Trengove Gone - 3 Weeks

[Headless]

Sometimes I wish I wasn't in love with footy.

 

[master bate]

It was the sling that got him. Just a slight alteration to the tackle, and Dangerfield gets his neck broken. Dangerous stuff.

Are you serious?

Each game has > 100 tackles these days, and we've had what 1 broken neck in 100 years? Watch your game this week, just for tackles. I bet you'll see 10 tackles very similar to this.

What about in Rugby where they hit way harder, not many (in the scheme of things) broken necks in that. And it was hardly UFC, but they don't crack necks like flies too often either.

There was bugger all sling in it if you look at the real time footage, not a slow mo. He had 1 arm free and failed to protect himself. The umpire at the scene didn't see fit to pay a free kick for a sling (or holding the ball).

He's been suspended because Dangerfield got knocked out, something that would happen only a small percentage of the time from a similar tackle. And it made bugger all effect on the game anyway.

 

[La Vache]

Is it now common practice for clubs to supply medical evidence of their "victim" to the MRP?

 

[MattyB_76]

But there are 100 of tackles like that a game??? Moments later Trengove atttempts a similar tackle.

I just don't see how you can share that view?

It's ridiculous and a blight on footy.

I agree that footy isn't as tough as it used to be, but the fact of the issue is the AFL have been stamping this exact type of tackle out for nearly 3 years.

The difference between this tackle and another one that doesn't get reported is that the other tackler doesn't tackle someone so their head smashes into the ground. The tackle wasn't rough, the resulting head/ground contact was.

It's like saying player X gets rubbed out for bump that hits someone in the head. "But that bump happens 100s of times per game." Yes it does, but those ones don't connect with the head.

It's the action AND the result that make it illegal, not the action on it's own. If you judge the MRP/Tribunal according to actions alone, you remove duty of care from the game, and people get seriously hurt.

 

[lewigie]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Clearly the illegal tackle was aiming to hurt his opponent, so the suspension is warranted.

he'll think next time before engaging in these dirty tactics.

Agree.

Main objective was to hurt the **** out of him. The sling to the ground was completely unwarranted, Dangerfield didn't even pick up the ball.

Then Dangerfield got partially concussed because of this reckless stupid tackle.

Deserves a week.

 

[contem]

A bump is a little different to a tackle in most cases. bumps occur when players are running at each other, and its far easier to control a bump, in most circumstances, than a tackle such as his...a bump that hits someones head is different to a tackle where a players head hits the ground in time with his body.
Bumps are deliberate in there action- to knock another player out of the way- trengove was just doing what anyone in his situation would have done- tackle a guy and prevent him from disposing of the ball correctly.
It was a hard tackle, but it wasn't a sling, there was no malice, and the only reason it is even considered is because of the injury. Does that mean that anytime a player is incidentally injured someone (or a part of their body, i.e knee into face) must be punished?

 

[MattyB_76]

A bump is a little different to a tackle in most cases. bumps occur when players are running at each other, and its far easier to control a bump, in most circumstances, than a tackle such as his...a bump that hits someones head is different to a tackle where a players head hits the ground in time with his body.
Bumps are deliberate in there action- to knock another player out of the way- trengove was just doing what anyone in his situation would have done- tackle a guy and prevent him from disposing of the ball correctly.
It was a hard tackle, but it wasn't a sling, there was no malice, and the only reason it is even considered is because of the injury. Does that mean that anytime a player is incidentally injured someone (or a part of their body, i.e knee into face) must be punished?

If that action has been stipulated by the AFL that if injury accidentally/negligently happens because if it they will be reported, then yes.

 

[Beth]

And before any one-eyed Geelong muppets get defensive about this, I'm don't care about the colour of their jumpers and I don't care that a player from my team was hurt.

Your anti Geelong posting history says otherwise...as does this 3000 word diatribe...

 

[Chewy]

Your anti Geelong posting history says otherwise...as does this 3000 word diatribe...

Thank you for being a one-eyed Geelong muppet and not bothering to think about the issue I've raised


Maybe you'll realize what I'm talking about when it's one of your own boys who gets knocked put or hospitalized from one of these cheap shots

Imagine if it happens to Tommy Lonergan and he loses the other kidney? Oh... Oh... Wait! We better do something... Oh... Oh....

Do you really think we should allow players to crash in and knee people on the back when they're trying to spoil? Imagine if every team starts doing this?

 

[contem]

I've been arguing with my mate over this, and he says the MRP got it right, and I have to agree with him- according to the laws they uphold, this was worth a 3 week ban. Unfortunately, those laws have completely lost touch with reality and common sense. The one thing that seems to come from the opposing camp is that the amount of force needed was unnecessary- are you kidding? When, in that half a second he had as he tackled PD, did he have the opportunity to gauge how much force he should use to prevent PD from making an effective disposal?

I think most, if not all, the people here agree that it is a harsh penalty, and that what it comes down to is a ridiculous set of laws and a system that doesn't consider how these things actually work in real time.

I hope Melbourne goes further with this, if not for JT than at least to highlight the huge inconsistencies and flaws in the process, and to prevent this becoming a precedent that could have dangerous implications in the future. This kind of farcical deliberation has to be questioned, so that players, coaches and supporters can have an understanding, based on common sense, of what constitutes a penalty, and how such penalties are actually handled.

