However, when considered in the broader context of the rapid evolution of this game we love, this decision can not be treated with equanimity.
It represents a sad reflection of the way in which AFL is being administered, legislated, and adjudicated. Let me quote from the transcript of the MRP hearing to illustrate my point.
It was said by the counsel for the Tribunal, Andrew Tinney SC, "that by grabbing hold of Dangerfield's arm and keeping hold of it throughout the tackle, Trengove had not exercised his duty of care to his fellow player's safety."
The concept of a player's 'duty of care' to his opponent has generally been limited to playing by the rules, but clearly not any more. In spite of the compelling arguments presented by the counsel defending Trengove, Iain Findlay, the Dees biomechanist, and all validated by the video evidence, none of this was sufficient in swaying the MRP's decision. Jack's bewildered demeanour as he left AFL House, was matched by the Melbourne officials accompanying him, and by everyone who saw the incident replayed and the decision that has followed it.
All this opens a Pandora's box, and makes a mockery of the history of our game, something that I am sure neither Andrew Tinney, anyone on the MRP or Andrew Demetriou, would ever want to see happen.
Can you ever imagine one of the revered legends of the game, E. J. Whitten, saying to his troops before a state game involving his beloved Victoria (indeed any game he ever captained or coached): 'Now boys, when you tackle these boys I want you to tackle like madmen...but remember care for them by only using enough force to dispossess them.' It would be more likely the complete opposite: 'I don't want you to just dispossess them, I want you to bury them!'
The 'modern' version of this was articulated some weeks ago by Guy McKenna who said he was looking forward to seeing Karmichael Hunt 'hurt' an opponent when he finally realised how he could use his strength and tackling skills in AFL. He emphasised this was to be 'within the rules', but it was clear that in playing the game 'hard but fair', your opponent may get hurt, and this has always been accepted as a part of the sport.
Furthermore, just look at the change in our game from the evening at the Gabba just a few years ago, where the Scott brothers 'tested' out the shoulder of Nick Reiwoldt. I didn't like it, but there was not even a hint of a suspension, and the antagonists would still have been eligible for the Brownlow. Now Brad Scott condemns the most gentle of 'taps' that Leigh Montagna applies to a similarly injured Ed Curnow, and Leigh accepts a one week holiday. An astounding rate of change.
Political correctness is saturating every part of our society, and it removes everything it touches from the 'real world' in which things have previously operated. All this has implications for so many things, not least the award for the 'best and fairest' - the Brownlow Medal. It has always been the case that any suspension rules you out of consideration for the medal. Irrespective of whether you may tally the most votes, you are ruled ineligible for the 'best & fairest' player in the game, because you have broken the rules to a significant extent warranting suspension.
Now, you can play 'within the rules', but be suspended for failing to 'care' for your opponent. I'm sorry, this is not the game I have followed for over 40 years. By all means work to remove thuggish behaviour, as exhibited by Campbell Brown against Callan Ward (incurring a two match ban for something that most, except for Campbell and his dad, Mal, expected around six).
Before things go any further down this track, we need some clarification. This has gone beyond explanations of select decisions by Jeff Geischen (helpful though they may be). Andrew Demetriou needs to make something equivalent to the American state of the union address. We desperately need a 'State of the League' address to explain the direction of our game.
Jack Trengove, the rest of his peers, and those viewing this great game, are no longer on the same page with where the AFL is taking us.
Indeed, this week, I am travelling from the Pilbara in north western Australia, to take my son for his first game at the MCG. We are seeing the Cats v Pies blockbuster.
He can't wait.
I'm just glad we aren't watching a Melbourne game, where I would have to explain to him why one of their best young players, who executed a tackle that would have been lauded in the past, isn't allowed to play, because his opponent got hurt.
I want to plead with our administrators, legislators, and adjudicators to guard against this devolution of the game, so that when I one day take my grandson to his first game at the MCG, I am not taking him to witness some bizarre use of the Sherrin in a giant super-sanitised game of lawn bowls.
