Fyfe - how many weeks?

[Ripper]

I'm pretty sure Matt Carr got two weeks for "striking" somebody with his bicep in the act of spoiling the ball. Just another of those absurd "it only happens to Freo" suspensions.

That one came to mind immediately.

 

[Janus]

Lol at the port supporters condemning Fyfe because they know they won't be able to beat us with him in the side.

No, we're condemning Fyfe because Kane Cornes got one week for pushing Mitchell over, and Hartlett got one week for hitting Hill in the stomach with a quick jab. Both of them going down like two dollar hookers was the only reason why they were graded they way they were.

Fyfe hitting Lewis - a player who isn't as soft as either Mitchell or Hill and so wouldn't fake having to come off - in the head should get 2 weeks. Case closed.

 

[the standard]

No, we're condemning Fyfe because Kane Cornes got one week for pushing Mitchell over, and Hartlett got one week for hitting Hill in the stomach with a quick jab. Both of them going down like two dollar hookers was the only reason why they were graded they way they were.

Fyfe hitting Lewis - a player who isn't as soft as either Mitchell or Hill and so wouldn't fake having to come off - in the head should get 2 weeks. Case closed.

Yep, ive said it many times, the afl bridges teams in gaps and sends out decisions accordingly. West coast, sydney and hawthorn are the darlings and can get away with murder. If hodge was in hartletts spot it would be "insufficient", it has nothing to do with how the opponents react...remember buddy actually concussed charlie cameron this year with an elbow to the head and it was still INSUFFUCIENT.

The afl dog teams are port, freo, geelong , north. I dont need to go into detail about the bogus cats suspensions ive mentioned that enough. We get done for sneezing. Ive heard now oh the mrp must love geelong letting stevie j off, but not only does one decision make up for 42 bogus ones, but i know deep dpwn the mrp just want to keep his points so they can ultimately rub him out a final.

Now surprise, this week, north has wells out. So his bump is worse than buddys? Or goodes? His gut tap worse than marc murpheys? LOL...please. Its all in the guernsey.

Some teams have the 50/50 relationship with the afl, mitch robinson , waite get a fair cop but marc murphey is a filthy sniping mutt who never gets citied. Brisbane lose rockliffe when they just coincidentally play west coast ( lol convienant) but merret can splatter a face.

People say the mrp is inconsistent but they are the absolute opposite. 9 times out of 10, west coast, sydney , hawthorn get off or have no case to answer. 9 out of 10 cats, north, port, freo get done for offensive far less than the afl hard on clubs have no case to answer on. So they are consisant in their corruption. How no one has seen this pattern is beyond me. Oh wait....cant talk, discuss, tweet about it. HMMMMM.

MASSIVE asterix next to to sydneys bought flag this year, maybe freo need a rugby team in town and their fans to switch to that code for a bit. So the afl can make up some salary cap rort expense, gift them the softest top4 draw in history and absolutely zero mrp suspensions....with plenty of bulk bogus frees to boot.

 

[cryptor]

Yep, ive said it many times, the afl bridges teams in gaps and sends out decisions accordingly. West coast, sydney and hawthorn are the darlings and can get away with murder. If hodge was in hartletts spot it would be "insufficient", it has nothing to do with how the opponents react...remember buddy actually concussed charlie cameron this year with an elbow to the head and it was still INSUFFUCIENT.

The afl dog teams are port, freo, geelong , north. I dont need to go into detail about the bogus cats suspensions ive mentioned that enough. We get done for sneezing. Ive heard now oh the mrp must love geelong letting stevie j off, but not only does one decision make up for 42 bogus ones, but i know deep dpwn the mrp just want to keep his points so they can ultimately rub him out a final.

Now surprise, this week, north has wells out. So his bump is worse than buddys? Or goodes? His gut tap worse than marc murpheys? LOL...please. Its all in the guernsey.

Some teams have the 50/50 relationship with the afl, mitch robinson , waite get a fair cop but marc murphey is a filthy sniping mutt who never gets citied. Brisbane lose rockliffe when they just coincidentally play west coast ( lol convienant) but merret can splatter a face.