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

Weird decision - but they will need to keep this as a precedent. Remember kids, don't tackle the other person too hard and be a big silly goose.

 

[wowlace]

GAYFL is here.

 

[Brilliant]

Clubs need to revolt

 

[NTRabbit]

He should have taken the two weeks.

Was clearly a sling tackle, and those have been illegal for years. I am completely baffled as to why the Demons even tried to get it thrown out.

 

[LightTower4]

A tackle judged being outside the rules gets the same penalty as an elbow to the head behind play.
Go figure.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

He threw Gaygerfield so hard into the turf his ancestors felt it. Deserved everything he got, Trengove is a rogue!*






*May be the complete opposite of what I really think and I am wishing the MRP would burn in hell and stop ruining our great game.

 

[Dangas]

MRP are a JOKE!

Mumford was gooooone for the same type of incident that should never have been looked at in the first place, the MRP are a joke

 

[saintal]

Re: MRP are a JOKE!

F***ing disgraceful verdict.

 

[Eth]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

have you got an actual argument you'd like to use to refute what i've stated?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113488/default.aspx

Melbourne have one.

 

[gPhonque]

YOU'VE GOT TO BE ****ING KIDDING????


Sorry for the "yelling", but I just saw the Trengove tackle for the first time watching One Week At A Time. I haven't read this thread, but I'm sure that what I'm about to ask has been asked by probably every poster so far... (apart from the few idiots who have completely lost touch with what our game is about)

What the hell did Trengove do wrong!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

That was a fantastic tackle. Unfortunate that the player hit his head on the ground, but ummm.... WE PLAY A CONTACT SPORT! Things like this will happen occasionally.

That is, without a doubt, the most disgraceful decision I've ever seen.... EVER.

Melbourne should do everything they possibly can to fight this. Courts, I don't care. That's an utterly disgraceful verdict.

 

[melbournemartin]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

I've gone away and had a nice dessert with the misses, combined with some classical music, and am a bit calmer now.

The majority of us here will admit that the decision is ridiculous. Trengove is being punished purely based on the effect, not the cause, as the same tackle is applied dozens of times every game. I also find it ludicrous that Andrew Tinney SC, who has likely never played the game before, can make suggestions that Trengove could have acted differently.

But, what can we do? Nothing. We can sit on the internet and bitch with each other until our fingers are sore, but it won't change a thing. After one of our best wins in recent years, things have turned very sour for Melbourne supporters by losing Trengove for 3 and, more importantly, losing Grimes for the season. Despite this, if the Melbourne that showed up on Sunday shows up again in the next three weeks then it shouldn't matter. Grimes played no part in the win against Adelaide and whilst Trengove was very good, we can hopefully replace him with McKenzie who is an even better tackler. As a good a kid as Jack is, we're not losing Jamar, Moloney, Sylvia, Jurrah, Davey, Frawley or Garland, each of whom I consider to be more important at the moment.

We are sitting 7th on the ladder with a percentage of 119. Sure, our wins have been against bottom 8 sides and a draw against the 8th ranked side but we can't be picky after the last few years. We have a ridiculously young list and on Sunday showed glimpses of a gameplan that combines the defensive pressure of Collingwood with the slick ball movement of Geelong. Sure, it's early days, but the signs are very promising. In three weeks time we will have forgotten all about this decision. If it is true that this is how we have been taught to tackle, then things will have to change. There is a ridiculous amount of ambiguity in the rules at present but we laid over 80 tackles on the weekend that were apparently legit. It is possible to be a strong team and within these rules, no matter how soft they are.

I know I'm going to try to get over it now and suggest that other Melbourne supporters do the same.

Instead of building up the frustration, instead think of which promising young midfielder we will bring in this week to replace Trengove. Do we bring back the tackling machine McKenzie, or the speedy Bennell? What about the classy Jetta or perhaps an upgrade of a rookie like Evans or Nicholson, one or both of whom may get a great chance given the long term injuries to Grimes and Spencer. Turn a negative into a positive folks! Losing Trengove for 3 weeks opens up a spot for another kid and who knows, it could be a blessing in disguise!

 

[Lockyer24]

Shithouse!! 3 weeks too is mindblowing

Imagine getting suspended from a Grand Final for that.

 

[Bully187]

Haha anyone wanna defend how soft AFL has become now. ****ing pathetic, embarassing, shameful!

 

[citizen-erased]

If you watch it frame by frame, what trengove does is get his grip on dangerfield and drops to the ground and brings him down over his body.
Dangerfield starts one side of trengove and ends up on the other.

Its less a sling as it is a heavy roll.

If they want to suspend him to cut this out, ok, but there are gonna be some big suspensions this year.
Basically now, if you tackle, you really need to make sure if you are pinning the arm, the player doesnt sustain an injury.
I doubt Trengove wanted to concuss Dangerfield considering he didnt really drive him into the ground...

I also question the standard of umpiring where a 3-week offence is missed at a stoppage.

 

[Jesus Baulks]

Sometimes I wish I wasn't in love with footy.

Few more decisions like this and you won't be.