Trengove Gone - 3 Weeks

[ThePuppetMaster]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

He wasn't reported in game for it, the umpires saw nothing wrong with the tackle and didn't even pause play until about 15 seconds later

 

[ant22]

The thing that makes me seriously questions if these guys have any clue is the reasoning that he could have acheived the same outcome with far less force. Are they serisouly suggesting players need to tackle at less than full force. Has this bloke seen the way the likes of Dangerfield breaks tackles. If you apply a half force tackle to Patty Dangerfield he will break the tackle and get it to his teamate. You just cannot play the game that way.

Worst decision ever.

 

[melbournemartin]

Terrible decision.

Firstly Dangerfield is trying to kick the ball. The tackler has to put enough force so that he can sling him away from the kick and pin him down.

You can't put half a tackle on.

If players don't want to be slung they they should stop tacking on the tackler and dropping the ball.

Exactly.

 

[sherb]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Semantics I know but he wasn't reported, it was picked up by the MRP.

If you cannot tackle a player to the ground with force because you have pinned his arm, then you are conceding the player getting rid of the ball to a team-mate because you will either a) not pin an arm allowing them to get a handball away or b) not tackle them to the ground and allow them to get a kick away.

Well, that reasoning doesn't make any sense. You see effective tackles every game where the arms are pinned and the player isn't slung to the ground.

You can argue the rights or wrongs of this suspension all you like. But I can see the logic in the rule, as much as it hurts me to agree with the AFL.

You pin a guy's arms in a tackle and then sling to the ground with force and it gives the tackled player very little, if anything, in the way of protection, particularly for the neck and head.

So the onus then falls on the tackler not to perform this sort of tackle. The clubs and the players were certainly informed that it was illegal, weren't they? So it's not like this ruling has come out of the blue.

 

[sherb]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Semantics I know but he wasn't reported, it was picked up by the MRP.

He wasn't reported in game for it, the umpires saw nothing wrong with the tackle and didn't even pause play until about 15 seconds later

Replace "reported" with "suspended" then.

 

[Silvagnis]

He wasn't reported in game for it, the umpires saw nothing wrong with the tackle and didn't even pause play until about 15 seconds later

Montagna wasn't reported on the spot for his cowardice. Both penalties were fair. If Trengove had tackled and dropped his knees to bring Dangerfield down, then he wouldn't have had a case to answer. Dangerfield's arm was already pinned. Went one step too far. Trengove slung Dangerfield and Martin. The sling needs to be stamped out of the game.

 

[Confuscius]

It's a joke, watching the footage, the umpires, the adelaide players, the commentators, noone had noticed anything occurring until Dangerfield was lying on the ground. I cannot see what alternative Trengove had, does he let Dangerfield kick the ball and clear it from the attacking 50? Let him go and watch him burst through a pack? He has to tackle like that, he wasn't pinning his arm he had a hold of his wrist in order to make a clean disposal from Dangerfield all the more difficult... I just don't understand what the AFL is trying to turn this game into...

 

[Vader]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

The part where a player playing a contact sport was accidentally injured and the player executing a perfect tackle (not high, not in the back, not a trip, didn't have two arms pinned and driven into the ground, wasn't picked up and slung to the ground after the initial tackle was completed) is given a 3 week ban. Trengove laid an almost identical tackle seconds later and this was not cited. Why not? Surely both tackles are illegal or neither are. You cannot suspend a player based on the consequences of the action, it can only be the action itself that is looked at.

You keep stating that it was a "perfect tackle". The fact that it was an illegal tackle (and therefore not perfect at all) seems to have completely escaped you.

A player doesn't have to have "two arms pinned and driven into the ground". Dangerfield had one arm pinned and was slung in such a manner that his head made forceful contact with the ground. That is all that is required.

How is it high impact? I would have thought high impact would end in something akin to a fractured skull? And how a player can be deemed to have tackled high when one arm is around the waist and one arm grabbing the players hand is beyond me.

Once again, all you're doing here is showing your ignorance of the rules.

Here's the relevant bit from the AFL Player Rules:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a players head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending player.

Melbourne had no chance of arguing against that definition - which is why they didn't even try.

I highly recommend that you actually learn the rules by which the game is played.

Just face facts mate, the decision is a joke & 90%+ of the footballing public agree. You may disagree but you are in the extreme minority. This decision is against the very nature of our game.

Looking on this board, there seems to be a 70-30 split between those who think an offence has been commited and those who don't. I'd suggest this means that 70% of the people on this board (including yourself) who don't know or understand the rules of the game. There's almost 100% agreement that 3 games is/was excessive - and I wholeheartedly agree.

