Was the Jack Trengove hearing fair?

[H_T 3,049]

Just heard on a news cross on 3aw that Melbourne will appeal the Jack Trengove case again, tomorrow night at 5:30pm.

[Redleg 40,950]

It's the fact that natural justice seems to have been denied that makes a further appeal so tempting.

Seems strange that the panel was specifically instructed to decide on the basis of conduct not consequence, when the consequence was 100% of the reason why the charge came about in the first place. If Dangerfield had not been concussed, the charge would not have been brought in the first place. The consequence is the one and only reason Trengrove has any suspension at all. The tribunal therefore seems to have gone against their instructions.

On the other hand, perhaps those instructions were given just to create a smokescreen. It could be seen that if Trengrove was suspended, it would create a precedent that would be extremely difficult for the MRP & tribunal to manage (i.e. that the outcome was to be governed by the consequence, not by the action). In other words, the instruction was given to provide a fig-leaf to enable it to be said after the event that this decision was reached on account of the conduct alone, not the consequence, when it clearly wasn't.

There is nothing as inflexible as a bureaucratic mind on a crusade about something (in this case, head injuries). The MRP was created in order to bureaucratise reportable incidents.

Nice post.

[buddha82 12]

Looks like they're appealing. From Twitter:

DemonsHQ Melbourne FC

Melbourne will appeal Jack Trengove’s 3 match suspension. Stay tuned to melbournefc.com.au for full details.

Great news. Not sure how successful it will be but at least they're going all the way with supporting Trenners. Good for morale.

[H_T 3,049]

It's just that you said we should only appeal if we think we would win.

I think the act of appealing is what would make us more likely to win, as the added attention will lead to trial-by-media.

Splitting hairs anyway.

Looks as though they have more ammunition. Which can only be promising.

[daisycutter 29,617]

Just heard on a news cross on 3aw that Melbourne will appeal the Jack Trengove case again, tomorrow night at 5:30pm.

beat you by half a bee's dinger B)

[Tricky 341]

Go Dees.

[daisycutter 29,617]

Interesting how the Fat Controller has been quiet on this issue.......

[rpfc 28,527]

Good to see.

Torch bearers - turn your ire from Bailey to the MRP.

Charge!

[Scoop Junior 3,472]

Great post Redleg.

I also agree with Robbie's comments, particularly in relation to the 'negligence' aspect.

I would have thought that 'negligent' conduct would be conduct that falls short of what a reasonable footballer in Trengove's position would consider the reasonable standard of care. The aim of a good tackle is to stop the player from disposing of the ball and to bring him to the ground. Bringing the player to the ground makes it less likely that he will be able to get an effective disposal away or be able to break free from the tackle and run away. A reasonable footballer in Trengove's position would attempt to tackle the player and take him to ground, which is what Trengove did. The only difference was Dangerfield had disposed of the ball but Trengove did not know that and IMO the reasonable player in his position would have attempted something similar (and we see this every game, every week). So I don't think that he acted negligently and if this can be proven then there is no offence.

The other issue I have is the 'rough conduct' charge. Is there a definition of 'rough conduct'? I would like to see what it says. I struggle to grasp the concept of a legitimate tackle being classified as 'rough conduct'. If it is, then there is an endless amount of incidents which can be deemed 'rough conduct' and the rule would be so uncertain and so vague that it would be inoperable. It would just be a matter of the MRP picking and chosing when to charge someone with 'rough conduct' as there would potentially be 50 incidents a game which could be viewed as 'rough conduct'.

I am not sure whether attacking the rule is a viable option on appeal, but to me the rule on high contact (i.e. that contact can be deemed to be high contact where a player's head makes contact with an object as a result of another player's conduct) is unworkable. Again there is the potential for an endless amount of incidents to fall within this definition. As someone has said, a smother that results in the smothering player getting the football kicked in their head would fall within the definition of high contact. This should be challenged (though I am unsure whether it is something the appeals board can decide or whether it is only the law makers who can decide this).

The AFL don't want head injuries and they are ruthlessly punishing any incidents that lead to head injuries such as concussion. They are solely concerned with consequences rather than conduct and that's the reason why he is being rubbed out. It's an absolute disgrace.

[daisycutter 29,617]

Good to see.

Torch bearers - turn your ire from Bailey to the MRP.

Charge!

What about the apologentsia and fantasists?

[daisycutter 29,617]

There is nothing more stubborn and immovable than an MRP on a mission from Anderson God

[Guest fitness]

I love the first ground for the appeal... brilliant. Go Dees.

