Jaded No More

Yes I understand that part, but almost every tackle these days sees players hit the turf, sometimes with their heads, but as I said before in 99.9% of cases players aren't injured as a result of falling and hitting the ground. So what more should a tackler do? Dangerfield had time to protect himself and cushion the fall, but he chose not to. In split second decisions you don't have time to analyse the end result, which makes it an unfortunate incident. Case in point, Trengove laid the exact same tackle 20 seconds later, no injury, no suspension. So are you going to punish every player who tackles an opponent who then hits the ground?

They need to hope Dangerfield is named to play tomorrow at 5, or better yet, get a follow up medical report proving he is fine, or better yet find other incidents in the game where Dangerfield may have hit his head, and therefore conclude that his concussion was not solely the result of the tackle but only one of many other factors. I also think they need to argue this whole intent issue, because Trengove had no intention of hurting Dangerfield.

I think Bailey is coach 1, because Craig wouldn't have given Green 4 votes for his game. He was great from a leadership point of view but not greatly influential on the result, and I think Frawley is the reverse situation. He was good but not great by his and Bailey's standards, but he was very damaging to Adelaide because he kept Walker to zero impact.

What part of the tackle wasn't within the rules? No high, in play, no head contact, no legging, no tripping, not in the back. WTF constitutes a legal AFL tackle then?

And here is another very recent accident that led to serious head injury, but not to a suspension "In the Joel Selwood example I really don't believe he was leading with his head or anything of the sort," Anderson told reporters. "I think it was one of those unfortunate accidents that we see. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-clears-ray-over-selwood-bump-20110328-1cd6m.html#ixzz1M2xA7uQK

I get that the rules changed, but this whole garbage about duty of care and not being able to foresee the outcome still stands. If you make a legitimate lawful move on the footy field and it ends up accidentally hurting a player you shouldn't be liable. Hundreds of players get tackled and lay tackles each week, and in 99.9% of cases no harm is done to the player. Trengove laid multiple tackles on the weekend, all with the same force, and none have gotten him into trouble, except for the unfortunate split second one which ended up with a player hitting their head on the ground. Dangerfield is just as much to blame for his injury as Trengove, because he did not try to protect himself, he tried to get rid of the ball and escape the tackle, and therefore he fell awkwardly. You can see in the slowmo replay that his free arm hit the ground first but instead of going wrist first to create a barrier between himself and the turf, his arm hit the ground flat and his head followed. Most players wouldn't fall this way, just like 99.9% of smothers don't resolve in a Nathan Brown type-injury. You can't suspend a player for an unfortunate incident on a footy field in 2011 just like you couldn't do it back then.

For those suggesting we play Juice as backup ruck, are you prepared to drop Bate for him, because there is no chance we're playing Dunn, Bate and Juice in the same side, no matter how horrendous our current ruck stocks look.

Did this incident lead to suspension? http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cyvuEnFgYxI Answer: No During a round 6, 2006 game against St Kilda, halfway during the third quarter the Western Bulldogs were heading downfield when Giansiracusa accidentally clashed heads with Justin Koschitzke, resulting in both players lying motionless for several minutes. Giansiracusa managed to get up but Koschitzke could not. The AFL Tribunal decided Giansiracusa had no case to answer as this was an unfortunate incident.

It's an appeal on the grounds of [censored], which we have neatly summarised into 3 long winded points as to avoid using bad words in regards to the MRP and the AFL. Given the absolute outcry by the media, the players and the fans over this suspension, I assume the AFL told the club that they should appeal and that it wouldn't be for nothing. We'll surely get a discount on the penalty, at the very least.

Very proud of the club for taking this further. We have to appeal for common sense, even if it's not very common in AFL circles. I have a strong feeling that he'll get the charge downgraded and get given a week, just for the AFL to save face and not look like complete idiots.

Where is Dangerfield in all this? Surely he feels embarrassed that a player is getting hung to dry over the tackle. Can we try to get him to speak up? I doubt someone as brave as him wants to see tackling eliminated from our game.

Is that risky? Does it increase his chances of sustaining a more serious knee injury?

He is in Sydney. Trengove's reckless act was the final straw for him and he fled in the middle of the night, fearful he'll be Trengove's next victim.

I hear what you are saying but it's round 8 as you said and IMO we have a duty of care (buzz phrase of the week) to support our players when they are hung out to dry for following club instructions. We are already sufficiently distracted and I'd say the playing group would feel very strongly about an appeal and would welcome the distraction if it means supporting one of their own. Even if we think we have a small chance of winning I'd hope we go for it.

Agreed. How could Gawn be any worse than Dunn/Newton combo? He is a specialist ruck and as raw as he is, he is the only player currently able to actually compete in the ruck for a whole match without giving away size and free kicks. When a door closes and you can't open a window, crawl out the kitty door.

Excellent. Sometimes you've just gotta say [censored] it, and fight for justice. The club owes it to Trengove to explore every avenue.

And this from someone who actually understands the legal system. Redleg, offer your services and go get our boy off. The free footy world needs you! At the very least please email your thoughts to the club.

Ugh, bad day. Bring on Saturday.

Only if you've thrown this season away and no longer have any expectations of finals/mild success, which is ironically what you laughed at people for doing. There is nothing interesting in losing our best players to injuries/suspensions when we're not trying to tank. It's shithouse and no amount of spin will change that. We've had a good win on the weekend and it means absolutely nothing now because we came out of it without 3 of our best 18 players.

Means nothing if we don't appeal and take this further. The bottom line is we need Trengove and he should be playing, and we need to do whatever we can to make that happen. Of course we can't let this interrupt our short preparation this week, but this is not a footy department matter, it's a matter for Connolly, Schwab etc to deal with now.

I'm sorry but that's glass half empty if you go by previous form. Time for Martin to shine. I'm a believer!

:rolleyes: Seriously? Find me one person outside the 3 morons on the panel tonight who think Trengove's tackle was a suspendable offense, and for 3 weeks nonetheless.

We've been very unlucky for many years, so it's in no way shocking to me to find out all these bad news. But for me it's a great opportunity to see Martin play first ruck. Should be interesting. Although I have no doubt we'll now lose all of our next 4 games, so whatever. I was very much over this season after the West Coast game, and absolutely nothing has changed now.

I think we've had some massive blows in the past 24 hours which have put a complete dampner on our win and have almost made our next 4 games un-winnable. No ruckman, no Trengove, no Grimes, and still no Scully or McKenzie, and possibly no Rivers. That is a huge chunk of our best 22 out at a very crucial part of the season.