I apologise in advance. But this is nothing short of ridiculous and I can't think of anything else right at this moment other than "pathetic".

Firstly, there is a fricking umpire at the scene who has deemed the tackle legal and correctly applied within the laws of the game. That umpire also awarded JT the free kick. Ward would acknowledge this. Unharmed, un-pinned, caught red handed holding the ball. 

This shouldn't even be contemplated on sending to the MRP. It's BS.

If they're worried at all about "duty of care", how about they consider "duty of care" to our frack'n game !

I'm beginning to think someone or something at our club has walked under a ladder or totally messed with the AFL to deserve this tripe. This is an absolute - let me emphasise that - an "absolute" joke !

Breath HT, breath....

I am worried you might explode!!!

Not that you are in the least bit wrong, a legal tackle (not high, not spear) on a footy field should not (never) be looked at by anyone, 

but this is especially the case when it was actually (and correctly) the cause of a penalty for the player applying the tackle. 

The contradiction if ridiculous and almost criminal (if actually taken further), because now it would mean that players are rewarded for a legal manovre on the field, all the while being penalised off it. None of this makes any sense whatsoever. But what to expect we are dealing with fools apparently.

Breath HT, breath....

I am worried you might explode!!!

Not that you are in the least bit wrong, a legal tackle (not high, not spear) on a footy field should not (never) be looked at by anyone,

but this is especially the case when it was actually (and correctly) the cause of a penalty for the player applying the tackle.

The contradiction if ridiculous and almost criminal (if actually taken further), because now it would mean that players are rewarded for a legal manovre on the field, all the while being penalised off it. None of this makes any sense whatsoever. But what to expect we are dealing with fools apparently.

Cheers QueenC. It's been a while since the blood has boiled.

Well, 24 hours anyway...

Gieschen said today that it was a 'perfect tackle' but the MRP could well look at it. That does not make sense.

The system is flawed. The rule needs to be shelved, save for extreme circumstances that border upon spear tackles. Clear intent needs to be there. Mere negligence or recklessness should not constitute a reportable offence, for all the reasons we have discussed since the Dangerfield incident.

Interesting that you brought up the spear tackle Titan......

I am in Sydney and as such watch the NRL a lot and this is the one thing that in recent times at least they have been very heavy on.

The dangers of a spear tackle are massive, with broken necks not unheard of. If a player is found to have lifted another player (generally by putting his hands between their legs and

pulling them off the ground using a combination of strength and in leagues case momentum), and then flipping him down so he lands on his head or neck then the NRL judiciary has been very strong.

Only last week South Sydney forward Dave Taylor was suspended for five weeks for a spear tackle which certainly was bad, but not the worst I have seen.

The problem is with the AFL here is that the Bronco player than Taylor dropped got up (luckily) and kept playing. He may have been sore but not "damaged".

By AFL standards this would mean that Taylor may not have suffered the same harsh (and deserved penalty) because the injury wasn't bad enough.

We saw this with Joel Corey only a couple of weeks ago. There were two or three tackles in that round that were looked at. A couple of players were suspended (including Koschitzke and Mumford) but it was

Corey's tackle that was in my opinion by far the most dangerous. He shoved his players head into the ground.

Showed a hell of a lot more intent in the action, and while it was not perpendicular to the surface, it was near enough for arguments sake.

And yet he received the least punishment (reprimand by memory) simply because more "damage" was done to the opposition player when they incidentally banged their head on the ground.

The system is flawed but needs to be rectified to make sure the players are taken care of if it is shown that there was intent to hurt.

I have no issue with punishing for reckless or negligent acts either but the application of these designations that has the system upside down and inside out.

Edited July 2, 201114 yr by QueenC
Spelling

Cheers QueenC. It's been a while since the blood has boiled.

Well, 24 hours anyway...

Be with calm my friend !!!

Where is the love?

Seems like Jack's always done something wrong, according to the AFL.

He'll probably get 4 weeks when we take it and subsequently fail at the tribunal.

Absolute rubbish can I say. It is beoming more and more clear to me that Giesch doen't know his arse from his elbow. In one sentence he says it is the outcome that determines legality, the next he says it may attract a penalty. Unbelievable.

I know it has been brought up last time, but please let me indulge. It is absolutely an outrage to suggest that the outcome of a tackle should decide whether charges are laid. I could accept that it may have some bearing over severity of punishment, but to actually decide if punishment is handed out borders on insanity. I cannot comprehend how something that is such a part of the game as tackling can ever be penalised worse than a violent act designed to cause harm. That makes the whole thing even more outrageous.

As for this particluar tackle, I thought it looked worse than his previous effort against Dangermouse, but using the AFLs ridiculous logic of harm, how can there possibly be a case to answer. I don't even need to mention the fact that Jack was awarded the free kick, not Millionaire. There is something seriously wrong here, and I don't know what we can do about it, but something needs to be done before these idiots in power cause irreparable harm

Gieschen said today that it was a 'perfect tackle' but the MRP could well look at it. That does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense when you compare it to this statement by Gieschen the Umpires boss, " we are not penalizing holding the ball where there is incorrect disposal if we feel that the player made an attempt to correctly dispose".