Reading the herald sun comments, someone indicated that the tribunal stated JT should have had duty of care because it was at Melbourne's home ground. If this is true, and combined with arguing that the tackle was "too forceful" it is an absolute disgrace. Melbourne should challenge this one as far as necessary and if required should get an injunction to allow Trengove to play this week. Even if the decision does not end up being overturned the club needs to make a stand that the AFL can not push them around to make a point.

JT owed Dangerfield a duty of care, yes - but not because it was Melbourne's home game. That's just ludicrous. Dangerfield would have owed JT the same duty of care if the positions had been reversed.

Your club is not being "pushed around" by the AFL. JT performed an illegal tackle, a tackle which would have been legal 5 years ago but has since been outlawed due to the high degree of risk to the player being tackled. Accept it and get over it. The AFL, MRP and Tribunal have all spoken with one voice on this subject.

If this was Judd it would not have been cited. Jarrad Waite can kick someone in the nuts and nothing happens. Even just on Monday night Ed Curnow injured his shoulder in a tackle applied by Dal Santo so whats the difference between the two? It is a contact sport and people will get injured theres nothing that can change that and bringing in stupid rules and suspending players for perfectly executed tackles will not prevent players getting injured.

Judd has always been judged to a completely different rulebook to every other player in the competition. Don't ask me why. In any case, two wrongs will never make a right. Just because they got another decision wrong doesn't mean that they got the JT decision wrong.

 

[00Stinger]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

It's always going to be worth 3 weeks, because it's high impact and high contact.

Seriously???
How was it high contact??? He has hit his head on the ground during the tackle if that is worth 3 weeks then we will have 20 blokes getting rubbed out a week. The AFL tribunal has NO CLUE. It is a physical contact sport and accidents happen.

 

[MattyB_76]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Seriously???
How was it high contact??? He has hit his head on the ground during the tackle if that is worth 3 weeks then we will have 20 blokes getting rubbed out a week. The AFL tribunal has NO CLUE. It is a physical contact sport and accidents happen.

Really? Are 20 players being concussed each week?

Tell me honestly, how many sling tackles/arm pinned/player concussed tackles are there each week. I'm curious which games had the other 19 last weekend?

 

[Vader]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Seriously???
How was it high contact??? He has hit his head on the ground during the tackle if that is worth 3 weeks then we will have 20 blokes getting rubbed out a week. The AFL tribunal has NO CLUE. It is a physical contact sport and accidents happen.

If you have to ask that, then you've already proven that you don't know the rules of the game. Allow me to repeat them from my previous post:

Here's the relevant bit from the AFL Player Rules:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a players head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending player.

Secondly, this is not the end of the tackle. It's just a brutal reminder as to what is and isn't allowed when tackling an opponent. You're not allowed to pin their arm (or arms) AND sling them to the ground so that their head makes "forceful contact" with the ground.

By all means pin the arm, but if you do so, make sure that you don't sling them such that their head slams into the turf.

Feel free to point out (preferably via youtube clips) a single tackle, other than JT's, from the weekend where this happened. It's not the end of the world, the sky is not falling in, it's just a reminder about the rules the AFL have introduced to protect the heads of the players.

 

[Stamos]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

You keep stating that it was a "perfect tackle". The fact that it was an illegal tackle (and therefore not perfect at all) seems to have completely escaped you.

A player doesn't have to have "two arms pinned and driven into the ground". Dangerfield had one arm pinned and was slung in such a manner that his head made forceful contact with the ground. That is all that is required.

Um, no he didn't. He had one arm held, definitely not pinned.

 

[jonbe54]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Judd elbows Pavlich, splitting his eye. Zero weeks. Judd wins Brownlow.

Trengove tackles Dangerfield, accidentally concussing him. Three weeks. Will probably ruin his confidence in tackling.

Lol pointless pointing to Judd's case - protected species

 

[Stamos]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Lol pointless pointing to Judd's case - protected species

Got 3 weeks for touching Rischitelli's ear and cheek.

 

[weagle]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

By all means pin the arm, but if you do so, make sure that you don't sling them such that their head slams into the turf.

Dangerfield had one arm free. He also tried to kick shortly after the start of the tackle, putting himself more off-balance than he otherwise might have been (and meaning that he was "slung" a lot faster). Given these factors, and the speed that all of this happened at, I don't reckon it's reasonable to expect Trengove to predict the head-into-turf contact. The fact that it is written into the rules that the tackler's at fault no matter where the contact comes from is an absolute indictment of Demetriou and Anderson.

 

[A Living God]

There have been 7,031 tackles so far this year, this is the first that has resulted in a report, that is 0.014%.

 

[Papa Juggs]

The object of the tackle is to pin the man and stop them disposing of the football.

