Trengove Gone - 3 Weeks

[Brilliant]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Go away and read the rules, watch the Laws of the Game videos (both available on afl.com.au), then come back an apologise.

I understand your point and it is valid, it is also the problem.

The rules are wrong, simple as that.

Nobody knows the rules anymore. After watching/playing the game for years you shouldn't have to look up the rules. they shouldn't change so much and the odd one that did could easily be remembered without having to look it up.

 

[MattyB_76]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

I understand your point and it is valid, it is also the problem.

The rules are wrong, simple as that.

Nobody knows the rules anymore. After watching/playing the game for years you shouldn't have to look up the rules. they shouldn't change so much and the odd one that did could easily be remembered without having to look it up.

You are right in theory, but the rules 'by definition' are never wrong.

However, this rule was changed in 2008. It's not that new, like 'dragging the ball in'/HTB rule.

I just figure that if you have enough intelligence to create an account on BF, and enough indignation to get fired up for a decent conversation, you should have enough time to check what rules have changed each season.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

No dude, it's pathetic of you to criticise me when you clearly don't know the rules of the game. Sling tackles with or without a player's arm pinned that result in injury will be reported.

Go away and read the rules, watch the Laws of the Game videos (both available on afl.com.au), then come back an apologise.

It wasn't a sling tackle though. Trengove turned him in the tackle as players are taught to these days in order to avoid a) giving away a free for in the back and b) trying to minimise the chance of injury to the player being tackled.

I still would like to know what Trengove was meant to have done? Should he have not pinned the players arm and let him get a handball away? Should he have not tackled him to the ground and let him get the kick away? If this is worthy of 3 weeks, what should Trengove have done in the circumstances?

 

[Prudster]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

it was the frame a split second before he hit the ground, i doubt JT would have recognized as 'letting go' of his arm but you could clearly see that after JT swung him he lost grip on his arm before he hit the ground

What is the difference between JT letting go a split second before Dangerfield hit the ground, and not letting go at all? Either way, Dangerfield can't protect his head with that hand.

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

Wow I can't believe the massive overreaction in this thread - mostly from Demons supporters. The tackle is dead? Get ya hand off it.

It was an illegal tackle - why is that so hard to understand? Three weeks is harsh - should have been 1 or 2 max - but the suspension is correct nonetheless. The sling tackle is extremely dangerous and the way Dangerfield hit his head was sickening. There was no need for that tackle so it begs the question was Trengove trying to hurt Dangerfield on purpose?

And gotta laugh at some of the posts by Melbourne supporters on this site, saying that Dangerfield should've protected himself and that he's a "clumsy tit" ... So now Trengove's tackle and suspension is Danger's fault? Yeah, right Dog thing to say.

Can't believe so many Melbourne players went on Twitter to vent their frustration. Do they even know the rules of this game? They're getting angry because the correct procedures were followed, and the suspension handed out accordingly? Maybe this is the reason Melbourne haven't won a final in so long - their players don't know the rules!

 

[BlueandWhiteElf]

Worst decision I have ever seen. Tommy Wills will rise from the dead for this.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

This has nothing to do with Dangerfield or the Adelaide FC. They have not done anything wrong and Dangerfield is a tough young player who I would welcome to the Demons.

This is to do with the AFL penalising a perfectly executed tackle. I still have not had a response to the question "what should Trengove have done?" Should he have not pinned the arm and let PD get a handball away? Should he have not tackled him to the ground and let PD get a kick away? Should he have used "less force" o) as the tribunal insinuated? What was he meant to do?

And those saying it was dangerous as it was a "sling tackle". What does that even mean? So you are not allowed to tackle a player to ground anymore? Any time a player is tackled to ground it will be a "sling tackle". He did not grab him and then tackle him into the ground in another action. It was all in the one motion; Trengove tackled PD and at the same time as the tackle was applied he turned PD in the tackle as players are taught to do to prevent giving away a free kick for in the back and to minimise the chance of injury. Unfortunately PD hit his head on the ground; it was an accident and this is a contact sport. I could understand if he pinned both arms and drove him headfirst but he didn't. He pinned ONE arm and turned him on his side.

