Adrian Anderson on SEN ofter 6.

[Jaded No More 60,146]

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.

What part of the tackle wasn't within the rules?

No high, in play, no head contact, no legging, no tripping, not in the back.

WTF constitutes a legal AFL tackle then?

[Striker475 696]

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.

I honestly don't think he'll get off either. However, a reduction in sentence should be a certainty. A lot of the issue that people have is the severity of sentence. You're talking a 3-match penalty for rough conduct when...

- Jarred Waite got away with kicking Luke McGuane in the goolies.

- Daniel Jackson got 1 week for hitting Scott Thompson in the head.

- Campbell Brown got 2 weeks for his off-the-ball elbow snipe on Will Minson.

- Leigh Montagna got 1 week for what I believe is one of the most despicable acts I've seen in football - bumping an injured player on his injury (Ed Curnow) as he tries to leave the ground.

Compared to all of those, this is nothing. Yes, the player got hurt. But in terms of his moral standing relative to those four cases, Trengove is in a far higher position. Unfortunately, with a contact sport players do get hurt. While I understand we are trying to reduce concussions, at the same time some will unfortunately occur even if you put everyone in cotton wool.

EDIT: On a side note, I get a vibe that there is something involving Adelaide here - while I am not judging the medical report, there was that mention of the DVD sent to the umpires regarding Kurt Tippett, as well as Dangermouse being one of their favoured sons....

Edited May 11, 2011 by Striker475

[mauriesy 6,919]

Working ass-backwards, my "common sense" says the tackle was probably overly forceful, but it warrants no more than a week in the context that tackling has as an overtly aggressive component of the game.

I don't see how the contact can be anything but "high" under the definition (i.e. the head hit the ground), so that means the appeal only has two avenues: it can either argue against "negligent" which is the lowest rating for intent (and it would therefore be thrown out all together if it was reduced); or they can try to have the impact lowered from "high" in order to have the penalty reduced ... how do they achieve that?

Edited May 11, 2011 by maurie

[Jaded No More 60,146]

or they can try to have the impact lowered from "high" in order to have the penalty reduced ... how do they achieve that?

They need to hope Dangerfield is named to play tomorrow at 5, or better yet, get a follow up medical report proving he is fine, or better yet find other incidents in the game where Dangerfield may have hit his head, and therefore conclude that his concussion was not solely the result of the tackle but only one of many other factors.

I also think they need to argue this whole intent issue, because Trengove had no intention of hurting Dangerfield.

[H_T 2,941]

What part of the tackle wasn't within the rules?

No high, in play, no head contact, no legging, no tripping, not in the back.

WTF constitutes a legal AFL tackle then?

Appendix 1 of the AFL player rules document:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a players head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending player. By way of example, should a player tackle another player around the waist and as a result of the tackle the tackled players head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would be classified as high even though the tackle was to the body

[Rogue 585]

Appendix 1 of the AFL player rules document:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a players head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending player. By way of example, should a player tackle another player around the waist and as a result of the tackle the tackled players head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would be classified as high even though the tackle was to the body

Exactly. I wish people would stop banging on about this. You might think this is a stupid rule, but it's the rule.

[Jaded No More 60,146]

Yes I understand that part, but almost every tackle these days sees players hit the turf, sometimes with their heads, but as I said before in 99.9% of cases players aren't injured as a result of falling and hitting the ground. So what more should a tackler do?

Dangerfield had time to protect himself and cushion the fall, but he chose not to. In split second decisions you don't have time to analyse the end result, which makes it an unfortunate incident.

Case in point, Trengove laid the exact same tackle 20 seconds later, no injury, no suspension. So are you going to punish every player who tackles an opponent who then hits the ground?

[H_T 2,941]

Yes I understand that part, but almost every tackle these days sees players hit the turf, sometimes with their heads, but as I said before in 99.9% of cases players aren't injured as a result of falling and hitting the ground. So what more should a tackler do?

Dangerfield had time to protect himself and cushion the fall, but he chose not to. In split second decisions you don't have time to analyse the end result, which makes it an unfortunate incident.

Case in point, Trengove laid the exact same tackle 20 seconds later, no injury, no suspension. So are you going to punish every player who tackles an opponent who then hits the ground?

Actually he laid a similar tackle 4-5 seconds after Dangerfield. (Brodie Smith).

