Rumour Fyfe Reinstated for the Brownlow

[Taylor]

Actually I take this back as Grant had 3 kicks, 7 handballs, 1 mark, 1 tackle and 3 HOs whereas Neitz kicked a measly 7 goals?

Yeah it boggles the mind huh, it might have made the whole situation a moot point if he got just a single vote for that game.

 

[SuperSub17]

This is why I knew I should have started a thread keeping track of all of them as the season went on.

But off the top of my head there was Parker vs Hurley a month and a bit after Fyfe's where Hurley had to come off for a while after a head clash during a bump (wasn't even looked at), obviously the Viney incident, and also another one for us where Ballantyne was sent straight to the tribunal who cleared him of a head clash when going for a bump against Adelaide.

There is a key difference there IMO - they were all contesting the ball. Fyfe could have tackled or smothered but he didn't. I don't agree that it should be suspendable, but the way the rule is written re head clashes it's fair enough.

I notice Collingwood fans are against the repeal of Fyfe's ineligibility, probably because of Pendlebury, so they can't look at this miscarriage of justice against Fyfe objectively.

Clutching at straws there. Personally I don't think Pendlebury will get near it.

I do think its a miscarriage of justice - but that stems from the rule in the first place, and you can't go back on that.

 

[Jimmybob]

You'd make a good journo Great at making bullshit titles

 

[Taylor]

It's the Franklin bump that leaves a sour taste.

Chapman did the same the year before, gone.

 

[estibador]

There is a key difference there IMO - they were all contesting the ball. Fyfe could have tackled or smothered but he didn't. I don't agree that it should be suspendable, but the way the rule is written re head clashes it's fair enough.

So the MRP has brainwashed everyone into believing, but Fyfe bumped him just as he was disposing of the ball. If he'd gone to tackle he would have dragged him down after the ball had left the boot resulting in a free downfield. Not a very realistic option.

 

[estibador]

It's the Franklin bump that leaves a sour taste.

Yeah especially because that one was shoulder to jaw, which was supposed to be suspendable long before they even came up with the rule of the month about head clashes.

But as usual there's one rule for some and a different rule for others, yet this is the incompetent (borderline corrupt) wishy-washy organisation that people defend as having the power to make players ineligible for the Brownlow.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Yeah it boggles the mind huh, it might have made the whole situation a moot point if he got just a single vote for that game.

I feel like he must've shut down someone really important in the game but Neitz kicked 7 and Lyon kicked 3.
Was there another Melbourne goal scorer who he stopped in that game? I can't really pick out any other predominant goal scorer (if we're not counting Farmer).

 

[Grave Danger]

Joel Selwood and Gary Ablett will get more votes than Nat Fyfe.

 

[Taylor]

I feel like he must've shut down someone really important in the game but Neitz kicked 7 and Lyon kicked 3.
Was there another Melbourne goal scorer who he stopped in that game? I can't really pick out any other predominant goal scorer (if we're not counting Farmer).

From what I read he was on Neitz, but like I said that's before my AFL time started.

 

[Testekill]

Chris Grant hit someone in the face with a closed fist. Was rightfully suspended in that instance IMO.

And yet the Umpires at the game said it was a free kick and nothing more. Ian Collins was just being a vindictive little campaigner because Grant turned down a contract at Port Adelaide which meant that they couldn't get him as a marquee player.

Seriously, even Nick Holland said that there was nothing in it and he was the one that got hit. It was a late spoil and that's all it was.

 

[Damon_3388]

And yet the Umpires at the game said it was a free kick and nothing more. Ian Collins was just being a vindictive little campaigner because Grant turned down a contract at Port Adelaide which meant that they couldn't get him as a marquee player.

Seriously, even Nick Holland said that there was nothing in it and he was the one that got hit. It was a late spoil and that's all it was.

TBH, if he was reported on the day and then suspended, I don't think people would have much query with it. He was late, and hit a bloke in the face with a closed fist. It's generally something you don't get away with, particularly when there's clear video evidence.

If it happened now, and he got away with it, there'd be an outcry.

If he didn't get enough votes to win the Brownlow, nobody would even remember it or care, either.

 

[Testekill]

TBH, if he was reported on the day and then suspended, I don't think people would have much query with it. He was late, and hit a bloke in the face with a closed fist. It's generally something you don't get away with, particularly when there's clear video evidence.

If it happened now, and he got away with it, there'd be an outcry.

If he didn't get enough votes to win the Brownlow, nobody would even remember it or care, either.

He caught him with a forearm. Not a fist. The umpires were also overruled by the football operations manager. There would have been a ******* outcry if Andrew Demiteriou just came out and said "nope * you, you're going to the tribunal because I know best" and you ******* know it.
All I'm getting out of this is that you're a moron that wants to be contrary.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

TBH, if he was reported on the day and then suspended, I don't think people would have much query with it. He was late, and hit a bloke in the face with a closed fist. It's generally something you don't get away with, particularly when there's clear video evidence.

