Interesting article by Bruce Matthews of the Sun saying he has covered tribunal hearings for 35 years and always understood the result. This time he says after reading all of the evidence he has absolutely no idea how they came to their decision. He also says this charge/penalty will hurt the game badly. He further said as many have said including Peter Carey former umpire and MRP member, that if Dangerfield was not concussed there would be no charge and that JT is very unlucky.

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

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.

How costly is it? Is the money partially or completely refundable? Do our representatives act without payment?

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

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.

Rather than sap the energy of the players and having a detrimental impact, I think the fact the Club is willing to take on the MRP and so forth could actually be a positive.

Given that the Club has made clear that they felt Trengove acted not only within the rules, but exactly as taught, it might be positive for the players to see the Club fighting for the player.

To give but one example, it wasn't so long ago that CA squibbed on the Singh 'monkey' case; according to the players, this caused significant unrest and they felt let down. While the situations are a little different, what the players were let down by was the fact that they felt they weren't supported.

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

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

If we think we can win we should appeal.

  On 11/05/2011 at 07:40, Rogue said:

Rather than sap the energy of the players and having a detrimental impact, I think the fact the Club is willing to take on the MRP and so forth could actually be a positive.

Given that the Club has made clear that they felt Trengove acted not only within the rules, but exactly as taught, it might be positive for the players to see the Club fighting for the player.

To give but one example, it wasn't so long ago that CA squibbed on the Singh 'monkey' case; according to the players, this caused significant unrest and they felt let down. While the situations are a little different, what the players were let down by was the fact that they felt they weren't supported.

I agree and I think the most likely response is for the guys in the team to rally. The club's response of, as Jaded put it nicely, "this is bullshit" and its commitment to challenging it is clearly backed up by the players as per the response on Twitter, is clearly backed up by the media as per the articles published today, and is clearly backed up by the members as per the response on here. The overwhelming momentum of a unified response is empowering. The players will all be 5% stronger than normal this weekend. If the fight as successful and Trengove is out there the response will be better still.

Rabble rabble rabble communism theory rabble joke joke rabble rabble rabble

But seriously.... Soviet Russia anyone?

Can we now expect players who are tackled to the ground deliberately drive their own heads into the turf in order to get a free kick??

Could be a new trick for Selwood, plus he's got a hard nut too

  On 11/05/2011 at 02:44, daisycutter said:

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

Good point.

Can't wait to see what happens tomorrow.

A fantastic OP from Redleg and numerous brilliant contributions.

However, it has been clear as day for years now that in every single aspect - no matter how minute (and there are many minutiae) - of the organisation and running of the game, the AFL from Vlad down to the umpires, make the rules up as they go along. That is the very essence, the absolute essence, of the modern Australian Football game in which nothing is fair and transparent, free of favouritism and patronage and sheer stupidity, not even the so-called 'Draw' and least of all the 'Tribunal', and is what we see happening here.

I'm not confident of Jack getting off completely, or even partially, as a lot of face-saving will have to be built into whatever decision is made, but I hope the club pursues it just as far as laws, money and evidence permit; nothing less than the impugning of a fine young man's character, his very ethics as a respected professional footballer, is being arranged here by these bombastic fools.

  On 11/05/2011 at 07:40, Rogue said:

How costly is it? Is the money partially or completely refundable? Do our representatives act without payment?

Rather than sap the energy of the players and having a detrimental impact, I think the fact the Club is willing to take on the MRP and so forth could actually be a positive.

Given that the Club has made clear that they felt Trengove acted not only within the rules, but exactly as taught, it might be positive for the players to see the Club fighting for the player.

To give but one example, it wasn't so long ago that CA squibbed on the Singh 'monkey' case; according to the players, this caused significant unrest and they felt let down. While the situations are a little different, what the players were let down by was the fact that they felt they weren't supported.

If we think we can win we should appeal.

Expensive if you lose. If you win you don't pay from what I remember reading a few times.

Haven't read all the comments on this thread, but ....

IMO, the tackle was reckless and 'slinging'. 3 weeks is excessive I believe, but he was always in trouble.

Having said that, thank heavens for some hardness! If Dangerfield hadn't been hurt, he probably would have got a caution/slap. So it goes.

  On 11/05/2011 at 10:54, Demon Land 7 said:

Expensive if you lose. If you win you don't pay from what I remember reading a few times.

