RalphiusMaximus

Deliberation was quick...

It's laughable the comments they are allowing from the public. NOthing even remotely related to the case is being let through. Only asinine comments about the nibbles on offer.

If they stick to that he gets off. We see dozens of these tackles every week.

Don't most tackles these days involve grabbing one arm to stop them handballing? Will they charge them all?

I'm wondering if Tinney ever played football at a high level. Some of his questions reveal remarkable (deliberate?) ignorance of how the game is played.

Thank you! How can they claim he couldn't protect himself when he had an arm free and got it to ground before his head hit?

That's exactly what is wrong with this rule dude. The consequences can't be taken into account.

They don't say that he has suffered any sort of impairment though. Daily monitoring would be a standard part of the treatment for such an injury. They're trying very hard to make it sound worse than it is.

Loving our evidence so far.

Ted Richards just got off. And in a room full of people too!

Some sides clearly do read Jamar's taps and shark them. You will see that there are three opposing players against one Melbourne player trying to win the clearance. Adelaide was not one of them, but you can't count on that every week.

That's a really cool system they have set up. Now we can see for ourselves how it all works. Thanks for the link.

Love it.

Yeah, I didn't put that very well did I? My point is that many of us hate what he is doing to the game with the constant rule changes and reinterpreting existing rules to mean something completely different. For many fans it is ruining the game. However, they do keep watching and supporting their teams, so your point is well made.

The thing is, while many fans hate what Demetriou has done to the game, in business terms he has been a resounding success. Revenue is through the roof, there are more clubs in the competition and we've just signed a TV rights deal worth over a billion dollars. As a business the AFL is a winner. It's only as a sport that it is falling down.

Let's have a look at what happened here. 1. He grabbed the trailing arm at the beginning of the tackle as it was the only thing he could reach. Interestingly, that action could have easily resulted in a dislocated shoulder, so it probably should be illegal to grab a player's trailing arm at the beginning of a tackle. After all, they want the "chicken wing" out of the game for the same reason. 2. He wrapped his other arm around the players waist. Honestly, I think the AFL might approve of this part, although it could be seen a staging for a free kick as it causes the tacklers head to make contact with their opponent. 3. He pulls the player backwards. This is clearly a problem as it creates the "slinging" motion they are so concerned about. Obviously he should propel the player forwards in the tackle as that is completely legal and within the laws of the game. Hang on... 4. Dangerfield hits the ground. Clearly he should have just held Dangerfield in a loving embrace until another player relieved him of the ball and they could go about their business in peace, content in the knowledge that they had served the greater good and kept the game G rated. Once again, you can see the AFL's point. So many injuries occur because the players are touching the ground during play. Just think how many hamstrings and ACLs would be prevented if we simply outlawed players from touching the ground. Of course, if you look closely you can see that Dangerfield actually hits with his hand first, so that pretty much shoots down the claim that his arms were pinned and he was unable to protect himself from the impact. What we have here is a case where the only realistic options open to Trengove were to tackle as he did or concede the clearance, which no AFL player will do (or so we hope). It is somewhat similar to the charge on Nick Maxwell a couple of seasons ago for a bump against a WC player. His defence was that his only realistic option was to put a block on to allow his better positioned teammate to take the ball. I believe that the tribunal declared that he was guilty and should in fact have tackled his teammate rather than clear a path for him. SO basically what we can see if we break things down and look at precedents is that: A. Trengove had no realistic options other than to execute the tackle as he did. B. Dangerfield was in fact able to cushion the impact with his left hand. and C. The powers that be don't give a stuff about reality and will slug him with an extra couple of games for daring to question their omniscience.

One thing about the game on the weekend for me is the goals he missed. He wound up with 2 goals to his name, but given he missed two more very gettable shots and dropped an uncontested mark in the goal square, it could very easily have been four or five. A tiny bit more polish, a little more presence of mind and he is there. I think this was the first game he's played in the seniors where he looked like a serious forward threat.

I'd say there were several weaknesses they didn't test for us. Yes, our midfield was better. We put on a better show of tackling, which is great. But as stated we were not really tested on our kick-ins, and given that the crows played a tall forward line, we were not facing our greatest defensive deficiency against small mobile forwards. North Melbourne have both angles covered, as well as a much harder midfield, so we will find the going significantly tougher against them next week.

And the good news is... Trengove to challenge! Great call by the club. Knock this on the head right now and lets get the kid on the field against North this weekend.

Newton was elevated at the start of the season. I think it is something to do with the veteran's list. We had a spare spot for a veteran and were able to promote a rookie instead? Something along those lines. So that gives us two more rookie promotions. I had forgotten about Campbell. He'd certainly be a good call to bring in. Evans and Nicholson is a difficult one. I know that Evans is very highly rated, but Nicholson has had some really good form at Casey. I would guess that they will hold off until there is a spot for one of them and then go with the one in better form.

I think people may be venting in the wrong direction here. The MRP do not have discretion in applying a penalty. They have a set of very rigid guidelines to work within. If a club disagrees with the result they are able to take it to the tribunal where there is far greater flexibility. It's not the MRP that is at fault here but the people who made the sling tackle rule. Regarding the report of high contact, once again the finger must be pointed sat the rule-makers. They determined that in this one special instance consistency can be thrown out. The rule states that should the tackled players head make contact with the ground it will be deemed as high contact. From the standpoint of a poorly designed rule the penalty applied is 100% correct. Fortunately there are checks and balances in place in the form of the appeals system. The club can choose to take it to the tribunal and lawyer up. There they can argue that the tackle was 100% legal and bring precedent into play, siting such points as if we are to punish legal acts on the basis of injury to a player then every ACL needs to result in a 10 week suspension, the ultimate lack of consistency in a rule that says that identical acts will be punished differently depending on the result, and indeed that Dangefield contributed significantly to his own injury by refusing to attempt to protect himself and instead hurling himself into the air in n ill-advised attempt to kick the ball while being tackled. With a bit of luck the club will back Trengove to the hilt, bring in the big guns and dare the AFL to follow through on this suspension.

So we have two upgrades, possibly three depending on the scans on Fitzpatrick's ankle. I would be thinking Evans and Nicholson. Any other options?

Article They say Spencer has done his ACL, Grimes the Navicular stress fracture and Fitzpatrick a bad sprain. Bad weekend for the dees it seems.

Not quite. The chicken wing is more or less a wrestling arm bar/lock. They want that outlawed because of the high probability of dislocating the shoulder. Sadly, what Trengove did is pretty much a textbook sling tackle as the rulemakers have defined it, so I don't see him getting off. The fact that it was unintentional and that it was the only possible thing to do unless he wanted to just let Dangerfield go will have no bearing on the case.

Thought he might be in trouble. It's one of the relatively new BS rules they brought in about protecting the head. I still say challenge it, but don't hold your breath on this one.