Melbourne should appeal this further as this is a decision that attacks the fabric of our game. People like Drakes above may not think so but polls show 90% of the public disagree. And BTW although the Mumford decision was also a disgrace, this was a different incident. Mumford tackled Ablett and then bodyslammed him into the ground. It was executed in two actions, this was done in one action.

I can guarantee if this was Judd he wouldn't have even been cited let alone cop 3 weeks.

So what should Trengove have done?

 

[syl]

Well, Melbourne have indicated they are appealing:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ack-trengove-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1226053760226

Demons' football operations manager Craig Notman confirmed today the club was exploring all options in a bid to have the suspension overturned.

''I can't say a real lot because we are going through the process of looking at a challenge through appeal, see if we can satisfy the AFL guidelines in regards to an appeal,'' Notman told SEN radio.

''Watch this space, some things may happen during the day. We assessing it as we speak.''

 

[Copernicus]

Three weeks for that? Crikey dick.

Joke. Good on the Dees players for arcing up about it, too. Wonder if they'll cop fines...

 

[manureid]

AFL trying to make the game unwatchable. The only good news for Dees fans, had his name been Byron Pickett he would have got 8 weeks.

 

[Goody1971]

A bit harsh I reckon - looked more like 1 week max for me

 

[hawks 09]

Whilst I understand that the AFL has a rule for the sling tackle and has had for a few years now, my question is was this one? Dangerfield had tried to kick the ball causing momentum and therefore contributed in some way to the actual falling motion. Then young Jack having already committed to laying a strong tackle at the time of the attempted kick, can't be held responsible for the end result. It is unfortunate that Dangerfield was injured and took no further part, but that's just bad luck. Coaches expect their players to tackle with a high level of intensity and Dean Bailey would have been wrapt to have had his second year player doing just that. The Demons have to appeal this decision.

 

[alfy!]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Horrible, horrible decision. What a joke.

 

[spuzzlord]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

not surprised at the decision. shane mumford got a couple of weeks last year for tackling gablett like that. didnt agree then and dont agree now.

but the afl have said that sling tackles like that won't be tolerated so he was bound to get reported.

 

[Hardball2010]

Wow I can't believe the massive overreaction in this thread - mostly from Demons supporters. The tackle is dead? Get ya hand off it.

It was an illegal tackle - why is that so hard to understand? Three weeks is harsh - should have been 1 or 2 max - but the suspension is correct nonetheless. The sling tackle is extremely dangerous and the way Dangerfield hit his head was sickening. There was no need for that tackle so it begs the question was Trengove trying to hurt Dangerfield on purpose?

And gotta laugh at some of the posts by Melbourne supporters on this site, saying that Dangerfield should've protected himself and that he's a "clumsy tit" ... So now Trengove's tackle and suspension is Danger's fault? Yeah, right Dog thing to say.

Can't believe so many Melbourne players went on Twitter to vent their frustration. Do they even know the rules of this game? They're getting angry because the correct procedures were followed, and the suspension handed out accordingly? Maybe this is the reason Melbourne haven't won a final in so long - their players don't know the rules!

The overreaction has been from the Tribunal... I think we forget how quickly actions happen within the field of play, JT used the correct tackling technique, pinned one arm to avoid the handball and turn Danger in the tackle, as for the sling component, Danger gave up his footing in attempting to kick the football thus causing the tackle to seem as a 'sling tackle' caused by JT... JT had no way of avoiding the outcome as by the time Danger gave up his footing he was well into the motion of the tackle... Some common sense has to come into play here, this was simply an unfortunate incident into which BOTH players contributed, not saying Danger was is the wrong as he clearly has the right to attempt a disposal however JT could not predict his movements and was correct to tackle the way he did... If we give players 3 weeks on the sidelines for an unfortunate incident players will second guess when they engage in contests and be unsure of their boundaries, we should remember that this rule of no sling tackles was brought in to stop the malice tackles in which players aim to hurt their opponent after the dispose of the ball, not malice here, just an unfortunate incident, should have been let go, what will they do next report players for carelessness when running back with courage... come on guys

 

[Seadog]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Since when does Dangerfield only have 1 arm? Anyone else realise he had his left arm there and could have protected himself with it. Or he could have dropped with the tackle.

How strong is Trengove if he can really pick a guy up from a standing start and sling him at a million miles an hour without Dangerfield having some sort of responsibility to protect himself.

