.

MRP had little choice.

Why do you say that? What exactly is the charge in the rule book and what does the rule say are the necessary ingredients required to make up the offence?

I have read that it relates to high contact, meaning the head and neck in relation to a front on bump. Is this charge the same? If so does it require actual contact by the player to the head or neck or can that contact be from other sources such as the ground, a fence, a players boot etc. Was this an offence if Dangerfield was not concussed or even if his head did not hit the ground? If it was not an offence in those circumstances how was it one if as a result of a legal tackle an injury occurs? We see this tackle in every game but they are not offences, therefore it only became an offence as a result of the Crow's medical report saying that there was an injury. So what that means is if applied in a court of law, is that if you accidentally bump someone and they fall over and hit their head, you have committed an assault. If they don't hit their head it is an accident. That is nonsense and we all know it to be so.

I await a suspension for a player who is kicked in the head by the ball after he fumbles the mark, on the basis that the player who kicked the ball should have known that kicking a ball towards someone could be dangerous and could hit them in the head. This decision on so many levels is a joke.

Yes excellent post by all concerned...We must appeal....send your thoughts to the club Redleg..in fact send the whole post!

If there was a scapegoat, I'd call it

.

Why do you say that? What exactly is the charge in the rule book and what does the rule say are the necessary ingredients required to make up the offence?

I have read that it relates to high contact, meaning the head and neck in relation to a front on bump. Is this charge the same? If so does it require actual contact by the player to the head or neck or can that contact be from other sources such as the ground, a fence, a players boot etc. Was this an offence if Dangerfield was not concussed or even if his head did not hit the ground? If it was not an offence in those circumstances how was it one if as a result of a legal tackle an injury occurs? We see this tackle in every game but they are not offences, therefore it only became an offence as a result of the Crow's medical report saying that there was an injury. So what that means is if applied in a court of law, is that if you accidentally bump someone and they fall over and hit their head, you have committed an assault. If they don't hit their head it is an accident. That is nonsense and we all know it to be so.

I await a suspension for a player who is kicked in the head by the ball after he fumbles the mark, on the basis that the player who kicked the ball should have known that kicking a ball towards someone could be dangerous and could hit them in the head. This decision on so many levels is a joke.

Smells like duty of care and negligence you are infering

Here's a possible explanation:

MRP having no choice.

Geddy has a point, Redlegs has many excellent points. More investigation needed. I can understand the rough charge and verdict being upheld but not the severity of the penalty for a first up offence. Seems very harsh in light of the offence.

And yes QueenC, one rule for some. I wonder how Pav got that cut under his eye against the Blues last year? Must have been his cat. Clearly reckless conduct under the AFL definitions and guidelines, yet not even a reprimand

Edited May 10, 201114 yr by Rusty Nails