Fyfe - how many weeks?

[strobe00]

That's not correct, all that is considered is whether the intention was to strike. Intention as to target or impact are not relevant.

intention as to target or impact ARE relevant for on ball incidents.

They aren't for off ball incidents apparently. Gibson got done for striking conca as there was a chance he was going for the ball.

With fyfe's action being off ball there is no other way for him to account for it.

 

[Impunity!]

intention as to target or impact ARE relevant for on ball incidents.

They aren't for off ball incidents apparently. Gibson got done for striking conca as there was a chance he was going for the ball.

With fyfe's action being off ball there is no other way for him to account for it.

Mate please believe me, you've got it the wrong way around. An act of striking which occurs off the ball is usually conclusive evidence of an intentional act.

The intention in an on the ball situation relates to the intent to commit the reportable offence, in this case, a strike. Not a strike to the head or a strike to the body. This was clearly shown last night. It is the reason why Fyfe's defence wasn't even sent to the jury.

 

[strobe00]

Mate please believe me, you've got it the wrong way around. An act of striking which occurs off the ball is usually conclusive evidence of an intentional act.

The intention in an on the ball situation relates to the intent to commit the reportable offence, in this case, a strike. Not a strike to the head or a strike to the body. This was clearly shown last night. It is the reason why Fyfe's defence wasn't even sent to the jury.

I give up. I'm sure you're right.

But I still have an issue with accidental head contact being treated exactly the same as intentional head contact.

The ruling classes them as exactly as bad as each other. Intuitively and morally, that's bullsh!t. I can understand that the rules have been written so that there's no distinction... as this is easier to manage. Doesn't make it any less bullsh*t though.

 

[Impunity!]

I give up. I'm sure you're right.

But I still have an issue with accidental head contact being treated exactly the same as intentional head contact.

The ruling classes them as exactly as bad as each other. Intuitively and morally, that's bullsh!t. I can understand that the rules have been written so that there's no distinction... as this is easier to manage. Doesn't make it any less bullsh*t though.

I appreciate your views - there is space in the tribunal rules to argue that a strike was reckless or negligent, even off the ball, but Fyfe put paid to that when he admitted he intended to strike Lewis (albeit to the body)

 

[strobe00]

I appreciate your views - there is space in the tribunal rules to argue that a strike was reckless or negligent, even off the ball, but Fyfe put paid to that when he admitted he intended to strike Lewis (albeit to the body)

Was always going to be a struggle convincing the tribunal that he was legitimately trying to shift lewis out of the way.

It looked like a whack to me. Hard to argue that it wasn't.

It's done now. Move on to this week. Now minus barlow and fyfe for rest of the H&A.

 

[Impunity!]

Was always going to be a struggle convincing the tribunal that he was legitimately trying to shift lewis out of the way.

It looked like a whack to me. Hard to argue that it wasn't.

It's done now. Move on to this week. Now minus barlow and fyfe for rest of the H&A.

Won't make a difference for these next two games. 4th is Freo's

 

[strobe00]

Won't make a difference for these next two games. 4th is Freo's

Hope so. We need to beat port to ensure it though don't we?

Hopefully carlton can do us a favour this week.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

I appreciate your views - there is space in the tribunal rules to argue that a strike was reckless or negligent, even off the ball, but Fyfe put paid to that when he admitted he intended to strike Lewis (albeit to the body)

spot on I reckon. If fyfe had said he was attempting to get past him and it resulted in a strike-like impact to the head by the upper arm, despite his intentions to be body contact (not a strike) to move him aside, at least it would have gone to the jury who then could have laughed at him "pull the other one it's got bells on."

 

[jim boy]

What do you think is dodgier. A bloke punching someone straight in the face, or punching him in the arm and accidentally collecting him in the face? I don't care that the tribunal doesn't distinguish between the two. Use your own head and tell me what you personally think.

Both equally bad. If you were outside a pub and somebody hit you in the head with a baseball breaking your jaw do you really think that is any better than somebody attempting to break your arm with a baseball bat, but missing and getting you in the head and breaking your jaw?

Fyfe intended to hit Lewis and hit him - that it didn't quite go to plan is not an excuse.

 

[Bulldocker]

Appeal lodged - Howies point of law decision will be tested.

 

[Oneiros]

You cannot be serious...

 

[Adz]

#FreeFyfe

 

[QPower]

Lol at the Freo dullards lodging this appeal. Fyfe admitted he meant to strike Lewis.

Hope they are better prepared than last night.

 

[Bulldocker]

You cannot be serious...

You seem surprised? Forget the point of law..... nobody can seriously believe Fyfe intended to hit him in the head. The arm deflected from chest height with the reactionary fend from Lewis. Watch the vision with blinkers off. Take into account Hawthorn's medical report and again - look at the punch last week on Suban by Varcoe and then you must wonder what point of law they were using when they arrived at the non-citing of Varcoe. Not saying Varcoe incident is direct precedence, but somewhere in that action there must be a loophole that gave the MRP reason not to cite him. Our reps at the appeal must only concentrate on targeting that anomaly.
How about just using a bit of good old common sense in that MRP circus.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Can the AFL charge Freo and Fyfe for wasting everyone's time. Cop your punishment and get on with it.

