Demon Tragic

Ok. So you dont like the decision or the process. You have said that now what's your basis for going to appeal? What new evidence are you putting forward to address the assessed breach of the rule by the tribunal?

Here is Jack's assessment of Redleg's email which Redleg has acknowledged as being a reasonable assessment. Jack is a lawyer. No one likes the outcome but appealling just because you dont like the decision has all the merit and benefit of banging your head against the wall.

Redleg, what are the grounds for an appeal against a tribunal ruling?

My understanding is that there has to be some new evidence introduced upon which an appeal can be based.

Is it enough just to say that the tribunal made a poor decision?

I think not. It seems to me that the tribunal decided on the facts presented to them that Trengove was guilty of breaching the rule. To me, it's not the tribunal that dispensed "bad law" but that the law itself is bad and therefore needs to be changed (unless the consensus is that we turn the game into a form of netball played on grass).

The solution for the Melbourne Football Club and for Jack Trengove therefore is to take it on the chin in much the same way as it did with the Colin Sylvia incident last year and focus on the job ahead which is to overcome the adversity of the decision and the injuries that afflicted us during and after the win against the Crows. The group needs to concentrate its thoughts and energies on the weeks ahead rather than to fight costly legal battles against an unsympathetic AFL establishment. That battle is unlikely to see Jack Trengove exonerated but it might well become counterproductive to the ongoing fight for team improvement and premiership points.

We might be going into next week's round without some of our better players but we need to look at the game against North as a real test of this club's mettle and an extension of the challenge we faced last week when we took on Adelaide.

I like your sentiments but we're a football club and it should be business as usual now that the decision's been made.

I would introduce several grounds for appeal.

1. The tribunal neglected to properly asses the incident, spending only 4 minutes in deliberation. This alone suggets that they went into the process with a pre-conceived outcome.

2. I would also introduce the marking contest just prior to the tackle after which Dangerfield was slow to get up, thus bringing into dispute the cause of his concussion.

3. I would contend that Dangerfield's head did not hit the ground with sufficient force to cause a concussion. (Since the AFL is the arbiter of neseccary force, this would cause them to determine exactly how much force was in the impact).

I think a poor application of the prescribed process is excellent ground for appeal added to that we can introduce new evidence and thus argue new points.

FWIW I think our defence of 'that's how we were taught' was substandard and ill conceived.

What are they constesting? The charge, the grading or the severity? Cantact was high according to the rules, impact was proven to be high impact.

The AFL made it clear with Mumford that they want this out of the game. I think the three matches will stand.

Can we argue that no negligence was shown.Trengove did not pin both arms, leaving the player with one arm free to brace for the fall. He tackled the player with intent to bring him to ground on his side or back, the fact that Dangerfield turned in the air as a result of his attempt to kick the ball, not a poorly laid tackle by Tregove.

Few points to go on there.

Here it is on utube

note Dangerfield has one free arm to break fall (which he is unsuccessful with)

Also note dumb commentator comment that he had no way of protecting himself

Also noticed that Dangerfield didn't get a foot to the ball. Should have been incorrect disposal!

I'd argue ACCIDENTAL instead of NEGLIGENT given that Dangerfield only had one arm pinned in the tackle, he still had an arm free to brace himself for the fall.

I'd also argue that the contact was not high between the two players. I'd also argue that Adrian Anderson is a complete toss pot and if he expects us to believe that this process is completely independant and there is no AFL intervention then is he treating the sporting public with contempt! Ridiculous report, MUST challege!

MRP meet Tuesdays don't they? I think Mumford copped a similar whack last year when he tackled Ablett.

Been a few times. Felt over dressed in a suit. it's about 50/50 for jeans, and I pay them to go. It's a great day out at the footy. We have never lost when I have been to a lunch so fingers crossed.

Can I chip in for you to go next week? You could be our lucky charm!!

6. Moloney

5. Jamar

4. Sylvia

3. Trengove

2. Jones

1. Petterd

Current List - Jurrah, excitement machine!

Past Players - Farmer, broke my heart when he went to Freo

Votes this week based on effort

6. Watts

5. Jones

4. Jamar

3. Garland

2. Bartram

1. Rivers

I'm sending out a search party to see if they can find Davey, Jurrah, Wona & Bennell. They all seem to go missing at the same time so I'm sure they're together.

6. Jamar

5. Moloney

4. Rivers

3. Wona

2. Sylvia

1. Bail

Really? Really????!!!!!

