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.

You make good points Thomo. Maybe it did effect a reasonably quick decision.

You make good points Thomo. Maybe it did effect a reasonably quick decision.

Agree. A shame we didn't have Galbally for that hearing. Nice to know we are silked up this time!

...they should have had a biomechanics expert.

They did...

Dangerfield's air-swing at the ball with a raised leg contributed to both players falling to the ground and left the Crows midfielder perilously off balance as he was slung with what the controlling field umpire considered a perfectly legal tackle.

Dr Kevin Ball, a bio-mechanist who has worked at several AFL clubs and now consults for the Demons, stood before the jury to demonstrate with frame-by-frame video how Dangerfield's failed kicking attempt actually connected with Trengove's planted left foot.

He believed the leg-to-leg contact caused Trengove to topple backwards as he slung Dangerfield to the right. And that Dangerfield's high leg action left him more vulnerable in the tackle. Video showed him put out the left arm to brace for the inevitable fall, his chest was next to hit the ground and then the head.

Biomechanist evidence was prevalent before the tribunal system was overhauled for the 2005 season. It was overused and, frankly, often discredited. But this was a plausible explanation from a qualified expert.

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.

As s-t-i-n-g-a has said, we did have a biomechanist there.

The idea that we should not have run other defences alongside this seems odd to me.

New medical report provided by Adelaide doctors to show Dangerfield has shown no I'll-effects from concussion and is right to play this week.

Should help no end.

Dave, the meaty stuff is underway now. David Galbally QC is presenting Melbourne's defence. He is suggesting that Dangerfield contributed to the way the tackle was laid. Replays of the incident are now being screened.

Pretty happy with that.

I think it's the best argument - Dangerfield kicked out & contributed to it.

Now the Appeals Board panel is being shown photos of the incident. Galbally says Dangerfield is taller and 7 kilos heavier than Trengove "which is important when you've got a smaller player trying to dispossess a bigger player of the ball".

Adam McNicol: Galbally says Trengove was trying to prevent Dangerfield from kicking the ball. Galbally says the only course of action open to Trengove was to try and pull Dangerfield back from the ball so the kick was a mis-kick.

Adam McNicol: Shea, Melbourne's defence is that Trengove was to pull Dangerfield off the ball. Galbally said: "As he's falling back, he's falling back onto Trengove. He's not picked up and thrown to the ground. The ball falls loose and Dangerfield falls to the ground. When he hits the ground his shoulder hits the ground first, his chest hits the ground second and his head hits the ground third."

Galbally warming up. Only had symptoms of concussion.

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.

Totally, Rogue, totally... "dare to fight - dare to win"

Adam McNicol: Fee, the incident was cited by the match review panel when they looked at the game on Monday. This is what the MRP said: "Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Adelaide Crows, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 243.75 points and a two-match sanction."

http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php?option=com_altcaster&task=viewaltcast&altcast_code=f8b7cb2fac&ipod=y&rand=&refurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afl.com.au%2Fnews%2Fnewsarticle%2Ftabid%2F208%2Fnewsid%2F113651%2Fdefault.aspx

this galbally could talk his way out of a murder will be a star if he gets him off

Somebody's been reading redlegs' posts on demonland

Galbally says the tribunal didn't deliberate for long enough on Tuesday night.

"We say they didn't have a clear understanding of exactly what had taken place. If they had examined it frame by frame they would not have to come to the conclusion they came to."

Never reported in his career, including juniors!

Never reported, let alone suspended. The first time he gets cited is after the match for an incident that didn't even receieve a free kick, nor any reaction from Adelaide players, and it was for a perfectly laid tackle!

Adam McNicol: Galbally says the word concussion was used on Tuesday rather than symptoms of concussion and he reiterates that the fact Dangerfield played today is very important.

Never reported in his career, including juniors!

Never reported, let alone suspended. The first time he gets cited is after the match for an incident that didn't even receieve a free kick, nor any reaction from Adelaide players, and it was for a perfectly laid tackle!

Really good point. About a dozen Adelaide Crows players at arms reach, and not a single one of them considered it to be anything but fair game at the time.

Adam McNicol: Galbally says the word concussion was used on Tuesday rather than symptoms of concussion and he reiterates that the fact Dangerfield played today is very important.

Adam McNicol: Discussion taking place as to whether the Appeals Board has the ability to hand out an entirely new penalty if its wants to. Basically, Melbourne is saying that if Trengove is not cleared then his penalty should be downgraded.

Surely the above goes without saying??

How can there be a discussion - they must have already established this, to my understanding.

Never reported in his career, including juniors!

Never reported, let alone suspended. The first time he gets cited is after the match for an incident that didn't even receieve a free kick, nor any reaction from Adelaide players, and it was for a perfectly laid tackle!

IMO Trengove should have received the free kick. Dangerfield dropped the ball after he was tackled - therefore incorrect disposal.

I think it's clear from the live feed that the biggest mistake we made at the MRP was using Iain Findlay instead of David Galbally. The QC is presenting a much more coherent, factual defence that is far more likely to succeed than "this is how they are taught to tackle and he did it again in the next passage of play".

Still not confident, but he's presenting a much better case.

Adam McNicol: Galbally wants to get the Appeals Board to watch the DVD made by the AFL as to what is a safe tackle and what isn't. The chairman says this cannot happen because it was not shown to the tribunal on Tuesday.

This is a top call. Galbally would know this,(can't be shown) but it insinuates that the tackle was fair according to AFL rules.

Adam McNicol: Galbally wants to get the Appeals Board to watch the DVD made by the AFL as to what is a safe tackle and what isn't. The chairman says this cannot happen because it was not shown to the tribunal on Tuesday.

How is it that some of this evidence wasn't presented to the tribunal? This seems to me to be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

yes that came across as a concession speech to me when i heard it.

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.

Adam McNicol: Galbally wants to get the Appeals Board to watch the DVD made by the AFL as to what is a safe tackle and what isn't. The chairman says this cannot happen because it was not shown to the tribunal on Tuesday.

Adam McNicol: Legal counsel for the AFL, Andrew Tinney SC, now speaking. He says Galbally is approaching the matter as if it is a rehearing, which it is not.

That Tinney bloke is a dog.

this tinney does not want jack let off by the sounds of it otherwise he looks like the tool