What more should a tackler do you say ? Well (being devils advocate) if I was on the appeals panel or the AFL's corner I would suggest the player in future when applying a tackle has it within himself to recognise a "duty of care" to the one being tackled so there is not another occurence of concussion. Easier said than done I suppose.

David King stated tonight that as a player you should know when you're going to hurt someone. There comes a point during a tackle that you know when you have gone too far.

I'm just the messenger Jaded.

[Redleg 38,612]

Exactly. I wish people would stop banging on about this. You might think this is a stupid rule, but it's the rule.

So that means that in every legal tackle or bump in AFL football from now on, if the other player falls over or trips or faints and hits his head that is an offence and the tackling player shall be suspended. Also as this is considered rough play which is treated more severely than striking, that the suspension shall be more than for a deliberate elbow or punch to the face of an opponent. Wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[H_T 2,941]

Working ass-backwards, my "common sense" says the tackle was probably overly forceful, but it warrants no more than a week in the context that tackling has as an overtly aggressive component of the game.

I don't see how the contact can be anything but "high" under the definition (i.e. the head hit the ground), so that means the appeal only has two avenues: it can either argue against "negligent" which is the lowest rating for intent (and it would therefore be thrown out all together if it was reduced); or they can try to have the impact lowered from "high" in order to have the penalty reduced ... how do they achieve that?

Agree on that, my common sense tells me that it warrants no more than a week.

Regarding the two avenues:

• I think the arguing the former is the better alternative. Perhaps using factors such as JT in the process wasn't aware that the ball had been disposed of, as well as the act of PD kicking contributed to the nature of the 'sling' and/or 'force'.
  
• I don't think they can have the impact lowered from "high" given the head received concussion; the head is 'high'.
  

[Jaded No More 60,146]

There comes a point during a tackle that you know when you have gone too far.

I'm just the messenger Jaded.

In an action that takes less than 10 seconds I doubt you have any time to think or know or adjust how far you're going to take the tackle.

Dangerfield did not let go of the ball and tried to evade the tackle, his fault, not Trengove's. It made the outcome unpredictable for Jack.

I know you're the messenger, but the message you're bringing lacks one very important element... common sense!

Rules are rules, but the one overriding rule should always be common sense. If a large majority of fans, players and commentators can look at this and see how ridicilous the penalty and explanation for the penalty are, then there is little argument is there? This decision is stupid and needs to be fixed.

I'd be shocked if this time tomorrow night we're still here bemoaning a 3 weeks suspension. I'm certain he'll get his sentence reduced, at the very least. The AFL are notorious over-reactors and back-flippers, especially when it comes to bad PR, and surprisingly this bad PR has come directly as a result of their desire to over protect and over sanitise the game. One of those hilariously hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" moments.

[Rogue 585]

So that means that in every legal tackle or bump in AFL football from now on, if the other player falls over or trips or faints and hits his head that is an offence and the tackling player shall be suspended. Also as this is considered rough play which is treated more severely than striking, that the suspension shall be more than for a deliberate elbow or punch to the face of an opponent. Wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the player falls over or faints it seems that there would be a very weak causal link, so I don't think your attempt at a slippery slope argument works.

[H_T 2,941]

In an action that takes less than 10 seconds I doubt you have any time to think or know or adjust how far you're going to take the tackle.

Dangerfield did not let go of the ball and tried to evade the tackle, his fault, not Trengove's. It made the outcome unpredictable for Jack.

I know you're the messenger, but the message you're bringing lacks one very important element... common sense!

Rules are rules, but the one overriding rule should always be common sense. If a large majority of fans, players and commentators can look at this and see how ridicilous the penalty and explanation for the penalty are, then there is little argument is there? This decision is stupid and needs to be fixed.

I'd be shocked if this time tomorrow night we're still here bemoaning a 3 weeks suspension. I'm certain he'll get his sentence reduced, at the very least. The AFL are notorious over-reactors and back-flippers, especially when it comes to bad PR, and surprisingly this bad PR has come directly as a result of their desire to over protect and over sanitise the game. One of those hilariously hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" moments.

And I've said as much in my most recent post regarding common sense.

One thing is for certain, there has been a ground swell of support for the Trengove case. No one can underestimate it. We'll see if the appeals board stick to the governing rules regarding dangerous tackles as outlined above, or whether the MFC can penetrate with some evidence or even an element of common sense approach for it to be reduced/dismissed.

What ever happens I think this episode will help galvanise our players and the support for Trengove will be good.