People say the mrp is inconsistent but they are the absolute opposite. 9 times out of 10, west coast, sydney , hawthorn get off or have no case to answer. 9 out of 10 cats, north, port, freo get done for offensive far less than the afl hard on clubs have no case to answer on. So they are consisant in their corruption. How no one has seen this pattern is beyond me. Oh wait....cant talk, discuss, tweet about it. HMMMMM.

MASSIVE asterix next to to sydneys bought flag this year, maybe freo need a rugby team in town and their fans to switch to that code for a bit. So the afl can make up some salary cap rort expense, gift them the softest top4 draw in history and absolutely zero mrp suspensions....with plenty of bulk bogus frees to boot.

You'd think the most delusional post in this thread might come from a Freo supporter. But somehow you've won it in a canter.

 

[JoseMourinho]

To be fair, cryptor. He is right about the "insufficient" bullshit. (I disagree with the rest).
They clamber on about intent but then rule some things "insufficient". Slightly frustrating about the flip-flopping between the Force received and the intent.

 

[cryptor]

To be fair, cryptor. He is right about the "insufficient" bullshit. (I disagree with the rest).
They clamber on about intent but then rule some things "insufficient". Slightly frustrating about the flip-flopping between the Force received and the intent.

It's mostly the rest of his post that is delusional. The idea that teams get different treatment. That his team is one that gets harshly dealt with.

 

[Suma Magic]

I think the swans will target Fyfe very heavily in the qualifying final.

 

[cryptor]

I think the swans will target Fyfe very heavily in the qualifying final.

Wouldn't really benefit the Swans to see Fyfe suspended following their QF. They'd be hoping that Freo cross to the other side of the draw and beat the Hawks or Cats in a preliminary final so they could go into the GF (assuming they win their own PF) as the only side with the benefit of the week off. Fyfe being suspended following the QF greatly reduces the chances of that happening. They wouldn't mind seeing him rubbed out following the PF though.

 

[Suma Magic]

Wouldn't really benefit the Swans to see Fyfe suspended following their QF. They'd be hoping that Freo cross to the other side of the draw and beat the Hawks or Cats in a preliminary final so they could go into the GF (assuming they win their own PF) as the only side with the benefit of the week off. Fyfe being suspended following the QF greatly reduces the chances of that happening. They wouldn't mind seeing him rubbed out following the PF though.

I was more thinking just to put him off his game, to improve their chances of beating Freo.

 

[cryptor]

I was more thinking just to put him off his game, to improve their chances of beating Freo.

Oh you mean like get into him knowing he won't be able to do much back? Yeah in that case I agree. Fyfe is going to be in for a very frustrating September. His temper and discipline are going to be pushed to their limits.

 

[strobe00]

The baseball bat takes things to extremes, but without changing the mechanics of the argument. Your analogy is based upon you willingly being in a fight as opposed to being unwillingly assaulted. If you have chosen to be in a fight fair enough. I dont recall Lewise putting up his dukes, so Fyfe has to cop it.

My example wasn't about willingly being in a fight. It was about a bloke hitting me and my thoughts about how big a pr!ck I'd think he was if he'd deliberately punched me straight in the head, compared to going for my arm or chest instead. Definitely not about a fight i chose to be in.

If it was about a fight I chose to be in then whay cause for complaint would I have for a bloke trying to belt me in the head. It'd be par for the course.

so my little thought experiment still stands. Would you have a different perception of someone's pr!ckdom if they hit you in the head deliberately, compared to them aiming at your chest and it bouncing up into your head?

Quite honestly I would. I struggle to see how someone genuinely wouldn't.

Bottom dollar - if you are out there to physically hurt someone, like Fyfe admitted that he was, you have to cop the full whack of the consequences of your actions, even if those consequences were wider ranging than you intended.

a fair argument... and fair enough. I still disagree with it personally but fair enough.

A fair chunk of footy is about hurting an opponent. Legimately a lot of the time. Illegally happens many times a game but is let go due to insufficient force, or the cameras not capturing it presumably. Elbows to the sternum, whacks around the ears, dropping the knee into a bloke on the ground. None of it legit contact, but not worth bothering with wiping it out as it's basically accepted as part of the game as it generally doesn't result in a bloke being hurt.

