Appeal confirmed

[hardtack 10,187]

Vlad will be angry.

Maybe if he overrides the decision as a nod towards the media and general football public response, he will go down in history as "Vlad the Impala - man of good grace".

Edited May 11, 2011 by hardtack

[The Chazz 4,077]

If this appeal fails, what player is going to ever tackle hard again?

This is a very important case, not just for JT but for the fundamental future of the game.

It was a reflex tackle, there was no premeditated intent involved.

This is my concern, regardless of the outcome.

I know for a fact that the Unpires used to use videos of Brent Moloney as their "examples of rough play", when Beamer first came to Melbourne. As a result, they umpired him out of the game for a good couple of seasons.

With Trengove being such a young player, I hope he doesn't find the same happens to him. An incident like this can make him, as well as his teammates, back off slightly in the future. I appreciate all players from all clubs are in the same boat, but when so much publicitiy and emphasis has been made about our lack of blue-collar workers, I just hope it doesn't change the way we play (assuming we can play like we did last week on a regular basis!).

[JACKATTACK 17]

So if this fails, does he get 4 weeks?

You wish! I wouldn't worry though Jamar out hurts us enough as it is.

[mauriesy 6,920]

Pardon the naivety but who hears this? Is it an AFL body or has this now become a matter for the legal system?

The AFL Appeals Board. It's part of the tribunal system.

The chairman is Peter O'Callaghan (QC), other members are Brian Collis (QC), Brian Bourke (barrister, once President of the South Melbourne Football Club), John Schultz (188 games for Footscray, 1960 Brownlow medallist) and Michael Green (146 games for Richmond, 4 premierships). All have been on the tribunal or appeals board for a long time.

Worthwhile noting that a change introduced to the tribunal system in 2010 was:

Dangerous Tackles

Introduce a new guideline under Rough Conduct for dangerous tackles, given their potential to cause serious injury. The following

wording is to be added in determining a dangerous tackle: The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which

is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without

limitation, regard may be had to:

• whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
  
• whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle;
  
• whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

excessive force

every good coach I ever had did not understand this term. It was as much force as you could apply or go to the bench.

[John Crow Batty 8,377]

every good coach I ever had did not understand this term. It was as much force as you could apply or go to the bench.

I would be more comfortable defining excessive force as applying force to deliberately try to injure. Also I hope the club scrutinises to what happened prior to see if Dangerfield had copped other knocks to the head earlier in the game. If he did there is a possibility of a cumulative effect in causing his concussion.

[Ash35 425]

You wish! I wouldn't worry though Jamar out hurts us enough as it is.

Ahhhh no, that thought didn't even cross my mind. Didn't realise we were playing you guys in 4 weeks time.

I'm more than happy for young Jack to play, and for the record, 3 weeks was extremely excessive in my view.

My question was a genuine one. And as explained, if it's only money that Melbourne stand to lose, I would definitely be appealing the decision.

I was amazed Leigh Montagna excepted his one match ban, but that's another story all together.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Ash35

[Longsufferingnomore 1,500]

I would be more comfortable defining excessive force as applying force to deliberately try to injure. Also I hope the club scrutinises to what happened prior to see if Dangerfield had copped other knocks to the head earlier in the game. If he did there is a possibility of a cumulative effect in causing his concussion.

Didnt David Jones say to the tribunal before deliberation that they should look at the charge for the action not the result (concussion). So the tribunal did the opposite because it was the "concussion" not the so call force of the tackle that resulted in the charge. I am not certain that Jack will be exonerated as the AFL have been on a mission with regard to concussion and or head injuries and what Vlad wants he gets. Jack will be made a scapegoat despite what we and the rest of the football world think. Hopefully their pound of flesh will be one game. Even that seems ludicrous. I wonder how Jack is coping with all of this. Maybe Jim should go tomorrow and vouch for Jack's saint like character.

[Akum 2,660]

I would be more comfortable defining excessive force as applying force to deliberately try to injure. Also I hope the club scrutinises to what happened prior to see if Dangerfield had copped other knocks to the head earlier in the game. If he did there is a possibility of a cumulative effect in causing his concussion.

... and if so, the Adelaide club doctor might be in a bit of trouble!

Edited May 11, 2011 by Akum

[RalphiusMaximus 6,005]

The AFL Appeals Board. It's part of the tribunal system.

The chairman is Peter O'Callaghan (QC), other members are Brian Collis (QC), Brian Bourke (barrister, once President of the South Melbourne Football Club), John Schultz (188 games for Footscray, 1960 Brownlow medallist) and Michael Green (146 games for Richmond, 4 premierships). All have been on the tribunal or appeals board for a long time.

Worthwhile noting that a change introduced to the tribunal system in 2010 was:

Dangerous Tackles

Introduce a new guideline under Rough Conduct for dangerous tackles, given their potential to cause serious injury. The following

wording is to be added in determining a dangerous tackle: The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which

is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without

limitation, regard may be had to:

• whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
  
• whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle;
  
• whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

This term seems to be the crux of the matter. They argued a lot over it during the tribunal hearing. It's astounding that there were two former players on that board, because they would surely understand that doing anything on the field at less than 100% is a sure way to get dropped.

