Jump to content

Adrian Anderson on SEN ofter 6.



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Very quick typed notes from interview. Nothing much was really said as AA refused to comment directly on the Trengove case.

Challenge mentioned as intro 3 weeks

Welcom AA

Surprised by the reaction?

AA - Not really. Trying to protect ballplayer. Doctors brought into it.

Inconsistencies in rulings and that he used the correct action. How can we now say that it is not a good tackle.

AA - There has been a change due to safety concerns. Not an image matter. Obligation to protect head and neck again. Lower rates of head and neck injuries than other sports. Imposing standard on players. Not easy. Balancing act. BS

Is there an avenue for MRP to show discretion? Common sense.

AA - MRP only discretion is to refer to the tribunal if they feeel that the points system is not right.

HE says that the concussion was the factor that lifted the charge to higher degree (but we can't take that into account can we?)

Game so fast, asking too much of player to take all of these factors into account?

AA - We require a lot of them, adapted well, site head over ball rule. Not always easy, sopmetimes we require them to do so.

Tambling + Brown get lesser penalties? Please explain how that works?

AA - Why assessed as similar? Once again going to the injury to Dangerfield. Says that the severity of the injury is a factor. Brown was determined to be reckless rather than intentional etc.

Understand why Melbourne is [censored], only one arm pinned, freak accident, etc

AA - Won't comment on specific case as appeal is in process - doctors told them that they need to protect players in this situation

Players re Twitter:

AA - Reminding them not to comment in those terms on no reply from MFC

Fines?

AA - possibly. MFC put a stop to it quickly.

Ox is now holding forth on the fact that the injury should not have been considered on the charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope those notes make sense.

Basically Anderson kept returning to the whole "medical staff told us that we need to protect players being tackled" line. NOthing of substance.

Questioners didn't bring up prior incidents that were not punished. Pretty soft interview all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: His injury being a factor - I seem to recall reading that the chair saying to ignore the consequences and focus on the tackle (or something similar).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest 36DD

Re: His injury being a factor - I seem to recall reading that the chair saying to ignore the consequences and focus on the tackle (or something similar).

Thats correct mate, makes you wonder why it was actually even submitted at the hearing, amateur hour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will tow the party line as expected and who could blame him

Basically a waste of air time even asking for his comments

Technically the decision is correct all because Dangerfield.s head made contact with the ground

One wonders what penalty will be given if a simple bump is given and the player falls down and makes contact with the turf with his head

It also makes the rule absurd if a player loses balance during a ruck contest and hits his head on the ground

In fact if a player of either team causes this situation the penalty should be exactly the same after all the condition of the players head has nothing to do with the jumper color of the player that caused it

I really think its really important to protect the heads of players but one wonders the justification of Sylvia,s broken jaw has been forgotten

If they made a wrong call admit it so at least we all know what and what isn't acceptable going forward

This is what has supporters of all clubs frustrated with the lack of consistency of penalties

As far as i am concerned i do think that making comments is against the rules but i welcome such outbursts for the purpose of team unity

Would have made my day if one of those Twitterer's names was Tom Scully

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be a very important appeal & Decision going forward...If Trenners gets 3 weeks for this, then players will not tackle hard again....or at least until coaches work out a new way to dispossess the ball carrier.

Anderson is a major Blight on our game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: His injury being a factor - I seem to recall reading that the chair saying to ignore the consequences and focus on the tackle (or something similar).

19:33 Mark Macgugan: David Jones (tribunal chairman) instructing panel on factors to consider when deliberating. Reminds them to focus on the conduct, not the consequence to the tackled player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great sport being destroyed by a bunch of idiots,talk about monkeys in charge of a Ferrari!!! Far too many knee jerk changes in rules leaving everybody in the dark and so confused!!

Just leave the game alone, its been around as long or longer than Soccer and they don't tinker with their rules.

Seems to me we don't actually have rules, they are more like guidelines!!!! Open to all sorts of personal interpretations, hence the total inconsistency!!!

I'm sure the umpires don't know if they are Arthur or my Aunt Maude!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made enough sense to me. Vibe that I got from that was that the AFL have actually judged this based on the injury rather than the activity.

What a f***ing joke.

Well if Dangerfield is named in the team tomorrow, then I'd expect a massive downgrade of the initial charges, with a possibility of being thrown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope those notes make sense.