Our game is fast becoming a joke, with no one including the umpires having a clue what is going on. The players are confused as to what they can and cannot do and supporters are just plain confused.

The draw is a joke, we play Geelong every year at Skilled for a guaranteed loss while the Blues, Pies, Dons etc dont ever go there, interstate trips, the salary cap which doesn't apply to certain teams etc etc etc.

.......................

If they're worried at all about "duty of care", how about they consider "duty of care" to our frack'n game !

.........

That sentence sums it up perfectly HT.

In Friday night'ss tackle, Trengove did not have a grip on the player's hand, allowing the player to protect his fall. The suspension tackle was more of a whiplash, far more likely to cause head damage. then again what would i know i am not the umpire's head honcho. ps trengove did a beautiful job on channel 7 just now, appoint him to the captaincy A . S . A... P....

Jack on Game Day just said that he's 9.5 out of 10 'sure' that Tom Scully would stay a Dees player. Further, he stipulated that a group plays for success and premierships and he said if Tom gets paid a little bit more at Melb, he 'wouldn't care'

He is such a well spoken kid, he's got leadership written all over him and handled Robbo's loaded questions with aplomb.

Lingy said that Jack's tackle was 'magnificent'

Man I wish I was in Melbourne. I miss so much on tele down there. Wish it was on fox.

Jack on Game Day just said that he's 9.5 out of 10 'sure' that Tom Scully would stay a Dees player. Further, he stipulated that a group plays for success and premierships and he said if Tom gets paid a little bit more at Melb, he 'wouldn't care'

He is such a well spoken kid, he's got leadership written all over him and handled Robbo's loaded questions with aplomb.

Lingy said that Jack's tackle was 'magnificent'

I think you need to move this to the Scully thread. It must be starting to feel quite lonely and unloved. Haven't seen peep of it since the Etihad disaster.

Edited July 3, 201114 yr by Kento80

Jack on Game Day just said that he's 9.5 out of 10 'sure' that Tom Scully would stay a Dees player. Further, he stipulated that a group plays for success and premierships and he said if Tom gets paid a little bit more at Melb, he 'wouldn't care'

He is such a well spoken kid, he's got leadership written all over him and handled Robbo's loaded questions with aplomb.

Lingy said that Jack's tackle was 'magnificent'

Good to see confidence in the players when asked this question. I remember last year when Geelong players were asked, they almost always said something like "that is a decision Garry will have to make when the time is right".

This kid is a massive pick up for the Dee's. Love his skills, attitude, and general demeanour.

I think Gieschen only talked about it because a jorno asked his specially about it after last night, basically Gieschen gave the party line. Looked fine, free kick award anything else is dealt with by the MRP.

Nothing article.

Trenners was one of the only shining lights on Friday. Can't afford to loose him for the Port game.

Sloppy journalism? Making stuff up? You be the judge. Over to you, Tony Sheahan:

MELBOURNE'S young gun Jack Trengove could face suspension for executing a perfect tackle, according to umpires' boss Jeff Gieschen.

But next paragraph, perfect is downgraded:

Trengove applied a near-perfect tackle to Bulldog Callan Ward on Friday night, with the officiating umpire awarding Trengove the free kick as Ward was caught holding the ball.

And yet. Nowhere in the article is Gieshen attributed with "perfect tackle". Nor did I hear - although I could have missed it - Gieshen say "perfect tackle" in the Saturday interview.

What a game from him though. Won't get anything as the player he tackled got up, [censored] he could piledriver a player into the ground with the maximum amount of force, but as long as they got up he would be fine. It was only because Dangerfield's lights go out with any sniff of head contact that he got 3.

Who knows? all this could lead to players faking concussion, to put opposition players out for a couple of weeks..

Who knows? all this could lead to players faking concussion, to put opposition players out for a couple of weeks..

That is my exact concern with this "Flaky" Rule....September is getting closer.

Will be interesting to see what comes of this. Virtually an exact replica of the Dangerfield tackle but this time the Dogs player didn't hit his head.

I think he'll be ok. Which is laughable in itself.

As for the rest of tonight's game, yuck.

Other than being a sling tackle, It wasn't the same.

Trenners didn't have the other hand held. Both Jacks arms and hands were around the torso. The player had both hands available to use as protection. The player was not even stunned and got straight up.

Here is one for everybody to get their mind around, if a player is tackled legally but gets up really dazed and has to be helped from the ground, 30 seconds before half time. Will the tackler get reported and suspended?

What happens if it the last round and they are scheduled to meet the next week in the finals? A very good way to get rid of the opposition. The tackled player gets to play the next week[ the Dangerfield rule] and the tackler gets outed, how many times can you do that in a game and how many opposition can you wipe out for the next week in the finals?

It has happened that you can play the same team twice in two weeks. MFC played haw in 1991 or 1992 and we beat them both weeks.

Edited July 3, 201114 yr by ex52k2

The problem with this tackle is it is 2 actions, he sets and then throws him. I actually think he will get a week for this, just cos of a bad record.

Agree High Tower, I've never read such trash in my life.

