The club should set up a reddit where people can submit evidence and fact based arguments to support our case. I have emailed them my aforementioned post, I encourage everyone else to do the same if they can find any more indisputable arguments.

We must look into this Lynch mouth guard comment too. Can anyone confirm, and will the spineless crows at the AFC come out and show some respect for us by supporting the future of the AFL?

The club should set up a reddit where people can submit evidence and fact based arguments to support our case. I have emailed them my aforementioned post, I encourage everyone else to do the same if they can find any more indisputable arguments.

We must look into this Lynch mouth guard comment too. Can anyone confirm, and will the spineless crows at the AFC come out and show some respect for us by supporting the future of the AFL?

If true, he has a duty of care to himself to wear a mouthguard to mitigate any potential impacts. Works the same way with insurance...

While I admire us appealing, it will end up being a waste time, or worse still a heavier suspension - which the appeals tribunal has the power to enforce.

The club should set up a reddit where people can submit evidence and fact based arguments to support our case. I have emailed them my aforementioned post, I encourage everyone else to do the same if they can find any more indisputable arguments.

We must look into this Lynch mouth guard comment too. Can anyone confirm, and will the spineless crows at the AFC come out and show some respect for us by supporting the future of the AFL?

It was just a guy who rang up KB saying he was "a dental professional" & to have got such a severe injury it's unlikely he had a mouthguard. If true, it's an important factor. And if there are players who don't wear mouthguards in games, that needs attention too.

LOL the article just changed:

The club will consider its options further on Wednesday morning before the 11am deadline.

The club will consider its options further on Wednesday morning before the noon deadline.

LOL the article just changed:

The club will consider its options further on Wednesday morning before the 11am deadline.

The club will consider its options further on Wednesday morning before the noon deadline.

Pretty standard for AFL.com, they often have wrong names, or pictures of the wrong player for articles' captions.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a pre-determined outcome.

I think the AFL are scared of increased junior involvement in soccer and don't want parents pushing their young kids to play soccer as it's a safer game. As part of this they would be extremely keen for any indicent that results in a serious facial injury to be punished. They wouldn't want an incident that results in a broken jaw to be deemed to be part of the game as this sends the message to the parents that their kids could suffer the same fate as part of the game.

This is the only way I can justify the decision - otherwise how can three members of the jury have views so divergent from the wider footy public, including coaches, players, past players, supporters and journalists? It's astonishing and beggars belief. The only people I have head support this decision is Damo 'I judge players without having seen them play' Barrett and our good mate and commentary icon "The Firestarter". The fact that this decision has caused so much outrage clearly shows the view of the wider footy public.

We need to appeal this and not meekly cop it.

We need to appeal this and not meekly cop it.

Like we ALWAYS do (cop it I mean)

Like we ALWAYS do (cop it I mean)

new boss at helm.

PR,just loves these fights and also enjoys using it.

we are in a no lose situation.

and the support has bought the old fans out of the woodwork.

its a win win for our club.

Whatever else Schimmelbusch, Henwood & Dunne are, they're not idiots.

You can almost see the strings.

No they're not, but they haven't played the game for a long time, Shimma 1987, Dunne 1985 and Henwood 1992, so are they basing their judgement on how a player could react in a game to now, or to when they played the game and it was at a much slower pace?

The tribunal should be comprised of people that understand the modern game and have experienced the pace of it unlike the old days when you could do a few twists and turns and pirouette out of trouble.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a pre-determined outcome.

I think the AFL are scared of increased junior involvement in soccer and don't want parents pushing their young kids to play soccer as it's a safer game. As part of this they would be extremely keen for any indicent that results in a serious facial injury to be punished. They wouldn't want an incident that results in a broken jaw to be deemed to be part of the game as this sends the message to the parents that their kids could suffer the same fate as part of the game.

This is the only way I can justify the decision - otherwise how can three members of the jury have views so divergent from the wider footy public, including coaches, players, past players, supporters and journalists? It's astonishing and beggars belief. The only people I have head support this decision is Damo 'I judge players without having seen them play' Barrett and our good mate and commentary icon "The Firestarter". The fact that this decision has caused so much outrage clearly shows the view of the wider footy public.

