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.

something like that.......I bet they'll change/tighten the rules for next year though

personally I think there is no need to slam someone that hard direct into the ground when they are pinned

by all means bring them to ground....but with a little more 'care'

maybe if they tighten up these tackles Cale will get more inside???

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.

Bit like the judge saying ' As you missed him with your attempted shooting, you are free to go". I was a bit worried for Jack as I thought this tackle was much more vigorous than the Dangerfield one. Good on you Jack it's about time your luck changed. You are a real asset to the club and you will be a leader in the very near future.

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".

Hit the nail on the head, Redleg.

Imagine if ...

Tennis: "We are not penalising a player hitting the ball out if we feel that the player made an attempt to hit it in."

Soccer: "We are not penalising offside if we feel that the player made an attempt to be onside."

Cricket: "We are not penalising someone for being run out if we feel they made an attempt to make their ground."

No other sport allows its rules to be so perverted. And by the people charged with administering them!

The Giesch is a shocking administrator, borderline incompetent. His comments on whether JT's tackle was legal or not shows that that he -- the umpires' boss -- has got no idea.

Giesch's latest with throwing the ball is a beauty. He said, if the umpire can't be sure, he will let it go. Thereby introducing yet another grey area. Now the players know they can get away with throws provided they make it look "kind of like" a handpass. A new blight on the game. Good one Giesch!

If the umps handed out a few free kicks for lineball handpass/throws, even for legal handpasses, in a flash there would be no more lineball handpass/throws!

Giesch has taught the umps not to officiate. He's now giving part of the responsibility to the players themselves, with the new advantage rule. Good one, Giesch. Let the players run the game.

Giesch has no idea.

It's not unlike the speccy rule though. if you hold the mark you can apply as much force to a player's back as you like, if you misjudge the mark it is 'in the back'.

It's not unlike the speccy rule though. if you hold the mark you can apply as much force to a player's back as you like, if you misjudge the mark it is 'in the back'.

Very good analogy. Too many grey ares in our rules.

The Giesch is a shocking administrator, borderline incompetent. His comments on whether JT's tackle was legal or not shows that that he -- the umpires' boss -- has got no idea.

Giesch's latest with throwing the ball is a beauty. He said, if the umpire can't be sure, he will let it go. Thereby introducing yet another grey area. Now the players know they can get away with throws provided they make it look "kind of like" a handpass. A new blight on the game. Good one Giesch!

If the umps handed out a few free kicks for lineball handpass/throws, even for legal handpasses, in a flash there would be no more lineball handpass/throws!

Giesch has no idea.

Point 1. Absolutely correct, could not coach Richmond, worse with the umps.

point 2. Now they are penalising people for throwning when they clearly handball, Black last year, osbourne on the weekend, and letting throws go, black this year and a million others.

point 3. spot on!

I flicked on to hear Kevin Bartlet's "take", and I found myself partially agreeing with him, there was not much difference in ferocity and action between this latest incident and the Dangerfield tackle. The ultimate issue with the MRP is the punish based more on the result rather than the action itself. A great example was the Joel Corey tackle, of all of the sling tackles I've seen that was the most likely to cause serious damage.

Having said that, Trengove was made a martyr earlier this year with the 3 match suspension so he was owed that time.

I reckon a point of difference is that in the Dangerfield tackle, Trenners held his hand - lessening Patrick's ability to brace his fall. The fact he then belted his head into the ground makes it different to the Ward tackle IMO.

I flicked on to hear Kevin Bartlet's "take", and I found myself partially agreeing with him, there was not much difference in ferocity and action between this latest incident and the Dangerfield tackle. The ultimate issue with the MRP is the punish based more on the result rather than the action itself. A great example was the Joel Corey tackle, of all of the sling tackles I've seen that was the most likely to cause serious damage.

Having said that, Trengove was made a martyr earlier this year with the 3 match suspension so he was owed that time.

Yes i heard K.B this morning and could see his point.

The sling tackle is very dangerous, and a player will be seriously injured spinally if it continues, i don't care who the tackler is.

The outcome of a sling tackle will always be a lottery. The fact that Trenners this time did not hold Wards Arms was more luck i would say, considering the speed of the motion.

Corey's tackle was the worst of the lot.

This is going to be a very interesting situation...i wonder when somebody will try to sling tackle JT. ?

Kevin Bartlett has a hidden agenda behind his take, on the sling tackle today and on anything involving the MFC...

KB has a promotional position with the Tigers for the Fighting Tiger Fund. It seems to me, that KB is using his media position to pump up the tigers every chance he gets, while slandering anything to do with the MFC...

since the start of the year, KB has not said anything positive about the MFC.