Firstly, Gieschen has basically admitted that it is the outcome that matters, not the conduct. I don't think any reporting system should be based solely on outcome. It should aim to regulate conduct, not outcomes which are out of a player's control. So what Gieschen is saying is that if you deliberately drive someone's head into the ground in a tackle but they manage to escape injury then you're fine, but if you just slightly sling them and they then accidentally hit their head on the ground, you'll get a 2-week suspension. This is completely against the whole concept of punishing dangerous conduct and trying to protect players.

Secondly, on Trengove, in saying that the umpire deemed it a legal tackle but that the MRP may have a different view, he is basically implying that the umpire is incompetent. The umpire was in perfect position and if he is not able to discern whether Trengove's tackle was legal or not then he is incompetent. That, or the umpires have not been informed what is a legal tackle and what isn't. I'm sorry, but you can't have an umpire in perfect position pay holding the ball and deem the tackle legal and then have the MRP overrule him and deem it illegal.

To top it all off, how can Gieschen say that the MRP might regard the tackle as illegal when he says it's more about the outcome? Even though I disagree completely with this 'outcome' approach, if you are going to apply it then Trengove is no chance of copping a suspension as Ward did not hit his head and was not injured. For Giesh to say it's about the outcome and then to imply that Trengove may be in trouble just proves he has no idea.

Good post.

Interesting that you brought up the spear tackle Titan......

I am in Sydney and as such watch the NRL a lot and this is the one thing that in recent times at least they have been very heavy on.

The dangers of a spear tackle are massive, with broken necks not unheard of. If a player is found to have lifted another player (generally by putting his hands between their legs and

pulling them off the ground using a combination of strength and in leagues case momentum), and then flipping him down so he lands on his head or neck then the NRL judiciary has been very strong.

Only last week South Sydney forward Dave Taylor was suspended for five weeks for a spear tackle which certainly was bad, but not the worst I have seen.

The problem is with the AFL here is that the Bronco player than Taylor dropped got up (luckily) and kept playing. He may have been sore but not "damaged".

By AFL standards this would mean that Taylor may not have suffered the same harsh (and deserved penalty) because the injury wasn't bad enough.

We saw this with Joel Corey only a couple of weeks ago. There were two or three tackles in that round that were looked at. A couple of players were suspended (including Koschitzke and Mumford) but it was

Corey's tackle that was in my opinion by far the most dangerous. He shoved his players head into the ground.

Showed a hell of a lot more intent in the action, and while it was not perpendicular to the surface, it was near enough for arguments sake.

And yet he received the least punishment (reprimand by memory) simply because more "damage" was done to the opposition player when they incidentally banged their head on the ground.

The system is flawed but needs to be rectified to make sure the players are taken care of if it is shown that there was intent to hurt.

I have no issue with punishing for reckless or negligent acts either but the application of these designations that has the system upside down and inside out.

I disagree with the last bit. I fail to see why we should be punishing negligent or reckless tackles, when the very nature of a tackle is to be reckless.

For mine, if a tackle hurts the opponent, so be it, provided the tackle was not of a kind that was designed to cause injury, such as a spear tackle. Trengove's tackle style, to me, is not intending to cause injury.

The problem with this tackle is it is 2 actions, he sets and then throws him. I actually think he will get a week for this, just cos of a bad record.

On that logic Corey would have been suspended. His was clearly two actions.

What should work in Jack's favour is the fact that in the Dangerfield tackle he pinned an arm, and so Dangerfield couldn't protect himself. Here, Ward had both arms free and could have protected himself. Also, Ward didn't get injured, but Dangerfield did.

Man I wish I was in Melbourne. I miss so much on tele down there. Wish it was on fox.

Where are you Kento?

I disagree with the last bit. I fail to see why we should be punishing negligent or reckless tackles, when the very nature of a tackle is to be reckless.

For mine, if a tackle hurts the opponent, so be it, provided the tackle was not of a kind that was designed to cause injury, such as a spear tackle. Trengove's tackle style, to me, is not intending to cause injury.

Absolutely see your point, I probably didn't voice me thoughts very well......

(really should stop trying to be intelligent in the middle of the night, like now!!!)

The system that is in operation is a direct steal with a few tweaks from the NRL, but up here it generally gets the job done.

Obviously not all the time, but the principle of points equalling weeks, its transparency is obvious and it's grading is clear.

Which is not the case in the AFL, it's far more subjective.

Now the sports are very different and league as a code is a far more structured sport and therefore it is probably easier to grade the illegalities than a more helter skelter sport like the AFL.

That being said they grade via 1-5 on illegal on-field manoeuvres. The grading takes away the "reckless" or "negligent" labels, takes into account the impact

made and any damage done but only on what they see as illegal deeds, eg a high tackle may have been an accident in execution, but it is still illegal so the

grading will be less as long as you haven't knocked the other player out.

Trengoves tackles, both this one and the previous one would be congratulated and applauded by the people in NRL, because tackling is a legal (entirely required) skill to execute and as long as

you don't stray from what is in the rules (which doesn't include the players head accidentally hitting the ground, that is just unfortunate), you should be (and so far have been) fine.

Edited July 3, 201114 yr by QueenC