[Redleg 38,612]

If the player falls over or faints it seems that there would be a very weak causal link, so I don't think your attempt at a slippery slope argument works.

Well lets make it simpler then and establish the causal link. If player A pushes player B( who has the ball) in the side hard enough for him to fall over and in falling he hits his head and suffers concussion, then player A according to the current rules is guilty of rough play, either recklessly, deliberately or at least negligently and must be suspended. He has breached his duty of care in pushing a player who might fall over and hit his head and used excessive force in that it was hard enough to make him fall.

Laugh all you like but that is a clear and concise analysis of the current rule. Please feel free to demonstrate where I have got it wrong.

[Rogue 585]

Well lets make it simpler then and establish the causal link. If player A pushes player B( who has the ball) in the side hard enough for him to fall over and in falling he hits his head and suffers concussion, then player A according to the current rules is guilty of rough play, either recklessly, deliberately or at least negligently and must be suspended. He has breached his duty of care in pushing a player who might fall over and hit his head and used excessive force in that it was hard enough to make him fall.

Interesting thought experiment.

Please feel free to demonstrate where I have got it wrong.

I didn't find the previous cases compelling but I I don't know whether you've got it wrong here. However, I'll play demon's advocate and make two quick points:

First, why do you assert that, because the push was hard enough to make Player B fall, Player A has necessarily used 'excessive force'? Tinney's remarks in the Trengove case suggest that you can tackle someone - presumably, to the ground - 'legally' without using excessive force.

If that's the case, it's not clear to me that Player A would be deemed to have used 'excessive force' for simply pushing Player B hard enough to make them fall over.

Second, why do you assert that Player A, in the act of pushing Player B over, has breached his 'duty of care'? I have only read the relevant Appendix to the rules, so I'm simply assuming that duty of care relates to taking reasonable care to avoid forseeable actions. (If the AFL has defined it in the rules, let me know!). It seems to me that one could coherently argue that while Trengove may have breached his duty of care when tackling Dangerfield, Player A has not necessarily breached his duty of care to Player B, as one might think there are important distinctions to be made between the two cases.

For example, Player A does not in any way impede Player B's ability to regain balance - Player A does not drive Player B into the dirt, but simply pushes Player B - or impede Player B's ability to break their fall (by, say, holding onto their arm at any stage).

Laugh all you like but that is a clear and concise analysis of the current rule.

I'm not laughing. I enjoyed thinking about your analysis, though.

[Kento80 83]

I've got a couple things I'd like clarification on, if anyone out there is able.

At the start of the year, the AFL came out and said that if a player were to be assessed as concussed then they must be subbed out of the game and miss the following week. From round one we have had serious concussions virtually every week, only some of which resulted in a player being subbed, and none of which resulted in a player missing the following week. Was I correct in my determination of this rule, and if so, why has it never been implemented? Is it because a classification of 'concussion' is a very grey area?

As with MItch Clarke in round one, if the game were in its final minutes and hanging in the balance, I think it is fair to say that Dangerfields condition wouldn't have been assessed as 'concussed'.

And then obviously the elephant in the room is that Dangerfield has a strong history of concussion. Is it a long bow to draw to say that some players are much more predisposed to concussion than others? You do get cases of people being predisposed to break injuries, so why not concussion. If that is the case then the tackle may not have been of excessive force, but as we all seem to be agreed on, a fantastic tackle with an unfortunate result.

Personally I think that Jack shouldn't be suspended at all, and I would think that regardless of the player or club, because I believe it is about preserving our game. I will accept that the decision was made through following the rules of the game, but I will not accept that the penalty fits the crime. One week is fair for an unfortunate incident, which is all it was.

For some reason they have determined that this incident was more sinister than C Browns which was off the ball. I for one cannot understand this at all, and I feel that this is a widely held opinion. My final question is that are we willing to risk the AFL screwing things up even further to try and 'fix' the system again, or is it a case of better the devil you know?

[daisycutter 28,727]

It seems to me the trigger for this charge is the wording of the relevant clause in Appendix 1.

Further, it seems this clause is very loosely worded and open to a very wide interpretation

If the appeals committee are bound to just follow the letter of the rule then JT seems to be in trouble whether the rule wording is fair or not fair, meaning JT could be held guilty purely on a technicality and the appeals committee's hands are tied

My question is does the appeals committee have the power to assess the "fairness" or degree of "natural justice" in this case both with regard to the innocent/guilty aspect plus the severity of sentence aspect?