 

[Citizen Erazed]

Any publicity is good publicity.

 

[Oneiros]

You seem surprised? Forget the point of law..... nobody can seriously believe Fyfe intended to hit him in the head. The arm deflected from chest height with the reactionary fend from Lewis. Watch the vision with blinkers off. Take into account Hawthorn's medical report and again - look at the punch last week on Suban by Varcoe and then you must wonder what point of law they were using when they arrived at the non-citing of Varcoe. Not saying Varcoe incident is direct precedence, but somewhere in that action there must be a loophole that gave the MRP reason not to cite him. Our reps at the appeal must only concentrate on targeting that anomaly.
How about just using a bit of good old common sense in that MRP circus.

Not saying whether he did or didn't, but having come up blank at the tribunal hearing, I'm at a loss to imagine what grounds for appeal they have.

 

[QPower]

This appeal says far more about Freo's desperation about the state of their midfield without Barlow and Fyfe than about the chances of this succeeding.

The AFL won't allow this to succeed as it would open up a whole new defence at the tribunal: "yes I m meant to hit him but not where the punch landed".

 

[Eski3]

This appeal says far more about Freo's desperation about the state of their midfield without Barlow and Fyfe than about the chances of this succeeding.

The AFL won't allow this to succeed as it would open up a whole new defence at the tribunal: "yes I m meant to hit him but not where the punch landed".

There is no such thing as precedent in the tribunal

 

[Plugger35]

Can't believe Freo are appealing this again, can't see how it could succeed after not being successful last night.

Smacks of desperation.

You seem surprised? Forget the point of law..... nobody can seriously believe Fyfe intended to hit him in the head. The arm deflected from chest height with the reactionary fend from Lewis. Watch the vision with blinkers off. Take into account Hawthorn's medical report and again - look at the punch last week on Suban by Varcoe and then you must wonder what point of law they were using when they arrived at the non-citing of Varcoe. Not saying Varcoe incident is direct precedence, but somewhere in that action there must be a loophole that gave the MRP reason not to cite him. Our reps at the appeal must only concentrate on targeting that anomaly.
How about just using a bit of good old common sense in that MRP circus.

You could argue that Vickery didn't mean to hit Cox in the head either but he did and had to cop a 4 week ban.

When you strike someone there is always the risk you might not hit them where you intend to but the action and result is still the same so you have to cop the punishment for it.

 

[Cobbler]

This appeal says far more about Freo's desperation about the state of their midfield without Barlow and Fyfe than about the chances of this succeeding.

The AFL won't allow this to succeed as it would open up a whole new defence at the tribunal: "yes I m meant to hit him but not where the punch landed".

Anyone with eyes can see where the punch first landed.

It's an interesting debate and one I'm sure he'll lose, but one that does make sense even if through the eyes of a Freo supporter.

I wouldn't think this has anything to do with the state of our midfield.

 

[Cobbler]

Can't believe Freo are appealing this again, can't see how it could succeed after not being successful last night.

Smacks of desperation.



You could argue that Vickery didn't mean to hit Cox in the head either but he did and had to cop a 4 week ban.

When you strike someone there is always the risk you might not hit them where you intend to but the action and result is still the same so you have to cop the punishment for it.

They could've argued, but they didn't. Probably because he was guilty of what they said he did.

Fyfe intentionally hitting him high is obviously wrong. Whether they review it and downgrade if yet to be seen, but I wouldn't imagine they'd budge either.

I guess if you drink and drive, you never intend to hurt anyone, but it can be the result of your choices and you cop the consequences. Guess the same plays here, despite their argument and it seems the AFL see it the same.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

Fyfe admitted he meant to strike Lewis.

I think this is what will be challenged. In that Fyfe intended to make contact/move aside Lewis but the action was not a "strike" and contact to the head was made but it was not as a consequence of a strike. WIll claim that Fyfe's admission of intent was not an admission of intent to strike, simply to make legal contact (or at worst contact that may draw a free kick on a bad day). If our argument is that Fyfe only intended to make body contact with a strike... then indeed it is an absurd appeal.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

the difference with the Cox incident is that there was no reason there was contact to the head other than it is where his arm directly went, and it was a soid blow with a forearm/wrist which are commonly used to "strike" people. Who has ever been "struck" with a bicep?

 

[Bulldocker]

This appeal says far more about Freo's desperation about the state of their midfield without Barlow and Fyfe than about the chances of this succeeding.

The AFL won't allow this to succeed as it would open up a whole new defence at the tribunal: "yes I m meant to hit him but not where the punch landed".

Oh really? So I pity your club's players at the MRP if they feel that the outcome is unjust and yet the hierarchy just says "too bad - suck it up". There are several cases that have proceeded to appeal (and yes, most unsuccessfully) but the process is there and our club has the same right to pursue it as any other.
Perhaps your post says more about the fear of our potential midfield in RD23?