Patrick Dangerfield named in the Middle this week

[dee-luded 2,958]

Named in the centre to play the Suns.

Adelaide v Gold Coast

Saturday, 2:40pm CST, AAMI StadiumADELAIDE

B: Johncock, Rutten, L.Thompson

HB: van Berlo, Sellar, Doughty

C: Sloane, Dangerfield, Douglas

HF: Knights, McKernan, Henderson

F: Gunston, Tippett, Jaensch

FOLL: Jacobs, S.Thompson, Reilly

I/C: Smith, Wright, Tambling, Schmidt

EMG: Cook, Walker, Petrenko

IN: Sellar, Gunston, Tambling

OUT: Symes, Walker, Petrenko

Wow, must have been really bad for their medico's to go full tilt, against a former Sth Australian boy?

Edited May 12, 2011 by dee-luded

[Dockett 32 1,213]

Geez, I thought he was near death.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

if this kid had any sort of spine he would have come out and said 'Free Trengove'

[The Great Pretender 430]

It's outrageous that the Adelaide doctor gave the evidence he gave at the tribunal on Tuesday night and this bloke is selected to play two days later.

The AFL should intervene now, suspend the charge against Trengove without the need for an appeal and ask for a please explain from the Crows and their doctor.

This stinks to high heaven.

[Redleg 38,621]

It's outrageous that the Adelaide doctor gave the evidence he gave at the tribunal on Tuesday night and this bloke is selected to play two days later.

The AFL should intervene now, suspend the charge against Trengove without the need for an appeal and ask for a please explain from the Crows and their doctor.

This stinks to high heaven.

The AFL decreed earlier this year that no player should be played the week after getting concussion. The Crows medical staff would not ignore an AFL directive. Therefore his injury was minor and the classification of high impact ( not to be confused with high contact which did occur ) was wrongly obtained for a start. A medical report saying that Dangerfield had concussion as a result of the JT tackle was tendered to the Tribunal. It was clearly relied on to find JT guilty as the AFL QC said the tackle would have been legal but for the injury, meaning there was excessive force. The tribunal hearing has clearly been compromised especially since I believe the Doctor didn't appear to be cross examined on his report. Even Anderson said if not for the bad injury and the Medical Report the tackle was fine. The stink gets worse. Don't forget the Tribunal only gave 4 minutes to find him guilty. Therefore they must have accepted the report completely. JT should be let off as he has gone through a week of hell for a perfectly legal tackle and a botched MRP finding and Tribunal hearing

[sue 8,635]

The AFL decreed earlier this year that no player should be played the week after getting concussion. The Crows medical staff would not ignore an AFL directive. Therefore his injury was minor and the classification of high impact ( not to be confused with high contact which did occur ) was wrongly obtained for a start. A medical report saying that Dangerfield had concussion as a result of the JT tackle was tendered to the Tribunal. It was clearly relied on to find JT guilty as the AFL QC said the tackle would have been legal but for the injury, meaning there was excessive force. The tribunal hearing has clearly been compromised especially since I believe the Doctor didn't appear to be cross examined on his report. Even Anderson said if not for the bad injury and the Medical Report the tackle was fine. The stink gets worse. Don't forget the Tribunal only gave 4 minutes to find him guilty. Therefore they must have accepted the report completely. JT should be let off as he has gone through a week of hell for a perfectly legal tackle and a botched MRP finding and Tribunal hearing

That sounds like a bullet-proof argument to me, I hope they are using it as I type.

(Even if they replace him by an emergency, this argument still holds.)

[Guest hangon007]

Beautiful - this should save us. Now we start praying.

[Kiss of Death 708]

Adelaide's provided a medical report showing that he's physically and mentally fine to play as part of tonight's procedings. Good luck Trenners.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Adelaide's provided a medical report showing that he's physically and mentally fine to play as part of tonight's procedings. Good luck Trenners.

where'd you get that from?