Melbourne appealed the three-game suspension on three grounds:

1. the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence;
   
2. the classification of the level of the offence was manifestly excessive;
   
3. the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.
   

[Jack son 5 162]

Can someone please give us a quick run down on how the process will unfold tomorrow at 5:30. How is it different from the appeal last night?

Can you watch it live on the AFL site again?

[Robbie57 2,021]

I love the first ground for the appeal... brilliant. Go Dees.

Melbourne appealed the three-game suspension on three grounds:

1. the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence;
   
2. the classification of the level of the offence was manifestly excessive;
   
3. the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.
   

As I noted above the evidence just didn't support what was submitted.

[Pates 9,660]

Basically it's seemed Jack has been guilty until proven innocent.

[Guest Gotzy15]

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.

Good on ya Redleg,great post mate i agree with you 100%!! We should all get behind the young lad cos hes a star and hes a very very modest and fair player who always puts in for the boys!Lets appeal it until theres nothing left to do

[daisycutter 29,617]

Basically it's seemed Jack has been guilty until proven innocent.

that surprises you??

[Demon Stalwart 255]

So the reason Trengrove has copped a ban is because he is being made an example of??

To ensure other AFL players sit up and take notice!!

So the logic is hold him responsible & let him carry the burden as a warning for all AFL players, against any further possible indiscretion's!

Seems a fairly harsh burden to place on a Good young player without any warning!

A player who had till now no offences against him

MRP made the decision in conference within 4 mins of retiring

There is no way proper debate could have taken place in such a short time

The decision was preordained before the hearing.

After all its the Melbourne football club, surely they don't have the same clout or guts as clubs like Collingwood or Hawthorn to stand up to the MRP

But after Melbourne's performance against the Crows as far as the AFL is concerned there is certainly enough media interest in Melbourne that this penalty will generate the exposure in the media they want so as to get the message out there and make other AFLplayers aware of our the hard stance of the AFL on this issue now.

They have to be F'n joking

This is wrong so wrong on every level!!

The members of the MRP & the AFL should be held to account

This is a huge blow to the credibility of the AFL

A s one who loves the DEES and AFL Football, I must admit I feel sorry for both Trengrove and the MFC as well as us the supporters who are being made the sacrificial lambs of the AFL

Just so they can continue their own campaign to promote AFL football Interstate and pacify the likes of the Crows or any other interstate team to show them they are serious in helping protect their players and their teams

I wonder if the result would have been the same if this had happened during the upcoming NTH Melbourne game????

[diesel 420]

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.

Regardless of the incident the process is a sham as you've detailed. I still have not heard it explained how aplayer can be charged with "high contact" when they didn't physically hit them? What if Jack had have swung Dangerfield onto one his team mates knees? We may have had an injury similar to J Brown's or J White's?

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

I heard on SEN this morning some ex alf tribunal member say he is guilty because it was a slinging action.....to me this does not appear to be the case at all.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Wadda We Sing

[diesel 420]

I heard on SEN this morning some ex alf tribunal member say he is guilty because it was a slinging action.....to me this does not appear to be the case at all.

If it was Peter Carey he was saying it was OK to 'sling' but he gets into trouble because Dangerfield hit his head. That's how I understand it anyway!

[Jaded No More 68,965]

I love the first ground for the appeal... brilliant. Go Dees.

Melbourne appealed the three-game suspension on three grounds:

1. the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence;
2. the classification of the level of the offence was manifestly excessive;
3. the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.

It's an appeal on the grounds of [censored], which we have neatly summarised into 3 long winded points as to avoid using bad words in regards to the MRP and the AFL.

Given the absolute outcry by the media, the players and the fans over this suspension, I assume the AFL told the club that they should appeal and that it wouldn't be for nothing. We'll surely get a discount on the penalty, at the very least.

[daisycutter 29,617]

5:00pm tomorrow we will know if Dangerfield is selected to play by Cows

5:30pm appeals board hears MFC appeal

Interesting timing......................

[QueenC 74]

If it was Peter Carey he was saying it was OK to 'sling' but he gets into trouble because Dangerfield hit his head. That's how I understand it anyway!

Isn't there something in there having to be two motions in the action to constitute this?

There certainly wasn't that, it was one motion and therefore doesn't this nullify the argument somewhat?

Especially any accusation of it being deliberate or malicious.

[rpfc 28,527]

What about the apologentsia and fantasists?

And the bourgeoisie.

All of them!

March!