mauriesy

Please don't re-write history to suit your angst with Bruce. He did once. In 2004 he kicked 7 goals, 25 possessions and got 3 Brownlow votes when Melbourne beat Carlton by 105 points.

Is a trade back from St Kilda part of the deal?

Well, they could have been sacked and paid out, freeing up spots on the main list and the rookie list. But who'd want to play for a club that did that?

May as well go and slash your wrists now then. Look, we've got 28 players out of 40 (includes nominated rookies) on our list who have played fewer than 60 games ... including Scully, Tapscott and Gysberts. All the voluminous threads show at the moment is who is patient and who is not. Hopefully they won't be throwing up their arms like our headless supporters are, and they've got more ticker to build Melbourne into a decent side than most supporters seem to have.

Their best five were their best five. Unfortunately, five of our best (Jamar, Trengove, Scully, Grimes, Garland) were up in the stands watching.

Idle speculation parading as fact.

Jones' 100th! Stoked! Superpumped! Off the Richter! Mental! Wooaaaah! Hope he has a super game!

Jurrah was a PSD #1 pick straight on to the main list, not a rookie (still a good pick though!).

Yeah, you'd think they were somehow related.

We want players to go in harder, but we don't want contact injuries. When players get a contact injury, we want them to recover properly, but we don't like it taking long. When it does take a long time, we blame the medicos? Can't win. Medicos are not miracle workers. Tissue injuries take as long as they are going to take.

Talking coaching is one thing, jumping to the conclusion that Matthews is therefore 'mentoring' Dean is another.

Maybe they were just a few football friends having lunch together. Or the agenda was nothing to do with coaching.

I think the cheer squad banner should read "Bad luck Jack. The game's not fair. We'll see you back". Of course, it refers to Jack Grimes.

Interesting that the MFC website has BradGreen18 just tweeting "Driving to Casey with @jtren9, let's make it #freetrengove day".

My take on it is that the altitude means the body adapts by increasing red blood cell counts and haemoglobin, making oxygen transfer more efficient, but that the specific physiological effects only last a couple of weeks once you go back to sea-level, when red blood cell counts quickly revert to a more normal level. You also have to train over about 2500m, which severely limits any locations close to Australia, making it costly. In a few cases, you may also get some minor short-term negative effects (nausea, light-headedness) when you first arrive at altitude, plus there's long travel times. It could provide a fitness base to start the season, but I reckon Collingwood would get the best outcomes just from that segment of intense pre-season training. The altitude is a minor bonus. There would be other positives, such as the absence of other normal day-to-day distractions, and team cohesiveness. Some suggest you could get these anywhere if you locked the team away in any inspiring training area for 3-4 weeks.

Working ass-backwards, my "common sense" says the tackle was probably overly forceful, but it warrants no more than a week in the context that tackling has as an overtly aggressive component of the game. I don't see how the contact can be anything but "high" under the definition (i.e. the head hit the ground), so that means the appeal only has two avenues: it can either argue against "negligent" which is the lowest rating for intent (and it would therefore be thrown out all together if it was reduced); or they can try to have the impact lowered from "high" in order to have the penalty reduced ... how do they achieve that?

Not then, but the tribunal annual report notes the wording of the rule changed in 2010, so the environment is different now. In the light of that re-wording, I am wondering whether something has come from "on high" about enforcing greater protection for players in forceful tackles, much as it did a few years ago for forceful bumps (i.e. the Pickett factor), and Trengove's is being made the "test case" (or scapegoat, whichever you prefer) for the new standard.

The AFL Appeals Board. It's part of the tribunal system. The chairman is Peter O'Callaghan (QC), other members are Brian Collis (QC), Brian Bourke (barrister, once President of the South Melbourne Football Club), John Schultz (188 games for Footscray, 1960 Brownlow medallist) and Michael Green (146 games for Richmond, 4 premierships). All have been on the tribunal or appeals board for a long time. Worthwhile noting that a change introduced to the tribunal system in 2010 was: Dangerous Tackles Introduce a new guideline under Rough Conduct for dangerous tackles, given their potential to cause serious injury. The following wording is to be added in determining a dangerous tackle: The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without limitation, regard may be had to: whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball; whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle; whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

God, that is just so MFCSS.

Tinney didn't "adjudicate". That's the role of the tribunal members themselves. He doesn't have to decide on the amount of force, just raise the pertinent issues according to the charge through questioning.

Settle down. As much as I think the decision stinks for the spirit and the future direction of the game, Tinney is the Tribunal Advocate. His role is to argue the case for the charge, much like the prosecution in a legal case. Firing off e-mails to him will achieve nothing. In the immediate term, all the club can do is appeal, and in the long run lobby to have the tribunal penalty system revised so a strong tackle in the heat of the game doesn't get as much of a penalty as a sniping elbow behind play.

Where was the "high contact"? The tackle was made with one arm around Dangerfield's waist and the other hand holding on to his wrist. At no stage did Trengove contact his head.

Correct. A while ago, you used to have to wait for the flags to be waved, now you just have to wait for the goal umpire's signal.

Hardness (or softness) aside, Jones would be all the better if he could just improve his tackle count. Yesterday: Sylvia 9 Dunn 8 Trengove 7 Green 6 Bate, Davey, Moloney 5 Bartram, Gysberts, Petterd, Tapscott 4 ... Jones 1 Season: Colin Sylvia 34 Rohan Bail 29 Brent Moloney 27 Jack Trengove 25 Jared Rivers 20 ... Jones 16

I think to date he's been overwhelmed a little by the pace and hardness of AFL football. That's partly to do with age and experience, but he has good skills. Yesterday might be a breakout game for him.