[dee-luded 2,958]

The AFL decreed earlier this year that no player should be played the week after getting concussion. The Crows medical staff would not ignore an AFL directive. Therefore his injury was minor and the classification of high impact ( not to be confused with high contact which did occur ) was wrongly obtained for a start. A medical report saying that Dangerfield had concussion as a result of the JT tackle was tendered to the Tribunal. It was clearly relied on to find JT guilty as the AFL QC said the tackle would have been legal but for the injury, meaning there was excessive force. The tribunal hearing has clearly been compromised especially since I believe the Doctor didn't appear to be cross examined on his report. Even Anderson said if not for the bad injury and the Medical Report the tackle was fine. The stink gets worse. Don't forget the Tribunal only gave 4 minutes to find him guilty. Therefore they must have accepted the report completely. JT should be let off as he has gone through a week of hell for a perfectly legal tackle and a botched MRP finding and Tribunal hearing

He walked to the bench on his own accord, If you watch the replay closely you can see the trainers have a word with him as he'a taking his arms away from their shoulders, he submits and walks with them to near the boundary, then walks on his own to the bench area, then walks about deciding what to do. Then takes his seat. He's a bit dazed, and maybe a little bit off.

They were thrashed everywhere, so risking him to come back on, would have made no difference to the game last week. There players did not turn up for a hard game, and were just outclassed on the day. So they did not risk bringing him back on.

Then they tip a bucket on Jack and Us, for what was just a great takle and an unfortunate head to ground cloash.

[Kiss of Death 708]

Jump onto the AFL website - there's a live feed from the tribunal running now.

17:43 Adam McNicol: Medical report tabled by Adelaide FC. Says Patrick Dangerfield has training successfully today and is showing no lingering problems from his concussion on the weekend. Further, he's been selected to play for the Crows against Gold Coast this weekend.

Thursday May 12, 2011 17:43 Adam McNicol

17:43 [Comment From adam adam: ]

Can he get a reduced sentence? or does it have to be 3 weeks or nothing?

Thursday May 12, 2011 17:43 adam

17:43 [Comment From Al Apeson Al Apeson: ]

Is he wearing a suit?

Thursday May 12, 2011 17:43 Al Apeson

17:44 Adam McNicol: Importantly, this is a new medical report from Adelaide, so it is new evidence. The fact Dangerfield has no lingering injury is good news for Trengove.

[Jaded No More 60,181]

Dangerfield is a weak and pathetic little piece of [censored]. His 'injury' which turned out to be 'really serious' was entirely his own fault and i hope that when we play them next we make it 3 from 3 and knock the bastards lights outs

How is Dangerfield to blame for all this?

Seriously, I doubt any Melbourne player holds any hard feelings towards him. He got concussed and the rest was out of his hands.

If you wanna get angry, get angry at the farce that is the MRP, the tribunal, the appeals board, the AFL's judiciary system, Demetriou, Anderson, Adelaide' medical reports and the birth of dictatorship. Anger towards anything else is misguided.

[Guest Gotzy15]

How is Dangerfield to blame for all this?

Seriously, I doubt any Melbourne player holds any hard feelings towards him. He got concussed and the rest was out of his hands.

If you wanna get angry, get angry at the farce that is the MRP, the tribunal, the appeals board, the AFL's judiciary system, Demetriou, Anderson, Adelaide' medical reports and the birth of dictatorship. Anger towards anything else is misguided.

I understand your point but it was Dangerfields fault that he got into that situatiuon where he was concussed and seeing so Adelaides medical report had such a big influence on the proceedings i think he should have had a little class and got behind the free jack campaign

[Sir Why You Little 35,355]

I understand your point but it was Dangerfields fault that he got into that situatiuon where he was concussed and seeing so Adelaides medical report had such a big influence on the proceedings i think he should have had a little class and got behind the free jack campaign

Not True. It was heat of the Battle Stuff. Don't blame Dangerfield, blame KB & the Rules Committee.

