beelzebub

Well if anyone can DG QC can. The obvious culprit in all this is the MCG after all it was its' playing surface that blatantly , and without hesitation failed to accommodate Dangerfield's desire to mimic the surface. Yes folks the ground is to blame!! I actually am thinking the attack will utilize not any new evidence per se but to have previously admitted evidence disallowed through lack of any unbiased corroboration. That and the notion that the judgement was flawed in both law as well as logic. Going to be interesting to see the AFL dance this one

I have faith in DG

Please explain !! "Thankyou for your request. In order for us to satisfy this curiosity it would be an advantage that you were in possession of some intellect and rationale. It has been drawn to our attention that you possess neither so we are unable to proceed at this juncture."

You can't guarantee an outcome HT ... Only an effort !! The MRP are a shambles and are but a shopfront for Vlads ideas of the moment. It's footy not tiggy and it's played at break neck speed (npi) . The MRP are suggesting there's even degrees of finesse !! There's no consistency about thir deliberations or the application of their rather rubbery rules. This was decided before it started and then they searched til they could find some morsel of anything to hang guilt on. In the end it was that JT had the temerity to apply a legal tackle that STUCK . Similar tackle moments later so how was that different other than accidental outcome. If not careful this game will become unplayable.

any Wigs and Silks amongst the loyal Demon following ?

Absolutely correct differing depts for differing jobs...not too hard

Dont get concussed rolling over either !! now..about the mergiing of threads...or shall we continue with 2 or more ?

seems you and the MFC are on Different pages....ffft !!!

Melbourne likely to Appeal GOOD !!!

firslty...might this be merged with red's thread... talking about sense ?? As presented as argument by redleg there sems more than a reasonable assertion that there are varying degrees of deliberation and the application of logic in the "how does one play footy " dept. It stinks.. without doubt. The tenuous thread upon which Tinney hung his cause and the Tribunal ruled is , was it not for consequence, laughable. That a player would want a tackle to stick ,,,,as a bad thing ?? ffs. I noted ..and was also by the club ( K O'D) that Trengove laid an almost identical tackle moments later on Smith...yet that was deeemed fair and ok.. Strnagely the same 'stickiness" was in evidence. The only difference being the outcome, or lack there of with reference to any injury. The somewhat ridiculous application of a "duty of care" here pays no attentionto how or such its to be applied. Apparently JT can ajudicate and temper his tackle according to the unknown and yet unexperienced outcome ? The tribubal and its stooly Tinney have obviosly a desired result, with the blessing of teh AFL ( read Vlad ) and reverse engineered this trial to suit such a discourse. In plain English...its just as Grimes summed......Bullsh!t !!!

god thats soft... you roll over merchant Ther is provision for appeal and it ought to be pursued out of course. The decision disregards any common sense in application of logic and was obviously driven from a prearrived verdict. The club cannot sit by idly. It goes to the core of the game.. the tackle. Time to bring to bear all the club's boy's network and bring to bear as much legal talent as it can muster. Only a wimp would take this lyiing down... Pure Kangaroo Court this!!

It was a Kangaroo Court par excellence !! ""Tribunal legal counsel Andrew Tinney seized on Trengove's statement that it was important to make every tackle "stick"."This was a tackle that was simply too forceful," Tinney said."""" wtf ??? Tinney is obviously an agenda led tool of the highest order This is a very dangerous decision not only for Trengove and the MFC but for the game and all clubs collectively...its just an utter nonsense. The club must appeal, absolutely.

utter cr@p

Maybe Dangerfield ought only play at McDonalds...its nice and soft there....like him !! Danger-field ??....yep...the only danger is he might hit the field.!!!

Trengove puts nearly an identical tackle on Brodie Smith ...all but seconds later.. Because Smith didnt duck his head so much theres a differing result.. Somehow hes at fault the first time and not the second ?? Intention ...exactly the same on both acccounts. This is all cow manure...fair dinkum !!

God this games gettting soft !!!

It wasnt as if Trengove picked him up or slung him it was just a very robust circular style brounding of an opponent .

yep.... no point taking a mark..or kicking..or anything really is there.....someone might just get hurt Ironically...had Dangerfield hit the ground in some other awkward manner and say, broken his collar bone or such then that would have just been deemed part of the game, wouldn't it ? In the same manner of nonsense arguments I put it to you it was all dangerfields fault as he had the opportunity of allowing Trengove easy access to the ball but chose in stead to take it upon himslef to interfere with such outcomes and in this manner brough it all upon himself. Its also incumbent upon Dangerfield as he couldnt be bothered to stand up in the tackle. Its a game where tackling is allowed. Unfortunate outcomes will ooccur. It wasnt a double movement. He wasnt slung to the ground like a rag doll.. he ws brought to ground with fair efffort.

All in all thats a great tackle . Trenners is blind sided as to whether Dangerfield has the ball still and the action was a single continuous one. Its pretty much the same as one he lands about 5 secs later !! Its just alughable that its been cited. 1) was it a fair tackle ? yes 2) did Dangefield get hurt ? probably 3) was it malicious ? Cant see how Memo to AFL..and MRP...sometimes players are going to get hurt !!! who'd da thunk huh !!! ffs

Adelaide played particulalrly poorly allowing us the ability to play the game very much to our dictate. Not taking anythign away from the pressure etc which precipitated all that but in reality we werent pushed or had to omany questions asked of us... thats the good news. The bad is that Nth WILL ask very different questions and play a much more contested game.. Their 2rse is on teh line now...they will react accordingly.. This week we'll seee where we're at. Go Dees

Surely a poor kick in only compunds the pressure on yourself. When it starts geting to the stage you arent confident in clearing the ball out of their 50 then they start to feel that with only a bit more of their own pressure they can inflict scoreboard damage. Dont undestimate the consequences or relevance of kickins... or be it at your peril.

The OP does put up a very significant question , if not dillema. WHAT does motivate this tea, Many are looking at the how often and for how long, bit 'what' is it thats gets us up off our bums and playing decent footy. We canat times play a very good game. Others note that that would likely become more reliable with others to come in but none of that really goes to the 'what" Is it required that the Pres needs to call to arms 9 each and every game ) , is it within the abilities of the Coach to get their heads thinking the right way ? Both are effectively internal sources of motivation but what of the external ones. The close scutiny and firing up by the media. This must surely have triggered some of the reversal. This wont be there all the time not ought it be the source for players to play decent footy. The answer is very much at the cause of our inconsistency.

amazing what can be accomplished when you apply all of the above. Well done Dees... same again next week...and the next..and the next...ad infinitum !!! about bloody time

Egads...weve all just about agreed on something... Col is good but inconsistent. Take this one to the bank now !!