On 10/05/2011 at 13:30, Redleg said:

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.

If a case is referred to the MRP they apply a set formula to it to determine the point value. They do not have the authority to make value judgments on whether they think the case is worthy of referral (a job trained monkeys can do). Basically, if a case is sent to them, it will result in a charge (flaw 1 in the system) as virtually any act on a football field will incur some points.

The club is then able to either accept the charge as determined by the MRP, or take it to the Tribunal to argue the case. It is the Tribunal who have the power to look at the events logically and determine whether the act actually warrants a penalty at all. This is what we saw tonight.

The club now has the option of appealing the decision. To do this they would be required to pay a fee to the AFL. The hearing would take place (I think) on Thursday night. There the club would be given the opportunity to present a case as to why they feel that the penalty applied by the previous two layers is not correct.

I believe there have been a couple of cases of clubs and/or players going beyond this and taking their case to civil courts. This is guaranteed to bring down the wrath of the PTB on the collective head of the club for making them look bad, but will probably result in the charges being dismissed as they generally have so little basis in actual law.

As a disclaimer let me say that there is a chance that I am completely wrong here, but I think this is pretty much the current judicial system in the AFL.

  On 10/05/2011 at 13:39, Rusty Nails said:

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, 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

Brownlow medalists rarerly get reported after winning a medal (dipper may be the exeception)

  On 10/05/2011 at 12:56, Redleg said:

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.

I know what you mean.

I don't have any of the expertise that you obviously do, but I am so vehemently against this decision that if I were in a position to aid in the appeal process, I'd find it exceptionally difficult to maintain my composure.

As many demons supporters would, I'm sure.

  On 10/05/2011 at 12:49, america de cali said:

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?

Dangerfield walked off the ground and on aproaching the bench was walking unaided of his own volition and making obvious decisions without noticeable distress. I smell a bad odour like putrid (SA) grapes over this.

I noticed Ted Richards had representation from a QC. Did jack? Did we put his best case forward?

Appendix 1 of the AFL player rules document:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a players 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 a player tackle another player around the waist and as a result of the tackle the tackled players head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would be classified as high even though the tackle was to the body

  On 10/05/2011 at 14:07, Trident said:

Appendix 1 of the AFL player rules document:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a players 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 a player tackle another player around the waist and as a result of the tackle the tackled players head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would be classified as high even though the tackle was to the body

So even if Dangerfield didn't receive concussion as a result of the tackle, Trengove in this instance or anyone undertaking the above for that matter could get suspended ?

quote from a Pies supporter named Yuba on bigfooty

This whole thread really needs to be in the main page because I'm sure the papers are going to be looking for public opinion. To be honest, I haven't even read any of the posts in this thread, I don't need to. I know the football public agrees with me. I love our game as do we all. The select few which always exist in any argument will say it's fair and should be 3 weeks but the majority, that have grown up with game, they know this is starting to go too far... Byron pickett for Melbourne almost singlehandedly put an end to the bump, we all understood the mentality behind the mrp coming down on it though and although we were sad to see it go, we accepted and moved on. Now.... Now we are seeing hard tackles being punished and this is starting to question the contact nature of the sport at it's core. We need our anger to be made public... I'm a frequent reader and seldom poster on these blogs but for this to be done by the mrp is very alarming to me. Players will be jostling without tackling like the Irish game soon... I've already seen the herald sun opinion poll and I'm not surprised. I ask you, how much less contact and softer will our game become before they stop ??? Are they waiting to be stopped ???

  On 10/05/2011 at 14:12, High Tower said:

So even if Dangerfield didn't receive concussion as a result of the tackle, Trengove in this instance or anyone undertaking the above for that matter could get suspended ?

So if a player goes for a smother and the ball hits his head and ko's him does that mean the kicker can get reported as he was responsible for kicking the ball?

  On 10/05/2011 at 12:40, Redleg said:

The fact that there was no head high contact by JT has been ignored.

Whatever you think of the rule, it seems pretty clear that the tackler doesn't actually need to make the high contact himself.

Aside from that, I think you've made a good post.

  On 10/05/2011 at 14:47, Satan said:

So if a player goes for a smother and the ball hits his head and ko's him does that mean the kicker can get reported as he was responsible for kicking the ball?

I'll assume whatever the case, by the "vibe" I'm getting, the offender has to have/display a "duty of care"....

Duty of care ? In a tackle ?

ie. "Here's your tackle, now here's a pillow and a nice cuppa for ya, I hope I wasn't too hard on ya fella, no hard feelings hey ? "

Appeal, great post!

  On 10/05/2011 at 13:30, Redleg said:

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.

Fantastic Thread. My thoughts exactly.

By the new standards they are setting; the next time Jack Riewoldt knocks himself out after hitting his own head on the turf he should cop 2 weeks

Good points you raise Redleg. If the match committee or Tribunal have been externally influenced on the decision then that is a very serious matter indeed, even more serious than the totally inept decision last night. If prior collusion were to be the case, there should be immediate resignations as the boy simply did not get a fair hearing. 4 minutes doesn't look good. Heat is on the AFL on two fronts now - The ridiculous report and the contempt shown to assessing the contesting evidence.

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.