A tackle doesn't have to take the man to ground to be done correctly.

What Trengove did was a sling which is illegal. High impact to the head gets a higher weighting.

100% correct call.

Can't understand all the fuss really.

 

[The_cockateil]

Had I been tackled like that and got concussed I'd want to see some repercussions.

 

[whelan=legend]

Dangerfield should be the one suspended. He wildly swung his leg which is the momentum shift that caused him to be slung.

It's no ones fault but his own.

 

[The_cockateil]

Dangerfield should be the one suspended. He wildly swung his leg which is the momentum shift that caused him to be slung.

It's no ones fault but his own.

If this isn't a joke post please don't reproduce.

 

[Roby]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

If you have to ask that, then you've already proven that you don't know the rules of the game. Allow me to repeat them from my previous post:

Here's the relevant bit from the AFL Player Rules:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a players head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending player.

Secondly, this is not the end of the tackle. It's just a brutal reminder as to what is and isn't allowed when tackling an opponent. You're not allowed to pin their arm (or arms) AND sling them to the ground so that their head makes "forceful contact" with the ground.

By all means pin the arm, but if you do so, make sure that you don't sling them such that their head slams into the turf.

Feel free to point out (preferably via youtube clips) a single tackle, other than JT's, from the weekend where this happened. It's not the end of the world, the sky is not falling in, it's just a reminder about the rules the AFL have introduced to protect the heads of the players.

Is this the whole basis for your argument? You quoting a rule? Are you completely and utterly mentally handicapped? Can you not reason for yourself? Could a machinebeat you at Turing Test?

According to that rule: If I tackle a player, bump him anywhere, shoulder, whatever, and his head heads into the ground, and gets hurt, according to that exact interpretation it's illegal to tackle, (arm pinned or not), bump, etc...

I'm starting to think you would need to do a lot worse in soccer to be suspended in contrast to the AFL, according to these new interpretations.

 

[whelan=legend]

If this isn't a joke post please don't reproduce.

Watch the video. The slinging only occured because Dangerfield took one leg off the ground to kick the ball, causing Trengove to accidentally sling him.

Dangerfield should be held responsible for is own actions. 6 concussions in 2 years? Wear a helmet or stop playing so recklessly. I know if someone was tackling me I would use my core strength to try and not be brought to ground. I wouldn't lift one off my legs of the ground leaving me with no balance whatsoever. The power of Trengove's tackle wasn't excessive, Dangerfield needs to be trained in the basics of football.

 

[The Dentist]

Had I been tackled like that and got concussed I'd want to see some repercussions.

Play soccer or basketball if that is your stance

Dangerfield is his own worst enemy, great player but prob wont get to play 200 games as his courage and reckless abandon style will be his downfall and his body will end up pulverised, for those who can remember he nearly broke in 1/2 by ramming a goalpost in persuit of a miraculous but near impossible soccer goal a few years ago.

Gotta love his guts but he aint no use to the team if he's always gettin injured.

 

[MattyB_76]

Watch the video. The slinging only occured because Dangerfield took one leg off the ground to kick the ball, causing Trengove to accidentally sling him.

Dangerfield should be held responsible for is own actions. 6 concussions in 2 years? Wear a helmet or stop playing so recklessly. I know if someone was tackling me I would use my core strength to try and not be brought to ground. I wouldn't lift one off my legs of the ground leaving me with no balance whatsoever. The power of Trengove's tackle wasn't excessive, Dangerfield needs to be trained in the basics of football.

And Trengove, the MFC coaches and supporters need to learn the rules of football. Can't believe you are still arguing that the tackle was legal, and that I need to post this video again.

[YOUTUBE]ud7t81qouXw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Vader]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Is this the whole basis for your argument? You quoting a rule? Are you completely and utterly mentally handicapped? Can you not reason for yourself? Could a machinebeat you at Turing Test?

According to that rule: If I tackle a player, bump him anywhere, shoulder, whatever, and his head heads into the ground, and gets hurt, according to that exact interpretation it's illegal to tackle, (arm pinned or not), bump, etc...

I'm starting to think you would need to do a lot worse in soccer to be suspended in contrast to the AFL, according to these new interpretations.

Of course I'm quoting the rule. Trengove had one arm around his waist & the other holding Dangerfield's wrist. There is no suggestion that he ever made contact with Dangerfield's head himself. People were wondering why he was therefore charged with making high contact. The rule is perfectly clear as to why this was the case.

You do realise that the players actually have to play by the rules? You are aware that the MRP and Tribunal make judgements based upon these same rules?

If you want to know what's legal and what's not, I suggest you have a look at the youtube clip which MattyB_76 posted earlier this morning. JT's tackle is very similar to the Waite/Hunt example.