Trying to hurt a bloke by round arming him in the head to make him earn it in a marking contest isn't really much better than deliberately trying to punch him in the head away from the play.

the only difference is that it's harder to prove that you hit the bloke just so you could hit him if there's a ball involved.

A bump is a legal way of trying to hurt a bloke. If you stuff that up and collect his head, why should that be treated differently? You were trying to hurt him, but it went further than you intended.

presumably you meant illegally trying to hurt someone. I can understand that argument. Don't agree with it completely... but I can understand it.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

Oh you mean like get into him knowing he won't be able to do much back? Yeah in that case I agree. Fyfe is going to be in for a very frustrating September. His temper and discipline are going to be pushed to their limits.

In finals though, one stupid slip and you're gone for a week and that's as good as done. loadings and carry overs will hurt start of next season but there's no real reason to think it would be worth targeting him over someone with no carry overs... I think it's a weak argument.

 

[MattyB_76]

Ok, so now I'm hoping the Freo Legal counsel go to the Appeals board, and claim that it wasn't a strike, it was an "arm bar" (a la Jack "it wasn't a bump it was a brace" Viney). Judge rules in their favour, but decides it was actually Rough Conduct instead. Suspension increased to 3 games.

 

[Bulldocker]

Ok, so now I'm hoping the Freo Legal counsel go to the Appeals board, and claim that it wasn't a strike, it was an "arm bar" (a la Jack "it wasn't a bump it was a brace" Viney). Judge rules in their favour, but decides it was actually Rough Conduct instead. Suspension increased to 3 games.

And you wish that why? Fyfe is not a sniping thug. For what real reason would you want that to happen other than some demented tall-poppy syndrome. What a Dick!

 

[MattyB_76]

Collectively, I doubt there is a person associated with your club that actually understands the Tribunal, and that a behind the play incident will always be considered intentional. Why did your counsel even bother arguing that point? I find that dumb.

And I don't want this to happen to particularly punish Fyfe, he's not a sniping thug ("he's just a very naughty boy"), he's brilliant player although he does suffer from tantrums/brain snaps every once in a while. No, I want to see this happen so supporters like yourself (who still fail to understand why the appeal to the Tribunal failed the first time) can have their heads explode. The meltdown would be impressive ... you know ... for the LOLs.

Freo supporters, you are wrong (most of you anyway). Supporters from various clubs who have no vested interest in this outcome have unilaterally been saying for days that the rules are always looked at it this way. But no, you idiots think this is a ******* negotiation with the Tribunal. "Oh we'll accept it as reckless if it's high, but only intentional if it's body contact". Bullshit, you don't get that chance, and thinking you do is what pisses me off.

Did I mention how dumb your legal counsel must be? They went in there trying to have the conduct aspect downgraded, they got to plead their case (so stop pretending they didn't), and Fyfe got questioned on the stand and freely admitted his intention was to strike Lewis. The Judge explained that their own witness has testified against the exact thing they were trying to argue against. So their argument was null and void. No appeal. Original judgment stands.

You are correct, this has never happened before because there has never been a legal counsel as dumb as the ones your club is paying.

So, maybe I am a dick. Who gives a * what an anonymous numpty on the internet like yourself, thinks of me?

 

[jim boy]

there has never been a legal counsel as dumb as the ones your club is paying.

You could not be more wrong - the legal counsel is brilliant: he has set himself up with a win-win. Maybe the stars will align and he finds some ambiguity in the point of law and lets the defense argument stand, he will then be haled as a legal mastermind. Fail and he still collects a nice fat pay check where other lesser legal reps would go without.

 

[Pusswah]

Collectively, I doubt there is a person associated with your club that actually understands the Tribunal, and that a behind the play incident will always be considered intentional. Why did your counsel even bother arguing that point? I find that dumb.

And I don't want this to happen to particularly punish Fyfe, he's not a sniping thug ("he's just a very naughty boy"), he's brilliant player although he does suffer from tantrums/brain snaps every once in a while. No, I want to see this happen so supporters like yourself (who still fail to understand why the appeal to the Tribunal failed the first time) can have their heads explode. The meltdown would be impressive ... you know ... for the LOLs.

