RalphiusMaximus

That's pretty much what I get from it too.

Hope those notes make sense. Basically Anderson kept returning to the whole "medical staff told us that we need to protect players being tackled" line. NOthing of substance. Questioners didn't bring up prior incidents that were not punished. Pretty soft interview all round.

Very quick typed notes from interview. Nothing much was really said as AA refused to comment directly on the Trengove case. Ox is now holding forth on the fact that the injury should not have been considered on the charge.

I'll back the two mature bodies. Campbell to cover for Jamar when he's fit and Nicholson just ahead of Evans because he's a little more match ready in his body development.

SEN tell us that they will be chatting to Adrian Anderson after 6pm tonight. I'll be listening with interest.

This term seems to be the crux of the matter. They argued a lot over it during the tribunal hearing. It's astounding that there were two former players on that board, because they would surely understand that doing anything on the field at less than 100% is a sure way to get dropped. If politics is left at the door, then there are enough games of experience on the appeals board to understand that Trengove did no more or less than what was required of an elite sportsman. The suggestion from Tinney on Tuesday that he should have let go with one hand was manifestly ludicrous. You can not effectively tackle a player one-handed. Likewise the force used was enough to move the player off the ball. It must be born in mind that Trengove is a younger and significantly less powerful player than Dangerfield, and as such would have had to use everything he had to effect that tackle. With luck the former players on the appeals board are able to recognise this and do the right thing.

I think if the Trengove suspension stands we might see an early elevation of Evans or Nicholson. Strauss is also a chance at getting that spot.

The game won't start if he's on the field. We'll cop a huge fine. Likewise, if we were to refuse to take the field, massive fine. Not really an option I would think. I would prefer to see our boys beat the living hell out of the opposition for the next three weeks as a protest. See if we can get so many players suspended that we can't field a team. They wouldn't be able to fine the club then and would loose a fortune in revenue. Once again, this is not a realistic option, but it would be very nice to see it happen.

If a case is referred to the MRP they apply a set formula to it to determine the point value. They do not have the authority to make value judgments on whether they think the case is worthy of referral (a job trained monkeys can do). Basically, if a case is sent to them, it will result in a charge (flaw 1 in the system) as virtually any act on a football field will incur some points. The club is then able to either accept the charge as determined by the MRP, or take it to the Tribunal to argue the case. It is the Tribunal who have the power to look at the events logically and determine whether the act actually warrants a penalty at all. This is what we saw tonight. The club now has the option of appealing the decision. To do this they would be required to pay a fee to the AFL. The hearing would take place (I think) on Thursday night. There the club would be given the opportunity to present a case as to why they feel that the penalty applied by the previous two layers is not correct. I believe there have been a couple of cases of clubs and/or players going beyond this and taking their case to civil courts. This is guaranteed to bring down the wrath of the PTB on the collective head of the club for making them look bad, but will probably result in the charges being dismissed as they generally have so little basis in actual law. As a disclaimer let me say that there is a chance that I am completely wrong here, but I think this is pretty much the current judicial system in the AFL.

After tonight's events, I believe we will smash North. The players will be out for blood. If I were a North Melbourne player, I'd be wanting danger pay for taking the field against us this week.

Fourth ground: Did not receive a fair hearing. Taking only four minutes to deliberate is farcical. The least they could have done is sit down and have a cup of tea to make it loo like they were being impartial.

MRP had little choice. The Tribunal is another matter entirely. They have far more leeway and are able to consider factors other than the points system when reaching their verdict.

The Ted Richards deliberation was closer to half an hour. Yes, the moment we were told they had come back I thought the fix was in. There was no way they could have discussed it in detail in the amount of time they took. Edit on Richards. time of Deliberation 1806-1822. That's 16 minutes as opposed to 4 for Trengove. Nobody can claim that they gave due consideration to the evidence in that time.

From Melbourne Footy on Twitter:

A thought on how players can protest this. Go out there this weekend and tackle hard. Really hard. Use the same tackling motion. For preference I'd like to see every one of our players make exactly the same tackle. Let's see if the AFL has the balls to try to suspend an entire team. It may be a little hard on the North Melbourne players, but that's life. If I were a Roo, I'd be afraid to take the field against Melbourne after this.

So is that a new T-shirt to offer AFL fans?

I guess we didn't realise how upset he as at being sacked last year.

Already tweeted Schwab. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I agree we need to let the club know that we want them to take it further. It's not just an onfield matter, it's a case of how far we're willing to let the AFL beat on us. The powers that be have just walked on us in the assumption that we're small fry and can't fight back. It's a nice convenient was to show the world that they're protecting the head without repercussions. We need our club to show them how wrong they are.

OUT: The AFL IN: A good book.

Awesome comment.

This is the time for our administration to stand up for the club and dare the AFL to push it. Let them fine us for commenting on the decision. Take it as far as it can possibly go, including taking out an injunction allowing Trengove to play while the matter is being decided. If we want to be one of the big clubs in the AFL we have to act like it, and now is a great time to start. To hell with fines and "please explain" letters. Make a stand and get the kid on the field this weekend.

Not much point going after Tinney. He didn't make the decision. Bombard Vlad, the AFL, their facebook page...

Bring on the real appeal. We are well within our rights to take this to arbitration outside of the AFL system. That way we avoid the unholy influence of Vlad and co. No way in hell can the charge be realistically upheld in an impartial court.

Non-existent deliberation period. They took just long enough for a quick call from Vlad.

Guilty. My ass. Time for the next appeal.