If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I understand the decision based on the need to protect the head. The duty of care exists, and if a player gets injured I think it's very easy to say they offending player breached their duty of care.
I also think the cookie-cutter approach to evaluating incidents in wrong. In isolation this tackle was perfectly fine, the falling motion drove Dangerfield into the ground rather than any malicious intentions or actions from Trengove. It's just one of those unfortunate ones where a player gets hurt - not a huge chicken wing or slinging tackle.
I guess they've now set the precedent that regardless of any intention, if your action causes injury to another player's head you've breached your duty of care.
It's reportable; I find it hard to believe Melbourne highlighted that as a 'perfect' tackle in their post game, didn't seem any need for the sling, and the rules are clear on that
Don't have a problem with it. The AFL want to outlaw the "slam tackle" because the risk of serious injury is so great. Dangerfield was concussed and had to be subbed out of the game.
The minimum suspension under the MRP guidelines for such an incident is 3 weeks, which is what Trengove got, and is consistent with cases in previous years involving Mumford and Milburn.
Campbell Brown gets 2 weeks for elbowing Callan Ward in the head in an off the ball incident.
Jack Trengove gets 3 weeks for a fierce tackle to a player in possession of the ball.
Something just isn't right there.
Adrian Anderson was on SEN last night talking about it. He couldn't say much about the Trengove tackle as it was up for appeal, but he did say the Campbell Brown incident has sparked a review at the end of the year, and he said incidents regarded as behind the play may have their penalties increased.
I agree that the cookie cutter approach doesn't work, but he did also say the match review panel has the power to send a case direct to the tribunal where they didn't feel the penalty prescribed by the guidelines fit the incident, so I'd say the real problem lays at the feet of the match review panel and their hesitation in admitting they get it wrong. They don't want to look timid or indecisive.
He did state, on the Trengove tackle, that the rules around that kind of tackle are very strict due to medical reasons — they keep having club doctors pleading with them to rub it out of the game due to the extreme high risk of spinal/neck injuries.
Comment