Basically Anderson kept returning to the whole "medical staff told us that we need to protect players being tackled" line. NOthing of substance.

Questioners didn't bring up prior incidents that were not punished. Pretty soft interview all round.

Thanks for info Ralph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: His injury being a factor - I seem to recall reading that the chair saying to ignore the consequences and focus on the tackle (or something similar).

19:33 Mark Macgugan: David Jones (tribunal chairman) instructing panel on factors to consider when deliberating. Reminds them to focus on the conduct, not the consequence to the tackled player.

This is one of the points (or the main reason as Nasher put) the Melbournefc should focus on tomorrow night as a form of defence for Trengove. It has been missed in the media I think as Clint Bizkit said and rings true to Redleg's post questioning whether or not "we" (the mfc) received a fair hearing.

Investigate Dees. I'm no expert in this matter of tribunal hearings, but if it can be emphasised that it was reminded of the panel to focus on the conduct, the injury should be irrelevant. Going by quotes written on here re: Peter Carey's comments; that doesn't seem to be the case. I wonder if this could cause the matter (penalty) to be reduced or thrown out ?

Whatever the case and what ever transpires, surely this ruling under "dangerous tackles" needs to be reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Did this incident lead to suspension?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cyvuEnFgYxI

Answer: No

During a round 6, 2006 game against St Kilda, halfway during the third quarter the Western Bulldogs were heading downfield when Giansiracusa accidentally clashed heads with Justin Koschitzke, resulting in both players lying motionless for several minutes. Giansiracusa managed to get up but Koschitzke could not. The AFL Tribunal decided Giansiracusa had no case to answer as this was an unfortunate incident.

Edited by Jaded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did this incident lead to suspension?

Answer: No

Not then, but the tribunal annual report notes the wording of the rule changed in 2010, so the environment is different now.

In the light of that re-wording, I am wondering whether something has come from "on high" about enforcing greater protection for players in forceful tackles, much as it did a few years ago for forceful bumps (i.e. the Pickett factor), and Trengove's is being made the "test case" (or scapegoat, whichever you prefer) for the new standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not then, but the tribunal annual report notes the wording of the rule changed in 2010, so the environment is different now.

In the light of that re-wording, I am wondering whether something has come from "on high" about enforcing greater protection for players in forceful tackles, much as it did a few years ago for forceful bumps (i.e. the Pickett factor), and Trengove's is being made the "test case" (or scapegoat, whichever you prefer) for the new standard.

I get that the rules changed, but this whole garbage about duty of care and not being able to foresee the outcome still stands.

If you make a legitimate lawful move on the footy field and it ends up accidentally hurting a player you shouldn't be liable. Hundreds of players get tackled and lay tackles each week, and in 99.9% of cases no harm is done to the player. Trengove laid multiple tackles on the weekend, all with the same force, and none have gotten him into trouble, except for the unfortunate split second one which ended up with a player hitting their head on the ground.

Dangerfield is just as much to blame for his injury as Trengove, because he did not try to protect himself, he tried to get rid of the ball and escape the tackle, and therefore he fell awkwardly. You can see in the slowmo replay that his free arm hit the ground first but instead of going wrist first to create a barrier between himself and the turf, his arm hit the ground flat and his head followed. Most players wouldn't fall this way, just like 99.9% of smothers don't resolve in a Nathan Brown type-injury.

You can't suspend a player for an unfortunate incident on a footy field in 2011 just like you couldn't do it back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't a tackle though Jaded, nor a dangerous tackle. But I get what you're saying regarding 'unfortunate incidents.'

On AFL 360- King, Whateley and McClure all thought that despite every AFL player and most AFL supporters thinking that the 3 match penalty is excessive, the JT's tackle wasn't within the rules. Robinson on the other hand believes that common sense should prevail.

Whilst I applaud MFC's decision to re-appeal the decision on 3 counts, I keep coming back to the rule and I struggle to see how JT can get off, unless Melbournefc can get something from the 'unreasonable' aspect of the appeal. It's the "vibe" aspect for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is another very recent accident that led to serious head injury, but not to a suspension

"In the Joel Selwood example I really don't believe he was leading with his head or anything of the sort," Anderson told reporters.

