Exploring avenues for an appeal as we speak

Excellent.

Sometimes you've just gotta say [censored] it, and fight for justice.

The club owes it to Trengove to explore every avenue.

Fantastic posts Jack and Redleg, you've isolated the arguments and now the club must decide. I'm confident they will be receiving a lot of advice.

Unlike many here who see this issue as black or white there are many aspects to this decision and it must be considered at many levels.

IMO we've shown faith to Jack and the playing group by appealing in the first case and now we just need to make a hard headed business decision.

I don't know what that decision should be but there is no point appealing if we don't think we can win. As Jack says, this isn't about right or wrong it's about what the law says.

BTW Redleg, thanks for the opening post, I couldn't agree more about the 4 minute business. Surely they just wanted to get home because a group of 3 intelligent men, knowing the scrutiny this decision would get, would have the sense to wait 15 minutes even if they had already made their decision.

  On 10/05/2011 at 23:48, Fan said:

Fantastic posts Jack and Redleg, you've isolated the arguments and now the club must decide. I'm confident they will be receiving a lot of advice.

Unlike many here who see this issue as black or white there are many aspects to this decision and it must be considered at many levels.

IMO we've shown faith to Jack and the playing group by appealing in the first case and now we just need to make a hard headed business decision.

I don't know what that decision should be but there is no point appealing if we don't think we can win. As Jack says, this isn't about right or wrong it's about what the law says.

BTW Redleg, thanks for the opening post, I couldn't agree more about the 4 minute business. Surely they just wanted to get home because a group of 3 intelligent men, knowing the scrutiny this decision would get, would have the sense to wait 15 minutes even if they had already made their decision.

Agree on appealing only if we think we can win. Need some sort of new evidence. Can the matter go back to the match review panel at all ? Or is the MRP all done & dusted and the matter can only remain with appealing at the tribunal ?

It's called being made an example of. The next gut will get 3 weeks and then it'll be a one week suspension. The MRP doesn't work

any Wigs and Silks amongst the loyal Demon following ?

  On 10/05/2011 at 21:40, Redleg said:

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?

Good point about the Pies. I think they might look back on previous experiences.

Grand finals are more important than round 8 matches but back in 2002 and 2003 Collingwood rolled the dice with appeals against suspensions in Preliminary Finals to Jason Cloke and Anthony Rocca respectively. Eddie McGuire made a lot of noise, the club expended a lot of time, money and other resources and energy on the appeals processes during grand final week. Neither player got off.

I spoke after the second grand final to a member of the Collingwood hierarchy of the time and his view was that the general feeling at the club was that in all the controversy generated about the individuals concerned, the entire club took its eyes slightly off the main aim of winning a premiership. There still is a lot of regret about taking the course they took in those years.

We must console and support Jack Trengove over this and the club will doubtlessly weigh up all factors but, in the end, it's a team sport and our focus should remain on the 22 who represent the club on a week to week basis.

You can't guarantee an outcome HT ... Only an effort !!

The MRP are a shambles and are but a shopfront for Vlads ideas of the moment.

It's footy not tiggy and it's played at break neck speed (npi) . The MRP are suggesting there's even degrees of finesse !! There's no consistency about thir deliberations or the application of their rather rubbery rules.

This was decided before it started and then they searched til they could find some morsel of anything to hang guilt on. In the end it was that JT had the temerity to apply a legal tackle that STUCK . Similar tackle moments later so how was that different other than accidental outcome.

If not careful this game will become unplayable.

  On 10/05/2011 at 23:56, High Tower said:

Agree on appealing only if we think we can win. Need some sort of new evidence. Can the matter go back to the match review panel at all ? Or is the MRP all done & dusted and the matter can only remain with appealing at the tribunal ?

Only appeal if we can win?

By appealing we draw this issue out into the middle of the week, when nothing else is happening in the football spotlight, and invite the notion of "trial-by-media".

Fortunately in this case they are all on our side.

New evidence centreing around Dangerfield's kicking motion, that not only contributed to his movement into the turf, but made the force required by Trengove to be much less for it to have the same impact.

Common sense will hopefully prevail.

If you want to change the rotten outcome at the tribunal then MFC will have to come up with new or compelling evidence that alters, negates the basis of decision by the tribunal.

If you want to change the MRP or tribunal processes or rule draftings then you will have to do it outside the appeal process and through the AFL.

HSun straw polls are all fine but they are not going to worthy evidence at the tribunal?