Last year when Dustin Martin was under poaching threat from GWS, KB was adament that this should not be aloud to happen to a developing club. Now that it's happening to the MFC, he is ok with this happening. He's even called "MFC supporters sooks", for complaining about the Scully issue.

When we beat the Tigers a couple of weeks ago, he interview Hardwick. the interview was base around how the tigers let that happen? (they lost becuse their [censored] KB)

He never mentions how bad tigers were over the weekends? hmmm

why is it that KB only has a problem with the sling tackle when a MFC player performs it? He could have said the same thing when Joel Corey from Geelong got off, but he didn't....hmmm....

working backwards from injury is so bad and just the wrong system.

Spear tackle - outlaw. Sling tackle - part of the game

What would have happened if Jordies flying tackle did both of Martins knees ? how would that be assessed ? negligent ?

Kevin Bartlett has a hidden agenda behind his take, on the sling tackle today and on anything involving the MFC...

KB has a promotional position with the Tigers for the Fighting Tiger Fund. It seems to me, that KB is using his media position to pump up the tigers every chance he gets, while slandering anything to do with the MFC...

since the start of the year, KB has not said anything positive about the MFC.

Last year when Dustin Martin was under poaching threat from GWS, KB was adament that this should not be aloud to happen to a developing club. Now that it's happening to the MFC, he is ok with this happening. He's even called "MFC supporters sooks", for complaining about the Scully issue.

When we beat the Tigers a couple of weeks ago, he interview Hardwick. the interview was base around how the tigers let that happen? (they lost becuse their [censored] KB)

He never mentions how bad tigers were over the weekends? hmmm

why is it that KB only has a problem with the sling tackle when a MFC player performs it? He could have said the same thing when Joel Corey from Geelong got off, but he didn't....hmmm....

KB has definately ramped up his involvement with the Tigers, No Doubt, unless the words Cameron Schwabb are heard, and then he goes pale and wobbly, excuses himself and makes a cup of tea....

Whether he has an agenda against the MFC i am not so sure...maybe that we are at similiar stages of development, but an actual biased agenda i have not felt it.

What does get coveted on his show mostly is the RULES COMMITTEE. Any negative comment about that subject, and KB just talks straight over the top of everyone.

Was the Rules committee responsible for the MRP "Tick the Box" system??? If so it is a shocking error....The points loading system is another.

The whole Tribunal now is a toss of the coin, which with today's technology is a disgrace.

Perhaps the AFL should invent a "tackleometer" so the MRP can gauge the level of a tackle and determine whether is legal or otherwise. Either that or ban tackling all together.

As long as it's arbitrary you are going to get differing views and penalties so they should either ban it or confirm it's legal.

I heard the radio interview with the AFL Umpires Adviser this afternoon but I didn't quite catch his name. It could have been either Jeff Gieschen or George Orwell but I don't know if there's any difference.

When asked whether he believed JT should have been awarded a free kick and whether his tackle was legal, he agreed with the umpire's decision. In answer to another question about whether the tackle would be referred to the MRP, he agreed it "potentially" might be.

This is getting beyond a joke.

Now Jeff Gieshen has done another backflip and claimed the umpire's decision was wrong.

"AFL UMPIRES boss Jeff Gieschen believes Melbourne's Jack Trengove should have been penalised for a dangerous tackle on Western Bulldogs opponent Callan Ward at Etihad Stadium on Friday night.

Gieschen said the whistle-blower got it wrong. Luckily Ward wasn't hurt, but we should have paid a free kick for the dangerous tackle."

Even they don't even know what's legal or what's not.

Now Jeff Gieshen has done another backflip and claimed the umpire's decision was wrong.

"AFL UMPIRES boss Jeff Gieschen believes Melbourne's Jack Trengove should have been penalised for a dangerous tackle on Western Bulldogs opponent Callan Ward at Etihad Stadium on Friday night.

Gieschen said the whistle-blower got it wrong. Luckily Ward wasn't hurt, but we should have paid a free kick for the dangerous tackle."

Even they don't even know what's legal or what's not.

Oh My God....And the Fat Controller has gone on holidays thinking all is well...whilst the AFLPA are feuding and the umpires are clueless...."But there is nothing wrong...i am paid $2 million" Thankyou.

On the Central Coast in NSW QueenC

Cheers Kento, up here AFL GameDay is broadcast on 7Mate HD at 10am.

Just for future reference !!!

A great example was the Joel Corey tackle, of all of the sling tackles I've seen that was the most likely to cause serious damage.

Corey's tackle was less sling and more spear, and thus was far more dangerous.

Gieshan is a one pure Muppett!

Now Jeff Gieshen has done another backflip and claimed the umpire's decision was wrong.