Never mind, I found out the answer.

According to a 2010 booklet, the cost is $5K, with $2.5K refundable. I'm not sure on what grounds the $2.5K is refundable.

  On 11/05/2011 at 09:16, Benno said:

Rabble rabble rabble communism theory rabble joke joke rabble rabble rabble

But seriously.... Soviet Russia anyone?

Ваше пребывание в ГУЛАГе ты товарищ?

For mine, the absurdity of the decision is borne out by this statement from Andrew Tinney: "This was a tackle that was simply too forceful"..

Where in the rules does it say that tackles can only be made using moderate force?

Absolutely nonsense

  On 11/05/2011 at 11:02, Mono said:

Having said that, thank heavens for some hardness! If Dangerfield hadn't been hurt, he probably would have got a caution/slap. So it goes.

If he hadn't been hurt, nothing would've happened as seen with Trengove applying the same tackle 10 sec after the Dangerfield tackle.

It was a near perfect tackle but this is a split second sport where there are a lot of moving parts. Dangerfield's momentum, Trengoves momentum, lost of balance from Pattie, How psychically strong a certain player is?

Dangerfield is a bull and players should not have to pick and choose how much or less force goes into a tackle.

Dangerfield. Go 70%. Swan might need 80%. Nahas might need me to go 45%.

Absurd.

The fact the chairman said, look at the incident not the consequence yet Tinney's argument was based on Adelaide's medical report and how Trengove was not sighted for the Brodie Smith tackle.

I wonder if the umpire(s) who failed to even award a free kick will be stood down this week?

If the umpires can't judge excessive force and high contact how is the player expected to moderate his action

Consistency please AFL

Rhetorical question, we all know the answer but it does raise the issue of just who understands the (new) rules.

  On 11/05/2011 at 12:07, daisycutter said:

I wonder if the umpire(s) who failed to even award a free kick will be stood down this week?

If the umpires can't judge excessive force and high contact how is the player expected to moderate his action

Consistency please AFL

Rhetorical question, we all know the answer but it does raise the issue of just who understands the (new) rules.

K B was trying to understand his rules this morning....i so wanted to knock his little Block off....Kevin can never be wrong.

Someone made a very good point the other day - set the rules to the 2000 season plus the centre circle rule and the quick kick-in rule and leave it at that. Keep the tribunal interpretations for issues such as the Byron bump thing where the head has been deemed sacrosanct, but apart from that, actually try leaving the rules alone.

the members of Demonland on Friday morning:

  On 11/05/2011 at 12:33, Curry & Beer said:

the members of Demonland on Friday morning:

Let's attack a Macca's store!!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113660/default.aspx

Speaking of fairness... is this a cleverly veiled 'taunt' from the AFL? Can the AFL comment on the probable outcome of an appeal before its heard?

  On 12/05/2011 at 02:30, Demon Property said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113660/default.aspx

Speaking of fairness... is this a cleverly veiled 'taunt' from the AFL? Can the AFL comment on the probable outcome of an appeal before its heard?

The AFL are clearly not happy with the way things have panned out, and the criticism they have received. We should expect Norf to be gifted plenty of free kicks this weekend!!

Good to see Sammy Mitchell providing some backing words though

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-captain-sam-mitchell-says-every-afl-player-is-backing-melbournes-jack-trengoves-tribunal-appeal/story-e6frf9jf-1226054535496?from=igoogle+gadget+compact+bi_rss

I agree with him, I would accept a one week ban too, but three weeks for a tackle with unintentional injury is just wrong!!

in the 13 other appeal hearings since '05, only one player, Collingwood skipper Nick Maxwell, has been successful.

it makes you sick doesn't it? if you had to guess who the one exceptional case was, you'd go for the captain of collingwood wouldn't you

eff you AFL

  On 12/05/2011 at 02:41, Curry & Beer said:

in the 13 other appeal hearings since '05, only one player, Collingwood skipper Nick Maxwell, has been successful.

it makes you sick doesn't it? if you had to guess who the one exceptional case was, you'd go for the captain of collingwood wouldn't you

eff you AFL

No, this makes me more optimistic. Maxwell got off because what he did was not different from what most players would have done, within the context of the game. Trengrove's case is very similar.