Do they have the power to question the "legality" of the actual rule as it stands and recommend its rewriting?

If they don't then does this beg further appeals to civil courts?

Just wondering....

[rpfc 27,692]

Do they have the power to question the "legality" of the actual rule as it stands and recommend its rewriting?

If they don't then does this beg further appeals to civil courts?

Just wondering....

These are the two questions rolling around in my brain.

I hope the answer is Yes to the first question, so that the second question is irrelevant as you suggest.

Surely, there is scope to question the rule itself.

[Guest 36DD]

EDIT: On a side note, I get a vibe that there is something involving Adelaide here - while I am not judging the medical report, there was that mention of the DVD sent to the umpires regarding Kurt Tippett, as well as Dangermouse being one of their favoured sons....

I have no doubt this was the case. Little Bruce was a bit apprehensive that he had let the proverbial "cat out of the bag" during the commentary, Dennis had to extract the info out of him.

I think Neil Craig spends most of his time these days making DVD's he could get a job in the San Fernando Valley...how was his "toughness" press conference last week??? Dead man walking

[Radar Detector 1,339]

I know you're the messenger, but the message you're bringing lacks one very important element... common sense!

I agree Jaded. We can argue the fine print of the rules ad infinitum, but the fact is that the rule relating to a tackle resulting in a head hitting the ground has been applied once. Ever. I'm sure there were a dozen instances in the game where Melbourne players were tackled and their heads hit the ground. These should technically warrant a suspension on the same grounds (although impact may be regarded as lower).

I have to admit, I find it baffling that we didn't focus on this a bit more in the tribunal defence, and I think that using another Trengove tackle as the one example to demonstrate the inconsistency was a bit silly. It may have had greater effect if examples from other teams were used.

Back on the rules:

My question is does the appeals committee have the power to assess the "fairness" or degree of "natural justice" in this case both with regard to the innocent/guilty aspect plus the severity of sentence aspect?

Surely, there is scope to question the rule itself.

The tribunal rules also give the tribunal discretionary powers where appropriate (which also apply to the appeals board):

while the Tribunal will generally apply the level classification of the Match Review Panel and the prescribed points consequences, there is power in exceptional and compelling circumstances for the Tribunal to substitute another outcome, if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so.

I have no idea which way this decision will go, but I think that there is plenty of scope for the outcome to be favourable under the rules. Are there exceptional and compelling circumstances here?

[daisycutter 28,727]

These are the two questions rolling around in my brain.

I hope the answer is Yes to the first question, so that the second question is irrelevant as you suggest.

Surely, there is scope to question the rule itself.

If you break down the "process" you have

Intent - accidental, negligent, reckless etc

Contact - low, medium, high

Impact - none, low, medium, high

JT was deemed negligent,high,high

According to strict wording of appendix 1 contact is "high" (despite the tackle being below shoulders)

Impact again by definition was high because he got concussion

This leaves intent as the only aspect that is technically arguable

If they can prove accidental then the other aspects are mute and he gets off totally

I think that this has to be the main argument of the appeal

(unless they are allowed to discuss fairness of the rule wording, specifically appendix 1)

Edited May 12, 2011 by daisycutter

[Akum 2,660]

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.

I think they need to be very careful how they argue against this. I'm beginning to realise thast the only reason that this instruction was given was not so that the tribunal members would abide by it, but in order to close an avenue for a later appeal. "They" (whoever the other side is in this appeal) will argue that the tribunal, in being instructed thus, therefore (after their thorough and intensive 4-minute deliberation) DID focus on conduct & not on consequence.

If David Jones had not given this instruction, it would have been impossible at an appeal to defend against the argument that, as everybody in the football world knows, Trengrove is being punished solely because of the consequence of his action, and the punishment has nothing to do with his conduct (no concussion, no suspension). David Jones, anticipating this, gave this instruction ONLY for the purpose of closing off this avenue for a later appeal. That is, "the tribunal was instructed to focus on the conduct not on the consequence, therefore they did so". The instruction was therefore no more than a figleaf to cover what everybody knows to be an absolute embarrassment.

Like I said in another post, there is nothing so inflexible as a bureaucratic mind on a crusade. The AFL are determined to make an example of this incident in their crusade (and there is certainly a crusading doctor involved, who may well have allowed Dangerfield back into play after an earlier incident and who badly needs to cover their backside), and they will leave no stone unturned until they get their man.