If politics is left at the door, then there are enough games of experience on the appeals board to understand that Trengove did no more or less than what was required of an elite sportsman. The suggestion from Tinney on Tuesday that he should have let go with one hand was manifestly ludicrous. You can not effectively tackle a player one-handed. Likewise the force used was enough to move the player off the ball. It must be born in mind that Trengove is a younger and significantly less powerful player than Dangerfield, and as such would have had to use everything he had to effect that tackle. With luck the former players on the appeals board are able to recognise this and do the right thing.

[The Chazz 4,077]

This term seems to be the crux of the matter. They argued a lot over it during the tribunal hearing. It's astounding that there were two former players on that board, because they would surely understand that doing anything on the field at less than 100% is a sure way to get dropped.

If politics is left at the door, then there are enough games of experience on the appeals board to understand that Trengove did no more or less than what was required of an elite sportsman. The suggestion from Tinney on Tuesday that he should have let go with one hand was manifestly ludicrous. You can not effectively tackle a player one-handed. Likewise the force used was enough to move the player off the ball. It must be born in mind that Trengove is a younger and significantly less powerful player than Dangerfield, and as such would have had to use everything he had to effect that tackle. With luck the former players on the appeals board are able to recognise this and do the right thing.

If I were JT, I'd be arguing that because I was off balance, and had Dangerfield wrapped up in the manner that I did, if I did not turn as much as I did, he would've landed heavily on top of me and potentially caused injury to myself. Dangerfield had the potential to land on Trengove with excessive force, so Duty of Care for himself was the first priority.

Grasping at straws???!!!

[daisycutter 28,728]

This term seems to be the crux of the matter. They argued a lot over it during the tribunal hearing. It's astounding that there were two former players on that board, because they would surely understand that doing anything on the field at less than 100% is a sure way to get dropped.

If politics is left at the door, then there are enough games of experience on the appeals board to understand that Trengove did no more or less than what was required of an elite sportsman. The suggestion from Tinney on Tuesday that he should have let go with one hand was manifestly ludicrous. You can not effectively tackle a player one-handed. Likewise the force used was enough to move the player off the ball. It must be born in mind that Trengove is a younger and significantly less powerful player than Dangerfield, and as such would have had to use everything he had to effect that tackle. With luck the former players on the appeals board are able to recognise this and do the right thing.

And the kicking action of Dangerfield was in the same direction as the sling so part of the "force" was contributed by Dangerfield. This was proven by the expert witness and makes sense. So the force may appear excessive but it can't be totally attributed to Trengove, hence the force applied by Trengove could not be excessive (whatever excessive means). The attribution of excessive force to Trengove is patently unsafe. Hence the action should be redefined as accidental and therefore no penalty incurred

I rest me case m'Lud

[Its Miller time 6]

If I were JT, I'd be arguing that because I was off balance, and had Dangerfield wrapped up in the manner that I did, if I did not turn as much as I did, he would've landed heavily on top of me and potentially caused injury to myself. Dangerfield had the potential to land on Trengove with excessive force, so Duty of Care for himself was the first priority.

Grasping at straws???!!!

I agree with this. Dangerfield had much better balance than Trengove until he decided to kick it. Dangerfield is a strong fella and if he tried to maintain his balance instead of kicking the ball in not sure Trengove would have even been able to pull him over from the position he was in.

Looks like to me anyway he needed to use the maximum amount of force possible to get him off balance and once he was off balance and moving there is no way even Hulk Hogan himself could slow the impact down.

[Akum 2,660]

I agree with this. Dangerfield had much better balance than Trengove until he decided to kick it. Dangerfield is a strong fella and if he tried to maintain his balance instead of kicking the ball in not sure Trengove would have even been able to pull him over from the position he was in.

Looks like to me anyway he needed to use the maximum amount of force possible to get him off balance and once he was off balance and moving there is no way even Hulk Hogan himself could slow the impact down.

Furthermore, Dangerfield could have tried to just dribble the ball a few metres, with a minimal swing of his leg & foot, to avoid being pinged for holding the ball. For some reason he took a full-blooded swing at it. If he'd tried to just dribble it, he could have maintained his balance to a much greater degree and crumpled to the ground with Trengrove (thus, by the way, making it impossible for Trengrove to make the tackle on his teammate about a second later). It could therefore be argued that Dangerfield had greater discretion in this situation than Trengrove did, and that he chose the more reckless option by trying to clear the ball 40 metres downfield, and he didn't need to swing his leg as hard as he did, and that this choice contributed to them both being thrown off balance.

[H_T 2,941]

We can name Trengove in the 22 tomorrow night. If the appeal is upheld, we have until Friday 12noon to submit our final 22....

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/113615/default.aspx

[daisycutter 28,728]

We can name Trengove in the 22 tomorrow night. If the appeal is upheld, we have until Friday 12noon to submit our final 22....

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/113615/default.aspx

or to take out an injunction.......

[Redleg 38,616]

It's astounding that there were two former players on that board, because they would surely understand that doing anything on the field at less than 100% is a sure way to get dropped.

Actually all three are former players.

[Dusty_Hill 184]

Get involved folks:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Demon-Jack/182374805145416?sk=wall