"I think it was one of those unfortunate accidents that we see.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-clears-ray-over-selwood-bump-20110328-1cd6m.html#ixzz1M2xA7uQK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    EASYBEATS by Meggs

    A beautiful sunny Friday afternoon, with a light breeze and a strong Windy Hill crowd set the scene, inviting one team to seize the day and take the important four points on offer. For the Demons it was not a good Friday, easily beaten by an all-time largest losing margin of 65 points.   Essendon threw themselves into action today, winning most of the contests and had three early goals with Daria Bannister on fire.  In contrast the Demons were dropping marks, hesitant in close and comm

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons 2

    DEFUSE THE BOMBERS by Meggs

    Last Saturday’s crushing loss to Fremantle, after being three goals ahead at three quarter time, should be motivation enough to bounce back for this very winnable Round 5 clash at Windy Hill. A first-time venue for the Melbourne AFLW team, this should be a familiar suburban, windy, footy environment for the players.   Essendon were brave and competitive last week against ladder leader Adelaide at Sturt’s home ground. A familiar name, Maddison Gay, was the Bombers best player with

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons 33

    BLOW THE SIREN by Meggs

    Fremantle hosted the Demons on a sunny 20-degree Saturdayafternoon winning the toss and electing to defend in the first quarter against the 3-goal breeze favouring the Parry Street end. There was method here, as this would give the comeback queens, the Dockers, last use of the breeze. The Melbourne Coach had promised an improved performance, and we did start better than previous weeks, winning the ball out of the middle, using the breeze advantage and connecting to the forwards. 

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons

    GETAWAY by Meggs

    Calling all fit players. Expect every available Melbourne player to board the Virgin cross-continent flight to Perth for this Round 4 clash on Saturday afternoon at Fremantle Oval. It promises to be keenly contested, though Fremantle is the bookies clear favourite.  If we lose, finals could be remoter than Rottnest Island especially following on from the Dees 50-point dismantlement by North Melbourne last Sunday.  There are 8 remaining matches, over the next 7 weeks.  To Meggs’

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons

    DRUBBING by Meggs

    With Casey Fields basking in sunshine, an enthusiastic throng of young Demons fans formed a guard of honour for the evergreen and much admired 75-gamer Paxy Paxman. As the home team ran out to play, Paxy’s banner promised that the Demons would bounce back from last week’s loss to Brisbane and reign supreme.   Disappointingly, the Kangaroos dominated the match to win by 50 points, but our Paxy certainly did her bit.  She was clearly our best player, sweeping well in defence.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons 4

    GARNER STRENGTH by Meggs

    In keeping with our tough draw theme, Week 3 sees Melbourne take on flag favourites, North Melbourne, at Casey Fields this Sunday at 1:05pm.  The weather forecast looks dry, a coolish 14 degrees and will be characteristically gusty.  Remember when Casey Fields was considered our fortress?  The Demons have lost two of their past three matches at the Field of Dreams, so opposition teams commute down the Princes Highway with more optimism these days.  The Dees held the highe

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons 1

    ALLY’S FIELDS by Meggs

    It was a sunny morning at Casey Fields, as Demon supporters young and old formed a guard of honour for fan favourite and 50-gamer Alyssa Bannan.  Banno’s banner stated the speedster was the ‘fastest 50 games’ by an AFLW player ever.   For Dees supporters, today was not our day and unfortunately not for Banno either. A couple of opportunities emerged for our number 6 but alas there was no sizzle.   Brisbane atoned for last week’s record loss to North Melbourne, comprehensively out

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons 1

    GOOD MORNING by Meggs

    If you are driving or training it to Cranbourne on Saturday, don’t forget to set your alarm clock. The Melbourne Demons play the reigning premiers Brisbane Lions at Casey Fields this Saturday, with the bounce of the ball at 11:05am.  Yes, that’s AM.   The AFLW fixture shows deference to the AFL men’s finals games.  So, for the men it’s good afternoon and good evening and for the women it’s good morning.     The Lions were wounded last week by 44 points, their highest ever los

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons 3

    HORE ON FIRE by Meggs

    The 40,000 seat $319 million redeveloped Kardinia Park Stadium was nowhere near capacity last night but the strong, noisy contingent of Melbourne supporters led by the DeeArmy journeyed to Geelong to witness a high-quality battle between two of the best teams in AFLW.   The Cats entered the arena to the blasting sounds of Zombie Nation and made a hot start kicking the first 2 goals. They brought tremendous forward half pressure, and our newly renovated defensive unit looked shaky.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    AFLW Melbourne Demons 11
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...