Good

The Jurrah-cane, both goals and agressivness towards Merrett & McGrath

Gysberts' first game back

Moloneys ownership of contested ball

Jamar's ownership of the ruck

Perseverance

Bad

Our tackling

Grimes & Garland shirking contests

Our inability or unwillingness to provide Davey a chop out.

Ugly

Our starts

Umpiring (disgusting, just watched the replay and hove lost count of the times I've heard "melbourne unlucky not to get a free kick there")

Tappy

6. Moloney

5. Martin

4. Jamar

3. Jurrah

2. Gysberts

1. Rivers

And now for us....... (Moloney, McKenzie, Scully, Trengove, Sylvia)** 24 years on the list and 277 games. BTW, we were missing three of these players on Sunday!!

For all those that think these figures are just excuses for losing and accepting poor performances - your dreamin'.

We've a way to go boys so like has been said before - enjoy the ride or get off now and join again at a later station when some of this shite is behind us.

*years on list maybe a little rubbery but you get the drift.

** edit to remove Morton and add Sylvia.

Except our Midfield on the weekend mainly consisted of Moloney, Jones, Davey, Sylvia & Bail - 29yrs on the list and 461 games. Picking our least experienced players to support your theory? Why only pick 5 players? The sad fact is that we should be expecting more from the experienced players and Bail was the only player listed that had a fair dinkum crack!

If he can't improve on his weaknesses, then he won't be, and we won't be in a premiership.

He has to improve his Weakness.

It's not a weakness - it's a limitation. He can't be lightning quick and built like the incredible hulk at the same time. I can bet you Bailey knows his limitation, but picks him for his skill and pace.

It appeared as though Razor said that because the ball was over the goal line when the infringement occured. The kick should be taken from the top of the sqaure. If it was a 50 mtr penalty, the kick would have been taken on the goal line. Not sure it was right, but Grimes was a goose for giving Bateman the shove. Not the actions of a future leader.

Just a skill error. Not on his Pat Malone there!

Did they mention his effort in the second qtr where he tackled a player, plucked the ball out of the air and then dished off a sharp handball to Trenners for the best goal assist of the game??

The guy is a talent and shouldn't be judged on the 'soft' predjudices people throw at him on this website. Truth is the guy is very slightly built and plays to his strengths. He's not Jonathon Brown and he knows it. He plays his best footy in space and avoids unessecary contact in order to play to his strengths.

Bailey didn't have his best day today. A few things I noticed.

1. Rioli was carving us up all day with his speed. Not tagged at all. Bennell showed the speed he was capable of last week and it could have been a great learning experience for the kid to run with Cyril, but no move was made.

2. After 3 years, we are still incapable of bringing the ball in consistently from point kick ins. Where is the plan, why is the message not getting through?

3. When we are under siege, we flood back. Problem being when we get the ball back we have no players forward of centre and are forced to hold up the ball through the centre whilst we wait for players to get forward. This has been happening for 2 years and still no improvement.

4. Trengove played a good portion of today's game in the backline and looked uncomfortable and din't play well either. Obviously out of position but took to long to make the move.

I can't blame DB for today's loss and I'm not silly enough to call for heads to roll after Rd 2, but if these sort of things don't improve, some searching questions need to be asked.

6. Tapscott

5. Bail

4. Garland

3. Sylvia

2. Martin

1. Rivers

he should have been used as bait, but who knows?

Pun intended??!!

Watched the replay again of the incident. Have the following points to make.

1. None of the replays showed Davey making contact with McGynn's head (probably because he didn't)

2. Play continues after the impact.

3. McBurnie calls the play back after he notices McGlynn on the ground.

4. As soon as the free is given, McGlynn bounces up like nothing is wrong.

Important questions.

1. Did McBurnie actually see the impact?

2. If so why did he let play continue?

3. If the footage is proven to show no contact, will McGlynn go for diving?

4. Will McBurnie get a senior game next week?

Just want to know if I'm only looking with one eye??

6. Moloney

5. Jamar

4. Garland

3. Tapscott

2. Bennell

1. Sylvia

No details and no evidence... what a crap peice of reporting. This piece is more of a disgrace for the media than is is for the player!! Jon Ralph = [censored]

Gillard has not only shot her self in the foot here, anyone associated with the Labour will feel the pain of this choice for the next 3 years. Similar to the same way Work Choices f cked over the Liberals. Makes me wonder if radical change will never happen in our country due to how conservaive people are these days.