Adrian Anderson on SEN ofter 6.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,099]

SEN tell us that they will be chatting to Adrian Anderson after 6pm tonight. I'll be listening with interest.

[daisycutter 29,796]

SEN tell us that they will be chatting to Adrian Anderson after 6pm tonight. I'll be listening with interest.

take notes....we'll be interested in your summary

i expect anderson will be anderson (if you get my drift)

[RalphiusMaximus 6,099]

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.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,099]

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.

[Striker475 696]

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.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,099]

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.

That's pretty much what I get from it too.

[Demon Tragic 0]

So basically once a player is tackled now, the safest option is to coral the player as any contact has the potential to concuss. Welcome to the Australian Gaelic Football League!

[45HG 1,559]

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).

[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

[Swampfox 190]

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

[Sir Why You Little 37,241]

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.

[jacey 333]

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.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

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).

This is a key point that has been missed by the media.

[demonique 314]

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!!!

[Nasher 33,617]

This is a key point that has been missed by the media.

Agreed. It's not just a key point either, it's the entire reason the whole thing is a bunch of horse poo.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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.

[daisycutter 29,796]

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

[H_T 3,049]

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.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

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 May 11, 2011 by Jaded

[daisycutter 29,796]

Billy Connolly discusses Adrian Anderson's favourite pastime

[mauriesy 7,378]

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.

[BAMF 4,413]

Did this incident lead to suspension?

Just shows how stupid Gia is. Can't even conduct an illegal bump without hitting his head.

Honestly, Gia had intent to hurt in that clip.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

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.

[H_T 3,049]

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.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

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