[Guest Gotzy15]

Not True. It was heat of the Battle Stuff. Don't blame Dangerfield, blame KB & the Rules Committee.

Fair call.See ya at the game on saturday! Go dees

[Jaded No More 60,181]

I understand your point but it was Dangerfields fault that he got into that situatiuon where he was concussed and seeing so Adelaides medical report had such a big influence on the proceedings i think he should have had a little class and got behind the free jack campaign

It definitely would have been nice to hear from Dangerfield, but it needed to happen on Monday, because as we know now, we couldn't present any new evidence tonight.

I mean that in itself is a complete joke. WTF is this appeals board's job anyway, except for stamp some paperwork? It's a disgrace.

They wasted our time and wouldn't consider any relevant and very recent evidence that have been brought to hand. Disgusting.

[Sir Why You Little 35,355]

It definitely would have been nice to hear from Dangerfield, but it needed to happen on Monday, because as we know now, we couldn't present any new evidence tonight.

I mean that in itself is a complete joke. WTF is this appeals board's job anyway, except for stamp some paperwork? It's a disgrace.

They wasted our time and wouldn't consider any relevant and very recent evidence that have been brought to hand. Disgusting.

The AFL like to make money....the Football is secondary. Like McDonald's and the relationship they have with food.

[Suzanna 72]

The AFL decreed earlier this year that no player should be played the week after getting concussion. The Crows medical staff would not ignore an AFL directive. Therefore his injury was minor and the classification of high impact ( not to be confused with high contact which did occur ) was wrongly obtained for a start. A medical report saying that Dangerfield had concussion as a result of the JT tackle was tendered to the Tribunal. It was clearly relied on to find JT guilty as the AFL QC said the tackle would have been legal but for the injury, meaning there was excessive force. The tribunal hearing has clearly been compromised especially since I believe the Doctor didn't appear to be cross examined on his report. Even Anderson said if not for the bad injury and the Medical Report the tackle was fine. The stink gets worse. Don't forget the Tribunal only gave 4 minutes to find him guilty. Therefore they must have accepted the report completely. JT should be let off as he has gone through a week of hell for a perfectly legal tackle and a botched MRP finding and Tribunal hearing

Apparently Adelaide attempted to submit a medical report to the tribunal tonight, which our "friend" Tinney argued against accepting, which stated that the first report was wrong, that Dangerfield was not actually concussed, only showing the 'symptoms' of concussion. (When is a concussion not a concussion? When common sense tells Adelaide that their spite has had unitended consequences - now ALL players are exposed to suspension if an accident happens). So it seems to me that Adelaide submitted a false report to the original hearing, as apparently their doctor did not make a correct diagnosis. As this report was the basis for the hearing, the result is questionable in its entirety and the decision should have been withdrawn by the AFL. Why does Adelaide not get a 'please explain' for submitting a false report to the MRP? This whole thing stinks of corruption and malpractice. It seems to me that the situation arose from a combination of sour SA grapes by a bunch of sore losers + the AFL really wanted to make an example of someone and weren't prepared to wait for a legitimate 'bad' tackle to come along, so pounced on the first opportunity presented, no matter how spurious the charge was.

And don't even get me started on that rubbish about the home team having a higher duty of care - what happens when co-tenants play each other?

[beelzebub 22,759]

Somewhere someone ( some club ) will take the AFL in a 'real' court and not one of their own making ! Their some semblance of real justice and rules of evidentia will apply.

The sooner the better

[daisycutter 28,728]

Apparently Adelaide attempted to submit a medical report to the tribunal tonight, which our "friend" Tinney argued against accepting, which stated that the first report was wrong, ......

I'm not sure that is true Suzanna. I think they just stated his current medical situation. I don't think they reytracted their original statement ans still stand by it as being true as at the time it was made.

Anyone know for sure the facts?