  On 10/05/2011 at 21:19, Whispering_Jack said:

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 imagine that you would either need new evidence or be able to demonstrate that the finding was against the evidence or just incorrect in relation to the rule or procedures. I see your point about just getting on with it but how would the rest of the list sse that. I suppose they cold be addressed by the Coach on the " it is us against them philosophy" to try and harden us against the opposition. 

What would the Pies do if it ws Pendlebury?

What do you say as to an  18 minute deliberation of a video showing no head bump in the Richards case to the 4 minute deliberation in JT's complicated evidence and submissions case?

"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."

Yes despite our anger and pain, I think this is right. We just don't have time to dwell on it the pathetic injustice.

Don't worry this preceedent and stupidity is going to hurt other clubs as well long term, we've just taken our pain early.

Bizarre ending to what was such a good win and I hope the players grab the positives out of it and stick with the script.

Also hope the media continue the good fight on this, it's a serious issue and shouldn't be left to die on the vine.

I want to know why so long was spent hearing from the Adelaide doctor about Dangerfield's condition when the Chairman instructed the panel to focus on the conduct, not the consequence to the tackled player.

If this is the case, all the evidence from the Adelaide doctor was irrelevant and should not have been heard.

  On 10/05/2011 at 12:40, Redleg said:

.......

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?

..........

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.

It was a Kangaroo Court par excellence !!

""Tribunal legal counsel Andrew Tinney seized on Trengove's statement that it was important to make every tackle "stick"."This was a tackle that was simply too forceful," Tinney said.""""

wtf ??? Tinney is obviously an agenda led tool of the highest order

This is a very dangerous decision not only for Trengove and the MFC but for the game and all clubs collectively...its just an utter nonsense.

The club must appeal, absolutely.

Surely if the chairman says the injury to Dangerfield (who has a history of risking head and a glass jaw) is not relevant, that at least gives the tribunal at least some cause to reconsider the points associated with high impact, then it just becomes the issue of the mechanics of the tackle and whether it was dangerous.

WJ, I agree with your sentiments to an extent, but if the club deems an injustice to have occurred surely it must seek every avenue to defend its player?

3 WEEKS FOR A BLOODY TACKLE??????

and Campbell Brown gets 2 for decking someone behind play?????

Crazy world we live in folks!

  On 10/05/2011 at 13:41, RalphiusMaximus said:

If a case is referred to the MRP they apply a set formula to it to determine the point value. They do not have the authority to make value judgments on whether they think the case is worthy of referral (a job trained monkeys can do). Basically, if a case is sent to them, it will result in a charge (flaw 1 in the system) as virtually any act on a football field will incur some points.

This isn't entirely true. At some point during the MRP process, the members must make a judgment call on whether something is either negligent, reckless, intentional etc. So whilst it aims to be fairly rigid, in actual fact a human judgment still needs to be made...

  On 10/05/2011 at 14:07, Trident said:

Appendix 1 of the AFL player rules document:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a players 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 a player tackle another player around the waist and as a result of the tackle the tackled players head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would be classified as high even though the tackle was to the body

Are you serious - This paragraph is the basis for the Trenners tackly being deemed a reportable offence? The way this reads, a player could get rubbed out for 3 weeks for making accidental contact with a team mate!!!!

Precedent has now been set: Tackle aside, a player can now get rubbed out while:

- Marking: Hanger, or back with the flight of the ball - Both have potential to cause accidental high contact with opposition player or team mate: Both would breach "Duty of Care"

- Kicking: Opposition attempts to smother - Potential to cause accidental high contact - If there grounds to reasonably expect a smother is forthcoming - Breach "Duty of Care"

- And dont get me started on the dangers of the warm up - Particulary the increased risk when multiple footballs are being kicked around.

  On 10/05/2011 at 23:12, fitness said:

This isn't entirely true. At some point during the MRP process, the members must make a judgment call on whether something is either negligent, reckless, intentional etc. So whilst it aims to be fairly rigid, in actual fact a human judgment still needs to be made...

Whatever it was, it doesn't warrant 3 weeks for a first up offence. Appeal for a reduction in sentence for first offence or take to courts just as the Swans did with Barry Hall, which effectively won them a premiership!

Even Dermy, Rhys-Jones, Dipper or Mathews wouldn't have got 3 weeks for that touch up.

Every tackle should be carefully scrutinised by the MFC from here. Any "pin one arm" tackle which ends up in a concussion should receive no less than 3 weeks!!! Anything less and we seek a post sentence review if the appeal process fails etc.

Lets take em on Demons!

  On 10/05/2011 at 23:16, PhilReadFury said:

Are you serious - This paragraph is the basis for the Trenners tackly being deemed a reportable offence? The way this reads, a player could get rubbed out for 3 weeks for making accidental contact with a team mate!!!!

Precedent has now been set: Tackle aside, a player can now get rubbed out while:

- Marking: Hanger, or back with the flight of the ball - Both have potential to cause accidental high contact with opposition player or team mate: Both would breach "Duty of Care"

- Kicking: Opposition attempts to smother - Potential to cause accidental high contact - If there grounds to reasonably expect a smother is forthcoming - Breach "Duty of Care"

- And dont get me started on the dangers of the warm up - Particulary the increased risk when multiple footballs are being kicked around.

agreed. Appendix 1 is so badly written you could drive a semi-trailer through the holes

perhaps this could be grounds for appeal on the basis that Appendix 1 is manifestly lacking in precision and natural justice