If it happened now, and he got away with it, there'd be an outcry.

If he didn't get enough votes to win the Brownlow, nobody would even remember it or care, either.

Insert Daniel Merrett footage against Melobourne here...

Off Scott free! Next argument

 

[Damon_3388]

He caught him with a forearm. Not a fist. The umpires were also overruled by the football operations manager. There would have been a ******* outcry if Andrew Demiteriou just came out and said "nope **** you, you're going to the tribunal because I know best" and you ******* know it.
All I'm getting out of this is that you're a moron that wants to be contrary.

Go to the 7 minute mark of the video. He hit him in the mouth with the heel of his palm/lower wrist. It wasn't a forearm.

I think it was worth a week. It's only the circumstances that surround it that make it "controversial", not the act itself. If he'd just been reported when it happened, or he didn't top the Brownlow poll at the end of the year, nobody would even remember it.

I'm against this overturning of the Fyfe thing, because it assumes that he's going to win the medal, and if overturned, creates a further controversy whether he does or doesn't win the medal (people will probably claim the voting is fixed, that he did/didn't deserve it). Just a big can of worms that there's no need to open IMO.

Insert Daniel Merrett footage against Melobourne here...

Off Scott free! Next argument

Yes, and that was a wrong decision.

 

[Silent Alarm]

It'll be pretty unfair but it's a lottery and when you lash out, you put your ticket in and spend the next few days hoping you get lucky.

In one way, it'd actually be a bit of a rort if Fyfe were able to win his but Chris Grant had to go the rest of his days unfairly never being a Brownlow Medallist.

Then again, the Brownlow is a crock of s**t anyway. The fact an admitted drug cheat gets to keep his is appalling.

 

[lewdogs]

Obviously it won't be overturned and shouldn't be.

But if betting is really the reason then what the **** has our game come to?

 

[Tazmania]

Meh, Fyfe will go down in history as the man who was wrongfully robbed of the brownlow by an incompetent MRP. Everyone will remember that.

 

[invinciBlues]

Meh, Fyfe will go down in history as the man who was wrongfully robbed of the brownlow by an incompetent MRP. Everyone will remember that.

Fremantle supporters will remember that. The rest of us will move on with our lives.

 

[kimbopen]

The eligibility rules cannot, and should not, be changed mid-season, just because some muppet's management have woken up to the fact - nine tenths of the way through the season! - that he could potentially win it.
If Fyfe felt that the decision to suspend him was so unfair, why did he cop the punishment, and not go to the tribunal to challenge the decision then & there?
You can't have it both ways!

 

[Bender571]

They should do it, otherwise whoever wins it will forever (and unfairly) be known as the Bradbury Medalist, knowing how unlucky Ablett and Fyfe were.

I notice Collingwood fans are against the repeal of Fyfe's ineligibility, probably because of Pendlebury, so they can't look at this miscarriage of justice against Fyfe objectively.

Nah, they're against it because it's their fault. It's their outcry after the Thomas Reid head clash that saw the rule introduced

 

[dogs105]

What absolute nonsense.

I want Jason Cloke eligible for the 2002 Grand Final. In fact while we're at it, I want Anthony Rocca's goal back too.

Mistakes happen, Freo just need to deal with it.

I want Tyson Edwards not concussed in the prelim, and you wouldn't even be in the GF then.

 

[orion21]

I want Tyson Edwards not concussed in the prelim, and you wouldn't even be in the GF then.

LOL, you were no chance even if he played out the game.........

 

[Superstar swan]

The afl were extremely clear at the start of the year when they said it's fine to bump but if you make contact with the head , no matter how minimal, you will be dealt harshly. Fyfe knew the risks. This is only being discussed because of ablett's injury. We may aswell say, gaj averages 1.5 votes a game ( made that number up) let's just add that onto the games he missed so we get a fair result

 

[estibador]

The afl were extremely clear at the start of the year when they said it's fine to bump but if you make contact with the head , no matter how minimal, you will be dealt harshly. Fyfe knew the risks.

So why was Buddy not suspended? Or Luke Parker for his head clash with Hurley? Or Goodes for jumping off the ground straight into someone's head?

Where was the rule about dealing harshly with head contact then? No matter how minimal, right?

Something to do with the colour of the jumper I presume. I guess Fyfe knew the risks when he re-signed with Freo instead of moving to Sydney.

 

[Superstar swan]

So why was Buddy not suspended? Or Luke Parker for his head clash with Hurley? Or Goodes for jumping off the ground straight into someone's head?

Where was the rule about dealing harshly with head contact then? No matter how minimal, right?

Something to do with the colour of the jumper I presume. I guess Fyfe knew the risks when he re-signed with Freo instead of moving to Sydney.

I think you will find it was hanners not parker. That was insidental, both players were going for the ball, you will never take contact out of the game. If 2 players have their head over the footy it is a different story