I still think that the AFL is after blood, though. They'll be spitting chips if he does get off. Although, like the Maxwell case, a significant clarification of the rules followed the verdict, and maybe that would be the best result for all concerned here. In other words, the rules under which he has been suspended were not clear before Trengrove made his tackle, as demonstrated by the widespread disbelief from players of all clubs, so if he gets off it will give the AFL a chance to clarify the situation so that all players will be well-informed from now on. As the situation stands, nobody seems to know what is a correct tackle, what is "excessive force", and so on.

But can the AFL be that sensible about it when they're on a crusade???

Hopefully the appeal is handled better than the hearing. I think it was made easy for the panel to make a quick decision

Melbourne’s main emphasis of the defence was 'that is how they are taught to tackle, and the coach was happy with it'. So what, doesn't make it right, all it does is now put the rest of the team under pressure when they lay a tackle, the AFL will now be watching every Melbourne player, because under their rules we tackle with too much force.

They should have concentrated on the Crows player turning himself, choosing not to brace with his free hand, first contact with the hip, etc. They shouldn't have had a tackling coach, they should have had a biomechanics expert.

When the question is - was the tackle negligent, was it high contact, was it high impact, the answer should not be 'that's how the coach wants us to tackle'. It's like being charged with assault, and instead of arguing self defence, telling the judge that you have been taught to punch hard.

My point earlier about the conduct not being negligent is backed up by the following.

Firstly, the comments made by Mitchell and many media experts comprising ex-footballers. Mitchell has basically implied, in saying that every player would hope JT is cleared, that JT's tackle was the way that all players would tackle in the same situation. Ex-footballers have also described it as a perfect tackle, again showing that that is how the ordinary footballer would tackle in the circumstances.

I just cannot see how JT's tackle can be classified as negligent conduct. While negligence is viewed objectively, surely the comments of other footballers can help determine what would have been reasonable in the circumstances (and therefore whether JT's conduct fell short of this standard or met the standard).

Secondly, in the Maxwell case, the Appeals Board said that 'the contact made by Maxwell was reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game and the guidelines, and was therefore not negligent contact'. Tackling someone to the ground is permitted under the laws of the game. The question then is whether it was reasonable, and for the reasons mentioned above and in my earlier post I would find it extremely difficult to consider it unreasonable.

I watched the incident again multiple times last night and the finding by the MRP and Tribunal is absolutely disgraceful.

In fact, I'm starting to wonder whether the AFL might not be giving us a way out here.

Perhaps they're starting to realise (maybe in discussion with the AFLPA behind the scenes) how much disquiet has been caused among the whole group of players and coaches from all clubs, that what seems to be a "perfect tackle" results in a 3-match suspension. The AFL want to avoid MFC arguing that Dangerfield contributed to the impetus of the tackle by swinging his leg so (unnecessarily) hard at the ball, or that the impact of the tackle was made worse by the fact that he'd been dazed in an earlier incident yet allowed to continue playing. But they'd be OK for us to argue that the general player reaction demonstrates that at the time the tackle was made, every player & umpire & coach & bootstudder in the AFL would have considered it a legitimate tackle and are now shocked to realise that it results in suspension. Furthermore, there would be considerable player disquiet that the definition of what constitutes a legitimate tackle has been made very unclear by this ruling of this particular tackle.

If JT got off, it would then allow the AFL & AFLPA to make a statement that from now on, where head injury is the consequence of a tackle, it doesn't matter how "perfect" the tackle is, it will result in a similar penalty; this is a similar circumstance to the Maxwell bump, where he got off, but clarification was made after the event to prevent any further incidents of that nature. In other words, in the case of head injury, the consequence WILL now be taken into account to determine the penalty, not just the "conduct". They can call it the "Trengrove ruling" (or the "Dangerfield ruling" - that's actually a much better name for it). The situation to apply from now on will then be perfectly clear, and everyone will be happy.

I still believe "beware the crusader deprived of his kill". But if it's the AFL doctors leading the crusade, they'll be wanting to prevent further incidents of this type, more than to extract their pound of flesh for this particular incident. It's just interesting that this is the first place I've seen or heard of the Maxwell case being raised, and for that manner analysed in some depth, and wonder if they're aiming to get a similar outcome and giving us a nudge and a wink.

Redleg?