We need to appeal this and not meekly cop it.

I think you are completely right, and that is the fundamental motivation behind the constant softening of the game.. again, like everything in life, it is all about money, it is all about greed. They have tainted the game against the wishes of its supporters because they just want more. They paint in the guise of 'we need to compete with other codes' when any idiot can see that it is absolutely flourishing and is under no threat whatsoever: Memberships last year were 756,717 and attendances were 7,193,366, not to mention the lucrative sponsorship, TV rights and merchandise takings, they are making insane profits. They can't even make an exception when the entire community condemns their decisions openly. BOOOO

Like we ALWAYS do (cop it I mean)

We appealed the Trengove tackle. I can't remember a time we've been at the tribunal since then.

We appealed the Trengove tackle. I can't remember a time we've been at the tribunal since then.

i stand corrected

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-midfielder-jack-trengove-faces-afl-appeals-board/story-fn8lichg-1226054757252

"The board deliberated for six minutes"

I havent seen anything official as yet whether we are appealing or not.

The deadline was 11am

LOL the article just changed:

The club will consider its options further on Wednesday morning before the 11am deadline.

The club will consider its options further on Wednesday morning before the noon deadline.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a pre-determined outcome.

I think the AFL are scared of increased junior involvement in soccer and don't want parents pushing their young kids to play soccer as it's a safer game. As part of this they would be extremely keen for any indicent that results in a serious facial injury to be punished. They wouldn't want an incident that results in a broken jaw to be deemed to be part of the game as this sends the message to the parents that their kids could suffer the same fate as part of the game.

This is the only way I can justify the decision - otherwise how can three members of the jury have views so divergent from the wider footy public, including coaches, players, past players, supporters and journalists? It's astonishing and beggars belief. The only people I have head support this decision is Damo 'I judge players without having seen them play' Barrett and our good mate and commentary icon "The Firestarter". The fact that this decision has caused so much outrage clearly shows the view of the wider footy public.

We need to appeal this and not meekly cop it.

If that were the case, they couldn't have handled this in a worse possible way; they have given this far more attention than if it hadn't gone to the tribunal and the fallout will continue.

I think we have to appeal on principal alone.

MFC will appeal because it is the right thing to do.

The deadline was 11am

AFL on twitter says the deadline is at noon

I'm being pedantic and non trusting but I hope we have followed up and have proof that the fracture is on the left side.

JV will play over 200 games for this club.

One day, he will be captain.

We've got the makings of the hardest midfield in the AFL and it's getting better every game.

As a parent I would much prefer my child to play a game where the rules and interpretations are clear and consistently applied. Where if you play the game the way it has always been played and the way you have been trained to play, then you don't get whacked when accidents happen.

These inconsistent and illogical outcomes will drive far more kids away from the game than accidents. We've lived with accidents for generations now and it's the biggest sport in the country. These misguided and unjust attempts to legislate against accidents is turning me away in a hurry.

While I admire us appealing, it will end up being a waste time, or worse still a heavier suspension - which the appeals tribunal has the power to enforce.

Probably will be - but there is a chance the AFL will crumble under the pressure. Unfortunately for us we have no choice - if we want to be a hard respected AFL club we simply must appeal this.

Edited May 7, 201411 yr by Young Dee

The appeal will either let them show some common sense and throw it out OR it will force them rule that a broken jaw is more than medium impact and requiring a 4 week ban. Surely they couldn't say again that a broken jaw is medium.

Would love to see the reaction of the football public if the ban jumps to 4 weeks.

Not an ideal outcome for Jack or the MFC, but the bigger the foolishness, the bigger the fallout.

The appeal will either let them show some common sense and throw it out OR it will force them rule that a broken jaw is more than medium impact and requiring a 4 week ban. Surely they couldn't say again that a broken jaw is medium.

Would love to see the reaction of the football public if the ban jumps to 4 weeks.

Not an ideal outcome for Jack or the MFC, but the bigger the foolishness, the bigger the fallout.

I don't think the AFL would risk increasing the ban - purely because of the uproar it would create