"AFL UMPIRES boss Jeff Gieschen believes Melbourne's Jack Trengove should have been penalised for a dangerous tackle on Western Bulldogs opponent Callan Ward at Etihad Stadium on Friday night.

Gieschen said the whistle-blower got it wrong. Luckily Ward wasn't hurt, but we should have paid a free kick for the dangerous tackle."

Even they don't even know what's legal or what's not.

Is that a backflip or bowing to the whims of his masters?

I heard Adrian Anderson on radio last night suggesting that the tackle was illegal and should have been free kicked. Now Gieschen follows suit.

The joke has now turned into high farce.

Is that a backflip or bowing to the whims of his masters?

I heard Adrian Anderson on radio last night suggesting that the tackle was illegal and should have been free kicked. Now Gieschen follows suit.

The joke has now turned into high farce.

My sentiments exactly. Me thinks they're potentially opening a can of worms for themselves. They are making it even more difficult for umpires to adjudicate. It will come down to interpretation which will differ from umpire to umpire during a game, which will only frustrate supporters of the game.

I'd like to know if the umpires had any inkling if there was a focus on illegal tackles such as this Trengove tackle prior to last weekend ?

There is now.

Thank-you Mr.Adrian Anderson. You're doing an absolutely stupendous job, and have introduced yet another change to the game to the benefit of all. The umpires thankyou from the bottom of their hearts for making their job that much easier.

My sentiments exactly. Me thinks they're potentially opening a can of worms for themselves. They are making it even more difficult for umpires to adjudicate. It will come down to interpretation which will differ from umpire to umpire during a game, which will only frustrate supporters of the game.

I'd like to know if the umpires had any inkling if there was a focus on illegal tackles such as this Trengove tackle prior to last weekend ?

There is now.

Thank-you Mr.Adrian Anderson. You're doing an absolutely stupendous job, and have introduced yet another change to the game to the benefit of all. The umpires thankyou from the bottom of their hearts for making their job that much easier.

Another mid-season re-interpretation.....

followed by throwing out the rule book for the finals no doubt....

and don't get me started on over-reaction 50-metre penalties that pervert the game

Kevin Bartlett has a hidden agenda behind his take, on the sling tackle today and on anything involving the MFC...

KB has a promotional position with the Tigers for the Fighting Tiger Fund. It seems to me, that KB is using his media position to pump up the tigers every chance he gets, while slandering anything to do with the MFC...

since the start of the year, KB has not said anything positive about the MFC.

Last year when Dustin Martin was under poaching threat from GWS, KB was adament that this should not be aloud to happen to a developing club. Now that it's happening to the MFC, he is ok with this happening. He's even called "MFC supporters sooks", for complaining about the Scully issue.

When we beat the Tigers a couple of weeks ago, he interview Hardwick. the interview was base around how the tigers let that happen? (they lost becuse their [censored] KB)

He never mentions how bad tigers were over the weekends? hmmm

why is it that KB only has a problem with the sling tackle when a MFC player performs it? He could have said the same thing when Joel Corey from Geelong got off, but he didn't....hmmm....

Could be something in this. He was definitely out to get Trengove.

The Monday morning before the MRP panel was due to sit, he made a statement that Trenners wasn't just likely to be sighted and had a case to answer for, but "that he will be sighted and he will be suspended for that....no question!".

The next morning, before listening to his "opening rant" i was thinking to myself that KB was on a mission here and that he would most likely launch into Trengove claiming how crazy the MRP's decision was to let him off.

Sure enough, on cue, that's exactly what he ranted on about in the opening. I sent a txt having a go at him and asking where he was after Corey had laid a more dangerous 'spear' tackle the week before.

Of course the txt went unheralded even though i sent it within a minute of him finishing his rant.

Although i also suggested he was probably still in a foul mood as the Tiges got smashed and we beat them the the week before, hence he was grumpy with anyone/anything Blues/Demons. I also suggested that he go back to bed and try getting out the other side!

A stubborn old bugger when it comes to his view. According to him every rule the Rules Committee has come up with is perfect both in its design off the field and black and white when being ruled on by the umpires on the field (or should that be yellow & black?).

A stubborn old bugger when it comes to his view.

I cant even listen to him

His opinion is always right.

Talks over anyone else who has a differing view.

Will not listen to any other side of an argument.

I switch to triple J when he comes on.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118013/default.aspx

didnt see his initial tackle for the two weeks. was it similar to Trengoves?

I reckon a point of difference is that in the Dangerfield tackle, Trenners held his hand - lessening Patrick's ability to brace his fall. The fact he then belted his head into the ground makes it different to the Ward tackle IMO.

Yeah ,better result -we won the game .