Thats right, Dangerfield should of been suspended.
Trengove buried his head in the ground for chrissakes, wherher you like it or not it's against the rules.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Adrian Anderson trying to defend the decision states "we must protect the player with his arms pinned". Hey Adrian he didn't have his "arms" pinned, he had one arm pinned.

"The reason why sling tackles is a focus is because we got medical advice that players with their arms pinned slammed into the turf is a real danger area – we’re seeing more shoulder injuries, collarbone, related to fierce tackling.,” Anderson said on Triple M today.

“The thrust was, you need to protect the bloke who is tackled with his arms pinned.

“In this case it was classified as negligent – so no one is saying he has done anything reckless here. The focus is on protecting the ball player and Dangerfield was concussed and took no further part in the game.

“I understand that it’s on the border – we’re not saying it’s deliberate that he did it – but we must protect players.

"Where we’ve got to in this case – I admit it’s a difficult one – with tackles with the arms pinned and the ferocity of the tackling, we’ve got a duty to look after the players here.

"It’s one of those ones that’s very much debatable over where the line should be drawn – but where we do, we make no apologies for reducing neck and head injuries in the game. We don’t want to see players concussed and we ask that you show some care towards your opponent when the arm is pinned.

"You can tackle a player to the ground, but don’t unnecessarily sling him when his arm is pinned.

"Players do adapt and can adapt and that is what we’re asking them to do."

So it was a lineball decision that was worth 3 weeks. Get real you clown.

 

[Stamos]

Just saw it then. What an absolute joke.
Dees should definitely appeal, and the MRP should hang their heads in shame, and resign.

Where was Trengove's mistake? What was he meant to do?

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

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.

 

[Vader]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Adrian Anderson trying to defend the decision states "we must protect the player with his arms pinned". Hey Adrian he didn't have his "arms" pinned, he had one arm pinned.

One or both is irrelevant. As a direct result of JT's tackle he was unable to protect himself when he was slung to the ground, resulting in his head slamming into the turf.

Which part of this do you not understand?

So it was a lineball decision that was worth 3 weeks. Get real you clown.

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

 

[sherb]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Adrian Anderson trying to defend the decision states "we must protect the player with his arms pinned". Hey Adrian he didn't have his "arms" pinned, he had one arm pinned.

Actually, it wasn't pinned as such, it looked to me that the tackler actually had hold of his arm.

Is that a common tackling technique these days? I can't say I've taken a lot of notice.

 

[Stamos]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

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

But the tackle shouldn't be reportable, so the high contact/high impact is irrelevant.

An equivalent would be Jarred Waite being reported last year for KOing a Melbourne player (Bate?). Waite got him flush in the head, but it was thrown out (rightly) because Waite was already in the air, going for the mark, and had no other options.

What was Trengove meant to do once he initiated the tackle (which he performed perfectly)?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

One or both is irrelevant. As a direct result of JT's tackle he was unable to protect himself when he was slung to the ground, resulting in his head slamming into the turf.

Which part of this do you not understand?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[sherb]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

But the tackle shouldn't be reportable, so the high contact/high impact is irrelevant.

An equivalent would be Jarred Waite being reported last year for KOing a Melbourne player (Bate?). Waite got him flush in the head, but it was thrown out (rightly) because Waite was already in the air, going for the mark, and had no other options.

What was Trengove meant to do once he initiated the tackle (which he performed perfectly)?

Well, for a start he didn't perform it perfectly because he was reported for it.

My guess in response to the bolded part of your post is that once you pin an arm or arms in the tackle, the onus is then on the tackler not to sling the player with force to the ground as the tackled player is unable to protect himself from the impact as he hits the ground.

Now, I know that is easier said than done. Having said that, I can also see the AFL's reasoning for trying to avoid these sorts of tackles.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Re: RIP: Tackling in AFL

Well, for a start he didn't perform it perfectly because he was reported for it.

My guess in response to the bolded part of your post is that once you pin an arm or arms in the tackle, the onus is then on the tackler not to sling the player with force to the ground as the tackled player is unable to protect himself from the impact as he hits the ground.

Now, I know that is easier said than done. Having said that, I can also see the AFL's reasoning for trying to avoid these sorts of tackles.

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.