WHEN Melbourne's Jack Trengove fronts the AFL Appeals Board to contest his three-match suspension for tackling Adelaide's Patrick Dangerfield into the MCG turf, he will be hoping the decision goes against an established trend.

As he will know before he even enters the hearing room at Etihad Stadium, appeals are very rarely upheld.

The current system for reviewing misdemeanours on the field, which involves all games initially being looked at by the match review panel, was instituted in 2005.

Since then, the panel has laid 908 charges but only 181 of these have been contested at the tribunal.

And Trengove is just the 14th footballer to have been so unhappy with the tribunal's verdict that he has chosen to take his case to appeal.

Trengove, who will be represented by high-profile lawyer David Galbally QC, has every right to be pessimistic on Thursday when he appears before the members of the appeals board - Peter O'Callaghan QC, Brian Collis QC and four-time Richmond premiership ruckman Michael Green.

That's because in the 13 other appeal hearings since '05, only one player, Collingwood skipper Nick Maxwell, has been successful.

To overturn a tribunal verdict, the player and his club must either present new evidence, cast doubt on the way the original verdict was reached, argue the classification of the offence was excessive, or argue that the penalty was excessive.

Maxwell and his defence team successfully argued the latter two points after he was handed a four-match suspension for a hip-and-shoulder on West Coast's Patrick McGinnity.

The incident, which left him McGinnity with a broken jaw, had taken place when Maxwell laid a heavy shepherd on the Eagles youngster during a NAB Cup game at Subiaco Oval on February 7, 2009.

The tribunal's subsequent decision to find Maxwell guilty of negligent contact caused an uproar in the football community.

Many people suggested that the bump had effectively been banned.

Maxwell's ban was overturned, with the appeals board, which consisted of Peter O’Callaghan QC, Brian Collis QC and John Winneke QC, stating in its findings that:

1. The contact made by Maxwell was reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game and the guidelines, and was therefore not negligent contact.

2. The head contact was accidentally caused by reason of that contact. The tribunal jury were not required to answer all of the questions that they ought to have in arriving at their decision and, in particular, whether Maxwell's shepherd was reasonable in the circumstances.

In the weeks after the Maxwell case, the rule regarding contact to the head was re-worded to offer better protection for players.

It now reads: "It is a reportable offence to make forceful contact to an opponent's head or neck when there's a realistic alternative to contest the ball or tackle."

The most recent player to contest a suspension was Carlton skipper Chris Judd.

In September 2009, Judd chose to appeal his three-match suspension for making unnecessary contact to the face of then-Brisbane Lion Michael Rischitelli during Carlton's elimination final loss at the Gabba.

As afl.com.au's Jason Phelan wrote at the time, the appeal hearing was a rather strange affair as the Blues' defence for Judd's "pressure-point" move on Rischitelli included a reference to World Wrestling Entertainment programs on television.

The appeals board dismissed Judd's appeal after just six minutes' deliberation.

As a result, he had to sit out the opening three home and away rounds in 2010.

Two weeks prior, Hawthorn forward Lance Franklin's appeal against a two-game suspension for a high bump on Richmond's Ben Cousins had also been thrown out.

Despite the findings of the match review panel and the tribunal, Melbourne is convinced that Trengove's action in pinning Dangerfield's arms when he laid the tackle was not negligent.

But if the second-year midfielder, his club and its lawyer are looking for inspiration as they head into Thursday night's hearing, the Maxwell case is all they have.