Made this point in the other thread, but the reality is - they HAD TO have had their mind made up!

AFL boxed themselves in irreparably and stupidly here...

Evidence at Tribunal was that his tackle was how players are TAUGHT to tackle..

Laws of AFL now state you can't tackle like that - so for us to challenge it meant the Tribunal had 2 options:

1) agree with the MRP, and make it known that now every tackler has been taught wrong, and every player will now have to adjust EVERY tackle they make from hereon in - BUT the Laws are correct!

Or

2) overule the MRP, thereby making a mockery of their particularly incompetent, and never road-tested Laws!

There was no way they were going to overtly show that Anderson/ Demetriou are complete idiots by overruling something which is in the Laws (esp with the Mumford precedent - notable, for which they didn't even follow!) - hence they HAD TO uphold the decision!

Worse still - the Report evolved from the MEDICAL REPORT of DField - ie the RESULT/ IMPACT! Thereby negating/ overlooking the fact that the tackle WAS actually legit!

Seriously - i saw 2 of these tackles in last nights game, but nobody with a predisposition to concussion was tackled, thereby there will be NO report!

Also interesting to note the Hansen push into the fence ALSO comes under this law - dude had near-spinal injuries - WHERE WAS THE REPORT???

Ass-backwards logic of the Laws tied their hands...

That's sorta what happens when you introduce 45 new Laws/ Rules every year!

  On 11/05/2011 at 00:15, Whispering_Jack said:

Good point about the Pies. I think they might look back on previous experiences.

Grand finals are more important than round 8 matches but back in 2002 and 2003 Collingwood rolled the dice with appeals against suspensions in Preliminary Finals to Jason Cloke and Anthony Rocca respectively. Eddie McGuire made a lot of noise, the club expended a lot of time, money and other resources and energy on the appeals processes during grand final week. Neither player got off.

I spoke after the second grand final to a member of the Collingwood hierarchy of the time and his view was that the general feeling at the club was that in all the controversy generated about the individuals concerned, the entire club took its eyes slightly off the main aim of winning a premiership. There still is a lot of regret about taking the course they took in those years.

We must console and support Jack Trengove over this and the club will doubtlessly weigh up all factors but, in the end, it's a team sport and our focus should remain on the 22 who represent the club on a week to week basis.

I hear what you are saying but it's round 8 as you said and IMO we have a duty of care (buzz phrase of the week) to support our players when they are hung out to dry for following club instructions.

We are already sufficiently distracted and I'd say the playing group would feel very strongly about an appeal and would welcome the distraction if it means supporting one of their own.

Even if we think we have a small chance of winning I'd hope we go for it.

  On 11/05/2011 at 01:01, Rhino Richards said:

If you want to change the rotten outcome at the tribunal then MFC will have to come up with new or compelling evidence that alters, negates the basis of decision by the tribunal.

If you want to change the MRP or tribunal processes or rule draftings then you will have to do it outside the appeal process and through the AFL.

HSun straw polls are all fine but they are not going to worthy evidence at the tribunal?

You're so predictable Rhino.......I wouldn't want you beside me in the trenches.

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.

  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.

I understand what you are saying Jack, but I disagree.

If the AFL have set rules around when you can and can't appeal and that restricts the MFC from appealing in this case, I would have thought we could take the case to The Court of Arbitration for Sport on the basis that Jack did not receive a fair hearing.

  On 11/05/2011 at 00:48, Artie Bucco said:

Only appeal if we can win?

By appealing we draw this issue out into the middle of the week, when nothing else is happening in the football spotlight, and invite the notion of "trial-by-media".

Fortunately in this case they are all on our side.

New evidence centreing around Dangerfield's kicking motion, that not only contributed to his movement into the turf, but made the force required by Trengove to be much less for it to have the same impact.

Common sense will hopefully prevail.

Why the question, when essentially you agree with me ? I'd like to see them appeal, but IMO the club needs more to present it's case that what it has done.

I agree on Dangerfield's kicking motion adding to the impact.

  On 11/05/2011 at 00:15, Whispering_Jack said:

Good point about the Pies. I think they might look back on previous experiences.

Grand finals are more important than round 8 matches but back in 2002 and 2003 Collingwood rolled the dice with appeals against suspensions in Preliminary Finals to Jason Cloke and Anthony Rocca respectively. Eddie McGuire made a lot of noise, the club expended a lot of time, money and other resources and energy on the appeals processes during grand final week. Neither player got off.

Both Pies players were clearly guilty of intentional strikes to the head. Very different.

