The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

Match Review gets Trengrove case wrong

Roar Guru
12th May, 2011
14

Since its formation, the Match Review panel has made the majority of AFL supporters cry foul at one time or another, and their wave of inconsistency appears to continue with two decisions this week.

Jack Trengrove’s tackle on Patrick Dangerfield during the third quarter attracted the Match Review Panel’s attention. It was deemed negligent contact, high impact and high contact, attracting a total of 325 demerit points leading to Trengrove being given the choice to take a two match ban with an early plea or risk the tribunal and cop three weeks instead.

Trengrove and the Demons, feeling the penalty a bit harsh, took it the tribunal and were not met with support.

Meanwhile, St Kilda’s Leigh Montagna’s off the ball hit on a clearly injured Curnow sees Montagna being offered the choice between a one match ban and carry-over points or a two match sanction.

When comparing the two incidents, the suspensions hardly seem accurate.

Trengrove tackled strongly, pinned his opponent’s arms and stripped him of possession. Three qualities players need to complete a good tackle. He made no high contact with Dangerfield, although the tackle resulted in Dangerfiled being taken from the field with concussion, the high contact was as a result of ground impact.

Sadly we see what many would consider a textbook tackle attracting a three match ban. Was there anything cheap about this tackle? No. Anything malicious? No.

Was the tackle aimed to hurt Dangerfield? No.

Advertisement

Players are always instructed to hit their opponents hard during a game, but that’s footy and there is no aim to injure someone purposely.

In contrast with Montagna’s actions in Monday night’s clash, approaching an injured Ed Curnow as he clutched his shoulder. Montagna then made the decision to place a hit on that injured shoulder, despite it being well and truly off the play, the bump took place as Curnow was on his way to the interchange to leave the ground and caused Curnow, who was already clearly in pain, to double over, presumably in further discomfort.

Curnow did reappear on the field with that shoulder heavily strapped but didn’t last long and was subbed out of the game before half-time. Now let’s ask the same questions of this incident that we asked of the Trengrove-Dangerfield incident.

Was there anything cheap about this bump? Yes, everything about this bump was cheap, it was off the play, it was a healthy player hitting an injured player as they were trying to leave the field.

Was there anything malicious?

Montagna claims there wasn’t, but what other motivation to hit a player in that condition could you have other than a malicious one? Was the bump aimed to hurt Curnow? Clearly it was and clearly it did. Ironically it was St Kilda that first highlighted these sorts of incidents after Nick Riewoldt received some attention after fracturing his collarbone against Brisbane.

So we see a player, with a previous poor record in terms of conduct, hitting an injured player off the ball and receiving a week’s penalty for it, as opposed to a player, with no prior convictions, placing what was deemed a legitimate tackle on a player then had the ball and lost it, accidentally hit his head on the ground during the process of the tackle.

Advertisement

Is it any wonder Demons players expressed their outrage and disappointment on twitter accounts?

The AFL in recent years has changed several rules in attempts to protect players, but it has left players and fans alike asking if the footy we’ve grown up with is fast becoming a non-contact sport.

Will the bump and the tackle become things of the past? If a few more players who tackle fairly are met with the same fate as Trengrove, surely players will begin to second guess themselves when approaching a contest.

close