Not when its the same face.
MRP / Trib. Fyfe in trouble?
- Thread starter PapaJ
- Start date
- Tagged users None
sportsmaniac89
Persona Non Grata
- Jan 9, 2008
- 15,144
- 23,009
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Dandenong Rangers, Man United
It's about time the Fremantle Football Club grew a pair and took on the system. Too long have we sat back and copped ineptitude from those *ers at the MRP and tribunal. It's about time people like Ross Howie were exposed as being complete and utter morons.
Well done Freo....about ******* time. I've waited 6 years for this and now all I'm eagerly awaiting is Ross Lyon to can the umpiring and get fined and for Rosich or Harris to attack the system as being a joke.
1 out of 3 is alright to date though.
Well done Freo....about ******* time. I've waited 6 years for this and now all I'm eagerly awaiting is Ross Lyon to can the umpiring and get fined and for Rosich or Harris to attack the system as being a joke.
1 out of 3 is alright to date though.
I was happy with the decision to appeal initially, but now, I just cannot see the point. Why bother? The outcome is going to be the same and people will just be laughing at the dockers stupidity. Hope I'm wrong, can't see it though....
Yep. I'm serious. It's not right to accuse Fyfe of king hitting behind play. Contact is made between players on the footy field all the time. Harder contact than The Fyfe hit gets classified as insufficient force all the time. Yes it was a round arm across the shoulder. And yes the contact ended up being high. But I think that intent is important when adjudicating these things. And so does the AFL in heaps of situations, such as while punching the ball away from a marking forward, or removing a tagger from his player.
- Aug 27, 2007
- 13,145
- 11,299
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Everton_East Freo_Atalanta_Tranmere
I originally though the MRP was outcome based i.e. If you hit someone (intentionally or otherwise) and they get hurt you're in trouble. Now I have no idea - especially as Lewis played the whole thing down completely and his reaction was more stunned from an unexpected hit, rather than actually hurt. His 40-odd disposals tell a tale as well
I assume that means the chairman's a ******* w***er?
- Aug 17, 2009
- 3,031
- 4,239
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
It wasn't a king hit, Lewis wasn't unconscious or concussed. But Fyfe meant to hit him, and obviously didnt take that much care about where his hit landed. If someone smacks a Freo player in the head behind the ball they deserve a suspension, just because everybody loves Fyfe here doesn't mean they should try to come up with silly rationalisations justifying that sort of thing.
You are right about intent being important. So when a player is trying to punch a footy away and there is some minor contact its not an issue. When a bloke smacks another player in the head (or neck, or anywhere else), behind the play when the other player isn't even looking at him, that player deserves to get weeks.
Everyone losing their s**t at the tribunal, what I want to know is what the hell does Fyfe think he's doing, he should know better. I think it won't happen again, he's no Stevie Sniper Johnson but it's frustrating.
hearing will be tomorrow night.
JoseMourinho
Not A Manager
Imo should be one week. only reason it is 2 weeks was because of loading from the bumping rule which has been changed now with 0 reprieve for Fyfe and a slight kick to a Richmond player which Stevie J got away with last week.
Fyfey ****ed up obviously and there is always use in appeal because with 60% loading, Fyfe is stuffed for any incident he does as it will always be a match regardless.
I thought the onfield umpires were inconsistent but this has shown that the MRP and Tribunal are also inconsistent. The entire reason of having a legal system in the game is so make sure everything is fair and consistent but the MRP/Tribunal do the opposite and just seem to "pick and choose" who and what to punish.
I am completely frustrated by the system in general where Buddy elbows a guy in the face and its said to be "insufficient force" while fyfe slightly kicks someone and its 2 weeks.
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
Best of luck with the appeal.
I have doubts he is going to get off but I hope he does.
I have doubts he is going to get off but I hope he does.
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
SJ kicked Neale in the head and got off... where is the 'potential for injury' there?
Changes for the 2012 season:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-08/afl-to-crack-down-on-off-ball-incidents/3721010
Not sure they ever changed them back.
The league's annual tribunal review includes a provision that any striking incident away from the play will be classed intentional, unless there is clear evidence that was not the case.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-08/afl-to-crack-down-on-off-ball-incidents/3721010
Not sure they ever changed them back.
The league's annual tribunal review includes a provision that any striking incident away from the play will be classed intentional, unless there is clear evidence that was not the case.
This is not how it works in the AFL, unless you are Fyfe. Contact between players off the ball with just as much impact as Fyfe's occur between ten and twenty times a match. Fyfe didn't smack another player in the head or anywhere else for that matter. His action was not that of Travis Varcoe for instance, or Barry Hall. Surely you can see the difference.
I agree that Fyfe did the wrong thing. I think he deserves a week for it, and if the jury considered the argument as presented, and still gave him two weeks, I would be okay with that too.
I also think that Fyfe has been on the angry pills for a few weeks now. He has come close to hitting a few players, and is playing too close to the line. But if I was him, I would know that playing within the rules gets you the same punishment or worse than playing outside the rules.
This came up earlier. Did it ever get written into the rules? It certainly hasn't been applied until now.
Every commentator I have heard thought initially that Fyfe's action should be classed as Reckless rather than Deliberate. none of them knew of this ruling either?
JoseMourinho
Not A Manager
The latest I can find after a quick search is the 2013 Tribunal rules.
http://aflcommunityclub.com.au/file...aws_of_the_Game/0959_AFL_Tribunal_2013_LR.PDF
page 6, right hand column, 3rd paragraph:
Intent: Notwithstanding any other part of these guidelines, the fact that
an act of striking occurred behind the play or off the ball or during a break
in play or with a raised forearm or elbow is usually conclusive that the
strike was intentional.
Key word there.
I'm not getting my hopes up. We'd have to show it was something unusual.
Yes, and that is for the"tribunal" to decide , not the chairman.
Don't help the maggots with this info
I'm not sure about the raised forearm or elbow part either. I think that applies to a strike where the elbow is lifted to hit the players head, like Solomon did to Ling. I don't think it applies here. The round arm action did not raise the elbow or forearm.
The next paragraph below the one you referenced gives more detail as to what the concern is with a raised forearm or elbow.
Edit: here it is:
Impact: Notwithstanding any other part of these guidelines, any reckless
or intentional strike which is of an inherently dangerous kind and/or where there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised elbow or forearm) will not be classified as “low impact” under the Rules even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved.
There's a slim chance the tribunal may already have read their own guidelines, before we started discussing it.
This is where I'm at a disadvantage because I didn't follow the proceedings last night word for word. My understanding of our case was that this wasn't our main argument, it was only mentioned in passing. If we didn't raise it as a defence the tribunal would need to consider it.