Where is Dangerfield in all this?

Surely he feels embarrassed that a player is getting hung to dry over the tackle. Can we try to get him to speak up?

I doubt someone as brave as him wants to see tackling eliminated from our game.

  On 10/05/2011 at 23:34, High Tower said:

Exploring avenues for an appeal as we speak

Very interesting statements by Adrian Anderson nearly apologizing to Trengove over the situation. Uses words like he wasn't "reckless" but may have been "negligent" and that it was "borderline". Extrapolating if this was beyond negligent and reckless and was deliberate what would the penalty have been, 12 weeks or more, who knows. He seems to be encouraging us to Appeal to the AFL Appeals Board.

Like another poster I wonder why the player who pushed Hansen into the fence causing a back injury was not cited.

Whilst I cant find the actual rules anywhere it seems to me there are several potential errors in the decision.

First the Medical report should not have been allowed into evidence. It is irrelevant to the rough conduct charge and the chairman directed the panel to ignore the consequences of the tackle thus he should have told them to ignore the report.

Second, the tribunal did not consider what constitutes "high contact" which was an essential ingredient of the penalty nor as far as i can see did Tinney address on that issue. The contact with the ground was a consequence of conduct and on the Chairmans direction it was to be ignored. Thus the type of consequential contact should be ignored for assessing penalty.Of course this depends on the definition of High contact in the rules. This may seem strange but it seems to me to be correct. The question is was the tackle itself inherently too forceful making it "rough conduct" and what type of contact was involved in the tackle itself not its outcome.

Third, there was no evidence that the tackle was executed for other than a legitimate purpose in the game or was otherwise negligent. Negligence again cannot be inferred from the outcome but from the manner in which it should have been executed what steps Trengove should have taken to avoid executing a tackle in that manner. On the limited transcript the AFL called no evidence of what a proper tackle is (other than reading the rule). The only evidence was to the contrary.

  On 11/05/2011 at 02:02, Jaded said:

Where is Dangerfield in all this?

Surely he feels embarrassed that a player is getting hung to dry over the tackle. Can we try to get him to speak up?

I doubt someone as brave as him wants to see tackling eliminated from our game.

The last time this happened was when Moloney was crucified.. James Bartel, who had been his teammate just months earlier, torched him on the radio saying basically he deserved to get rubbed out, despite the fact he didn't even hit him.

Not saying Dangerfield is a POS like that but you just reminded me of that incident

  On 11/05/2011 at 02:08, Redleg said:

Very interesting statements by Adrian Anderson nearly apologizing to Trengove over the situation. Uses words like he wasn't "reckless" but may have been "negligent" and that it was "borderline". Extrapolating if this was beyond negligent and reckless and was deliberate what would the penalty have been, 12 weeks or more, who knows. He seems to be encouraging us to Appeal to the AFL Appeals Board.

Like another poster I wonder why the player who pushed Hansen into the fence causing a back injury was not cited.

I also found AA's comments interesting - particularly the use of "borderline".

3 weeks is certainly not borderline.

IMO the only chance for common sense to prevail here is if the MFC can be creative enough to find an avenue worthy of appeal.

  On 11/05/2011 at 02:08, Redleg said:

Very interesting statements by Adrian Anderson nearly apologizing to Trengove over the situation. Uses words like he wasn't "reckless" but may have been "negligent" and that it was "borderline". Extrapolating if this was beyond negligent and reckless and was deliberate what would the penalty have been, 12 weeks or more, who knows. He seems to be encouraging us to Appeal to the AFL Appeals Board.

Like another poster I wonder why the player who pushed Hansen into the fence causing a back injury was not cited.

yes, the less than 4 minutes to deliberate seems just enough time to get a phone call into Anderson

not that they'd do that of course :unsure:

  On 11/05/2011 at 01:59, High Tower said:

Why the question, when essentially you agree with me ? I'd like to see them appeal, but IMO the club needs more to present it's case that what it has done.

I agree on Dangerfield's kicking motion adding to the impact.

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.

And Anderson's words are perplexing.

He comes very close to giving the opinion that Trengove should get off, with the disclaimer of "we must protect the head" even though it ignores that it seems in his opinion the action leading to the concussion was legal. Surely the legality cannot be conditional on the after-effects rather than the act itself.

I think it makes him look a bit stupid if Trengove can't get off.

Just announced on 3AW

MFC will appeal. To be heard 5:30 tomorrow

You little beauty (but this time get a silk)