[mdemonski2 403]

Not True. It was heat of the Battle Stuff. Don't blame Dangerfield, blame KB & the Rules Committee.

Blame Trengove. He must be held responsible for the ground's actions in injuring Dangerfield.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Adelaide's provided a medical report showing that he's physically and mentally fine to play as part of tonight's procedings. Good luck Trenners.

Hmmn, 2 days to late, how nice of them.

Another one to bottle, for next time!

[Suzanna 72]

I'm not sure that is true Suzanna. I think they just stated his current medical situation. I don't think they reytracted their original statement ans still stand by it as being true as at the time it was made.

Anyone know for sure the facts?

Well, I guess I am not the only one who came to the same conclusion: (From AFL live chat during the tribunal hearing).

Adam McNicol: Galbally says Dangerfield was not concussed. "He had symptoms of concussion".

As Dangerfield is clear to play only 6 days after a 'severe concussion' when the AFL has said a player should not play the next week after suffering a concussion, what conclusion is to be drawn. Either Dangerfield never had a concussion to start with, or the Adelaide Crows and the AFL are breaching both their duty of care to him and the AFL's own dictates as to what is and is not safe behaviour. Either way, someone is doing 'the wrong thing' and getting away with it.....

Did you see Jonathan Brown on the footy show? A man who has lost 8 weeks because of what must have been a very painful injury said that 'accidents happen' and said that Trengove was very unlucky.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Apparently Adelaide attempted to submit a medical report to the tribunal tonight, which our "friend" Tinney argued against accepting, which stated that the first report was wrong, that Dangerfield was not actually concussed, only showing the 'symptoms' of concussion. (When is a concussion not a concussion? When common sense tells Adelaide that their spite has had unitended consequences - now ALL players are exposed to suspension if an accident happens). So it seems to me that Adelaide submitted a false report to the original hearing, as apparently their doctor did not make a correct diagnosis. As this report was the basis for the hearing, the result is questionable in its entirety and the decision should have been withdrawn by the AFL. Why does Adelaide not get a 'please explain' for submitting a false report to the MRP? This whole thing stinks of corruption and malpractice. It seems to me that the situation arose from a combination of sour SA grapes by a bunch of sore losers + the AFL really wanted to make an example of someone and weren't prepared to wait for a legitimate 'bad' tackle to come along, so pounced on the first opportunity presented, no matter how spurious the charge was.

And don't even get me started on that rubbish about the home team having a higher duty of care - what happens when co-tenants play each other?

Where was Quincy M.E, when we needed him. He would have argued the point that it was against the course of natural justice and would have got the prosecutions witness, to act on behalf of the defence! He would have called on the Judge's, to see reason, as it was in the interest of the wider AFL community.

And at the same time, would have exposed the Cartel's real agenda of having another Pies blockbuster GF, to fill the Coffers.

Hey, Watts that you se', he didn't die? Well what are we all doing here then. We could be watching Marngrook.

[daisycutter 28,728]

Well, I guess I am not the only one who came to the same conclusion: (From AFL live chat during the tribunal hearing).

Adam McNicol: Galbally says Dangerfield was not concussed. "He had symptoms of concussion".

As Dangerfield is clear to play only 6 days after a 'severe concussion' when the AFL has said a player should not play the next week after suffering a concussion, what conclusion is to be drawn. Either Dangerfield never had a concussion to start with, or the Adelaide Crows and the AFL are breaching both their duty of care to him and the AFL's own dictates as to what is and is not safe behaviour. Either way, someone is doing 'the wrong thing' and getting away with it.....

Did you see Jonathan Brown on the footy show? A man who has lost 8 weeks because of what must have been a very painful injury said that 'accidents happen' and said that Trengove was very unlucky.

A couple of points

Galbally's comment re symptoms is just lawyer talk to downplay original medical statement

The afl have not said a player should not play the next week after concussion

Agree with the rest