[Kento80 83]

If you break down the "process" you have

Intent - accidental, negligent, reckless etc

Contact - low, medium, high

Impact - none, low, medium, high

JT was deemed negligent,high,high

According to strict wording of appendix 1 contact is "high" (despite the tackle being below shoulders)

Impact again by definition was high because he got concussion

This leaves intent as the only aspect that is technically arguable

If they can prove accidental then the other aspects are mute and he gets off totally

I think that this has to be the main argument of the appeal

(unless they are allowed to discuss fairness of the rule wording, specifically appendix 1)

I really do have an issue with the assessment of Contact as "high". JTs tackle was not a high tackle and it is clear that he did not intend to drive Dangerfield head first into the ground. It is therefore no different to if the head trauma was caused from contact with another players knee during the course of a tackle.

I also do not agree with classifying the Intent as negligent as he tackled how all players are taught to tackle. I would be completely happy with Intent being classified as "reckelss", however I do feel that Dangerfields attempt to break the tackle and kick the ball contributed to the force of the sling. As far as the Impact, I feel it is fair to classify this as "high".

Once you take away high contact, and alter Intent to reckless, it changes the landscape of the offence completely. I am not sure how the tribunal would then assess the offence regarding points, but do believe this would be grounds to downgrade the penalty to one week.

[Redleg 38,612]

Interesting thought experiment.

I didn't find the previous cases compelling but I I don't know whether you've got it wrong here. However, I'll play demon's advocate and make two quick points:

First, why do you assert that, because the push was hard enough to make Player B fall, Player A has necessarily used 'excessive force'? Tinney's remarks in the Trengove case suggest that you can tackle someone - presumably, to the ground - 'legally' without using excessive force.

If that's the case, it's not clear to me that Player A would be deemed to have used 'excessive force' for simply pushing Player B hard enough to make them fall over.

Second, why do you assert that Player A, in the act of pushing Player B over, has breached his 'duty of care'? I have only read the relevant Appendix to the rules, so I'm simply assuming that duty of care relates to taking reasonable care to avoid forseeable actions. (If the AFL has defined it in the rules, let me know!). It seems to me that one could coherently argue that while Trengove may have breached his duty of care when tackling Dangerfield, Player A has not necessarily breached his duty of care to Player B, as one might think there are important distinctions to be made between the two cases.

For example, Player A does not in any way impede Player B's ability to regain balance - Player A does not drive Player B into the dirt, but simply pushes Player B - or impede Player B's ability to break their fall (by, say, holding onto their arm at any stage).

I'm not laughing. I enjoyed thinking about your analysis, though.

Good questions.

First: the excessive force is as Tinney said ok if he just was taken to the ground, but as a result of that he got concussion and for that he says under the rules Trengove is guilty. Remember that Tinney said the tackle would have been ok if he didn't suffer concussion. In other words do what you like but if in your tackle it leads to injury with high contact you are deemed to have used excessive force. The rule doesn't limit the "type" of tackle that is covered by it.

Second: in choosing to push player B you have a duty of care to ensure that the action you take doesn't cause him injury. The rule requires that you don't use a method of tackling or bumping that may lead to injury and of course with high impact being the worst. It is clearly forseeable that if you push someone over, who is running, carrying a football, that he may fall over and may hit his head. You therefore have a duty to that player not to do what forseeably could injure him.

That is the rule, that is why people like Bruce Matthews of the Sun think the game is in real trouble if it is not changed.

PS. The other interesting sidelight for me is that evidence was led that two umpires close by deemed it not a free and called play on and then Trengove tackled the same way again a few seconds later, which the umpires also called play on to and Trengove of course was not charged with the second identical tackle, "because" the player wasn't injured. That proves two things, a legal tackle is not legal when you injure the player and that the umpires don't understand the rule either, as there was no free and report in the Dangerfield tackle.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Redleg

[daisycutter 28,727]

AFL players to get EFF'd

Adrian McCarthey Anderson today announced new rules for rough conduct meaning player tackles will now be rated for Excessive Force Factor (or EFF). Umpires will now judge the EFF out of all player tackles and those with an EFF of 75% or more will be deemed as rough play and a free kick given against the tackler. The player will also be reported. The umpire will call "you have been EFF'd" and indicate the offence by raising 2 fingers in the air. The new Effing rule will apply from Round 8 2011.

He said that the AFL had a duty of care to eradicate rough play from the game and offenders will get EFF'ed