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.

Corey got points, just not enough to tip him over to a week if he took the early plea. With Trengove getting 3 weeks earlier this year that will probably tip him over one, if not to two weeks, he might end up with a reprimand. All depends on how the grade it.

Personally I do not think he should get any weeks, but the way they have ruled it this year and with him already copping 3 weeks not long ago I reckon they will cite him over it.

The sad part of all this is what will decide a suspension is not defined. It seems to be on "injury outcome" but who knows with certainty?

To have the majority of the football world including a highly regarded peer say it was a "brilliant tackle" , to have the umpire reward the tackle with a free kick and then to have the umpires advisor come out and say it may be looked at by the MRP doesn't make sense.

How on earth can players or umpires be expected to operate with the existing arrangement?

Players have no idea what, if any "injury outcome" will be at time of tackle.

I look forward to watching all the tackles a week or so before the finals.

The interpretation needs to be reviewed and quick.

I understand coming down hard on a spear tackle - lifting the player up and driving his head into the turf.

However - we have come down hard on bump at head high level - the rationale is that you have the choice of tackling or bumping - therefore if you bump the head you are in trouble. I can semi live with that.

But we now we are saying we should tackle not bump but only a tackle a certain way - something that is done in a split second.

The worst aspect of how tackles are being adjudicated is that we are now working backwards from how badly injured someone is - how about when you attempt a smother across someones knees and cause injury ? What about the duty of care to Brown of Richmond as Waite laid his boot fair in the back going for a hanger - didnt have to do that - when you start judging aspects of the game illegal because of injury caused even the action of the player is not illegal then we are forgetting that footy is a contact sport.

Does Jack have hangover points from his previous tackle and/or his two umpire collisions?

Could well be that Jack gets a caution and points for Friday's tackle, but the addition of previous points see him suspended.

Where are you Kento?

On the Central Coast in NSW QueenC

If the AFL is as concerned as it claims to be on safty, then why not the compulsory head gear. I don't want to see it happen but players wear mouthguards for a reason and plenty of other bits and pieces. How can Trengrove lay two perfect tackles and be rubbed out twice.

Edited July 4, 201114 yr by Face Your Demons

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

Correct.

How can the players be expected to operate under a regime which both applauds and penalizes the same action? How can the umpires be instructed to reward a tackle with a free kick which might win their team the game - knowing full well that the player stands to be disqualified from the next match ?

Are umpires in junior competitions instructed to give tacklers their free kick before they give them the yellow card - or to wait until the tackler is allowed to return to the field?

Tackles are either perfect or illegal .. they can't be both!

If the AFL is as concerned as it claims to be on safty, then why not the compulsory head gear. I don't want to see it happen but players wear mouthguards for a reason and plenty of other bits and pieces. How can Trengrove lay two perfect tackles and be rubbed out twice.

No, as much as I hate to say it, if the AFL is genuinely concerned they will put Trengove out because despite the tackle not resulting in the player suffering any concussion and being able to immediately play on, the tackle was still what they consider to be a dangerous tackle. If they are serious about removing the risk of serious injuries (concussions) from such tackles, then the sling tackle needs to be taken out of the game completely.

That doesn't mean I think it should be taken out, in fact I don't... I am just questioning the AFL's consistency on this issue.

If the AFL goes ahead and cites Trengove then I would expect to see up to 6 of the same cases every week. Watch any game they're always there

He got off.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117788/default.aspx

IMHO he got off because ward wasnt hurt.

disgraceful MRP, disgraceful.

like i said a few weeks ago - this is the equivalent of hitting two different people in the face but only one gets hurt - and only getting punished for that one. two actions are wrong, but only 1 gets punished.

the rule itself is another issue...

Ha ha, go jacky boy!!!!!

I think he got off to try and even up the stuff up they made weeks ago!

MUPPETS!

No complaints, but really, joke.

The view of the MRP:

Contact between Melbourne's Jack Trengove and the Western Bulldogs' Callan Ward from the third quarter of Friday's match was assessed. Ward had taken possession of the ball when he was wrapped up in a tackle by Trengove. Trengove pivots and takes Ward to the ground. It was the view of the panel that while the action was a slinging motion, the impact on this occasion was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. The majority of the contact to the ground was to Ward's shoulder and there was no significant impact on Ward's head/neck area. The Western Bulldogs' player was immediately able to continue in the game when play proceeded. A medical report from the Western Bulldogs said Ward had sustained no injury and required no treatment after the incident. No further action was taken.'

Clearly they have decided that no injury means no suspension. Ridiculous.

I just heard on Foxsports that Jack is in the clear

Woo Hoo

Clearly they have decided that no injury means no suspension. Ridiculous.

Not quite. "The majority of the contact to the ground was to Ward's shoulder and there was no significant impact on Ward's head/neck area.

So not necessarily 'injury' but 'significant impact' to 'head/neck' required

Joel Corey got one week (reduced to reprimand with early plea) where there was no 'injury'

Not quite. "The majority of the contact to the ground was to Ward's shoulder and there was no significant impact on Ward's head/neck area.

So not necessarily 'injury' but 'significant impact' to 'head/neck' required

Joel Corey got one week (reduced to reprimand with early plea) where there was no 'injury'

That's what I meant, head injury. It seems pretty clear to me that the MRP is going to sanction tackles which cause some sort of concussion, no matter how severe the slinging motion is, and will let go tackles that do not cause concussion, even when the slinging motion is clear.

That's what I meant, head injury. It seems pretty clear to me that the MRP is going to sanction tackles which cause some sort of concussion, no matter how severe the slinging motion is, and will let go tackles that do not cause concussion, even when the slinging motion is clear.

No No, it doesn't have to be an injury - just significant contact. There is a difference e.g. Joel Corey tackle

He got off because of our posts.

Hey we can believe that can't we.

He got off because of our posts.

Hey we can believe that can't we.

Certainly wasn't with any help from most of the media who played it for all it could (in the negative sense)

Certainly wasn't with any help from most of the media who played it for all it could (in the negative sense)

A shame for them, they have to find something else now to fill the pages.

I actually have come to the conclusion that the MRP use Flemo's wheel from "after the bounce"

Certainly wasn't with any help from most of the media who played it for all it could (in the negative sense)

Dermott - 10 times worse than the last time

Another great innovation under the Fat Controlller's Regime...The Match Review Panel.

Vlad is delusional if he considers that all is well.

Not quite. "The majority of the contact to the ground was to Ward's shoulder and there was no significant impact on Ward's head/neck area.

So not necessarily 'injury' but 'significant impact' to 'head/neck' required

Joel Corey got one week (reduced to reprimand with early plea) where there was no 'injury'

So in essence, the MRP and AFL are not really serious in their desire to reduce the risk of head and neck injuries. What they have done is the equivalent to legislating that being drunk and driving is ok, but if you hit someone then you might be in trouble if they are injured or killed.