Freo supporters, you are wrong (most of you anyway). Supporters from various clubs who have no vested interest in this outcome have unilaterally been saying for days that the rules are always looked at it this way. But no, you idiots think this is a ******* negotiation with the Tribunal. "Oh we'll accept it as reckless if it's high, but only intentional if it's body contact". Bullshit, you don't get that chance, and thinking you do is what pisses me off.

Did I mention how dumb your legal counsel must be? They went in there trying to have the conduct aspect downgraded, they got to plead their case (so stop pretending they didn't), and Fyfe got questioned on the stand and freely admitted his intention was to strike Lewis. The Judge explained that their own witness has testified against the exact thing they were trying to argue against. So their argument was null and void. No appeal. Original judgment stands.

You are correct, this has never happened before because there has never been a legal counsel as dumb as the ones your club is paying.

So, maybe I am a dick. Who gives a **** what an anonymous numpty on the internet like yourself, thinks of me?

Is there some reason you care this much?

Noone's going to read all that.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Strange argument that he admits trying to hit him in the stomach, but it accidently got him high, and in doing so, are trying to get it downgraded from intentional to reckless??

But he admits to trying to hit a guy off the ball? How can that be amended?

Like his bump earlier this year when he had the chance to tackle but chose to bump and made contact with the head, he took an option to do something and in the process collected an opponent to the head. Not sure how you can argue this down.

But then again, you're paying people a lot smarter than I too fight it for you

 

[Citizen Erazed]

And you wish that why? Fyfe is not a sniping thug. For what real reason would you want that to happen other than some demented tall-poppy syndrome. What a Dick!

Actually I believe there is now evidence to the contrary

 

[FunkyFreo2]

Ok, so now I'm hoping the Freo Legal counsel go to the Appeals board, and claim that it wasn't a strike, it was an "arm bar" (a la Jack "it wasn't a bump it was a brace" Viney). Judge rules in their favour, but decides it was actually Rough Conduct instead. Suspension increased to 3 games.

Bingo. I agree with your other post too. our legal team is absolutely incompetent. even if they win.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

But he admits to trying to hit a guy off the ball? How can that be amended?

I think this is the point to challenge. He admitted to intentionally making contact, not to a strike. This admission was taken as admission of a strike so the appeal was dismissed by the head honcho. Freo will surely argue the movement was not a strike. I'm not saying we are likely to succeed.

 

[Impunity!]

I think this is the point to challenge. He admitted to intentionally making contact, not to a strike. This admission was taken as admission of a strike so the appeal was dismissed by the head honcho. Freo will surely argue the movement was not a strike. I'm not saying we are likely to succeed.

AFL Tribunal @AFLTribunal · Aug 19
#Fyfe’s counsel says it’s been established Fyfe intended to strike Lewis to the body. Therefore he says it should be intentional, low, body

If this has been reported accurately, may be difficult. I'm keen to see what Fyfe's counsel say this arvo though!

 

[cryptor]

In finals though, one stupid slip and you're gone for a week and that's as good as done. loadings and carry overs will hurt start of next season but there's no real reason to think it would be worth targeting him over someone with no carry overs... I think it's a weak argument.

Plenty of things that can get you off with just a reprimand, especially if the early plea is taken. Fyfe has the carry over points and the bad record now. He'll go for anything that gets points from now until they scrap points at the end of the year.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

AFL Tribunal @AFLTribunal · Aug 19
#Fyfe’s counsel says it’s been established Fyfe intended to strike Lewis to the body. Therefore he says it should be intentional, low, body

If this has been reported accurately, may be difficult. I'm keen to see what Fyfe's counsel say this arvo though!

Probably something along the lines of "Thursday? Is that today?"

 

[blue harvest]

Can the appeals board change the charge like the tribunal can or do they just rule on the appeal?

If they can change it there is a chance the contact could be upgraded from low impact to medium impact. This would make it 3 weeks, or stay at 2 if they somehow got reckless instead of intentional. Lewis was a bit groggy and had to go off and he is a bit of a hard nut. I think the original impact deliberations would have been borderline low/medium and they gave Fyfe the benefit of the doubt.