Two weeks for this?

[Topkent]

I cant believe this is a suspension, how the hell can they say bumping is an important part of the game and then rule if there is an accidental head clash that you should be suspended

Its a disgrace that you can do a bump thats perfectly within the rules, however if something accidental occurs in the process you are punished with missing games? WTF

 

[Jake1987]

I understand there are videos on the AFL website outlining that you can make any contact with the head, including a head clash, but I don't see anything in the official 2014 rule book about this - http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/...the_Game/2014_Laws_of_Australian_Football.pdf

If someone can point the law where he has been given 2 weeks, I will stand to be corrected.

Maybe the AFL should concentrate on getting the publishing of their rules done correctly than suspending players for bumps and body contact that should be apart of the game and play-on. Amateur administration from an organisation that should be far more professional

Disgraceful decision. If there was any doubt that the bump is dead, than this has surely now been cleared up, THE BUMP IS NOW OFFICIALLY DEAD.

 

[jko'neal]

Very strange, it was just a pure accident they bumped heads. And even if they say he could have tackled, that type of situation with a guy up ending an opponent who's in the motion of kicking the footy happens all the time. As mentioned, they have nailed him on the pure fact blood was spilt. Weak as piss!

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I reckon Taylor Hunt is unluckier than Fyfe. At least Hunt had no other option but to bump as it was a shepherd, Fyfe could have spoiled.

but sheesh..........tough one for Dockers fans.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Still can't believe that Taylor Hunt got done for two weeks for a text book sheppard, had no other option but to lay the sheppard but gets two down to one if taking the early plea

 

[Bender571]

I reckon Taylor Hunt is unluckier than Fyfe. At least Hunt had no other option but to bump as it was a shepherd, Fyfe could have spoiled.

but sheesh..........tough one for Dockers fans.

Still can't believe that Taylor Hunt got done for two weeks for a text book sheppard, had no other option but to lay the sheppard but gets two down to one if taking the early plea

Just said something similar in the other thread. The MRP specifically said Fyfe had other options, yet they've grade both incidents the same (different prior records affected the outcome) and they made no mention of Hunts options. His only other option was don't shepherd, which no one wants to see.

 

[Lach72]

I look forward to the MRP letting people off later in the season to keep it consistent. Same as happened with Michael Johnson when the head high contact rule came in a few years ago

 

[Drew23]

Very similar to the jack ziebell incident last year against Adelaide, where ziebell got 3 weeks. Don't agree with it, but some players are watched very closely by the mrp

 

[hoss]

He went for the player instead of the ball and got him in the head. He therefore deserves to be suspended.

Mate, why are you even on BigFooty? I'm sure BigNetball is much more your thing!

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I'm enjoying the uproar
Didn't get the same reaction when hawks players were suspended

See, us hawks fans warned you, did you listen?

 

[clogged]

Taylor Hunt one is worse, agreed.

 

[Bobby_]

Didn't get the same reaction when hawks players were suspended

that's probably because Hawthorn players very rarely get suspended and how many warnings did Franklin get before his 1 week suspension in the final of last year? He was constantly hitting blokes behind the play and got away with it so was about bloody time he finally copped his fair whack.

It's always disconcerting when you get ex-Hawthorn players sitting on the match review panel.

 

[SCARD]

I'm enjoying the uproar
Didn't get the same reaction when hawks players were suspended

See, us hawks fans warned you, did you listen?

Hawks players suspended. Hilarious. Hawks players have got away with heaps and been gifted key matches by the MRP and umpires alike.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

that's probably because Hawthorn players very rarely get suspended and how many warnings did Franklin get before his 1 week suspension in the final of last year? He was constantly hitting blokes behind the play and got away with it so was about bloody time he finally copped his fair whack.

It's always disconcerting when you get ex-Hawthorn players sitting on the match review panel.

Granted 2013 we got a good ride
Look at 2007-2012 though

 

[Engimal]

The umpire called the rule correctly.

In saying that, it's a shit ****ing rule.

 

[Nerflardio2424]

Fyfe instigated contact and is therefor liable for any damage done according to the new interpretation of the head clash rule, complete bullshit, was accidental, it's a contact sport, let em play the way they were brought up to, hard nosed contested footy.

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

Mate, why are you even on BigFooty? I'm sure BigNetball is much more your thing!

Like I said, he went for the player instead of the ball and got him in the head. He therefore deserves to be suspended.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

This wasn't what this rule was created for. It was created because a player got off for an obvious charge because of a head clash. Unlike in other law, the AFL tribunal does not seem to look at why a law was created or the intent of a law. They appear to decide whether they want to suspend a player, then decide if it is possible to suspend the player under the law as some sort of isolated exercise in math where they add up irrelevant facts to give the points they need.

The big question is does the AFL man up this time and admit the rule is worded wrongly or has been interpreted wrongly, or do they suspend a fair player who is a good chance for a Brownlow. IMO it is a disgrace to suspend Fyfe for that and it is not what our game is about. I say this as a Geelong supporter who is not a fan of Ross Lyon or Freo.

To make things worse they have turned a blind eye to Hawthorn, as per usual, the week Freo plays them to give Freo a double whack.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

This wasn't what this rule was created for. It was created because a player got off for an obvious charge because of a head clash. Unlike in other law, the AFL tribunal does not seem to look at why a law was created or the intent of a law. They appear to decide whether they want to suspend a player, then decide if it is possible to suspend the player under the law as some sort of isolated exercise in math where they add up irrelevant facts to give the points they need.

The big question is does the AFL man up this time and admit the rule is worded wrongly or has been interpreted wrongly, or do they suspend a fair player who is a good chance for a Brownlow. IMO it is a disgrace to suspend Fyfe for that and it is not what our game is about. I say this as a Geelong supporter who is not a fan of Ross Lyon or Freo.

To make things worse they have turned a blind eye to Hawthorn, as per usual, the week Freo plays them to give Freo a double whack.

This

Suspend for intent rather than outcome - accidental head knocks happen every week (Natanui almost KO'd a bulldogs player in round 1 flying in for a mark making no contact with the ball but it wasn't looked at, but if the AFL was all about protecting the head then it probably should have)

Gibson got let off because there was no damage done to the Brisbane player. If there was, I'd suspect he would have gotten at least a week for head high contact.

 

[SA HAWK]

Fyfe & Hunt seem like fair players to me.

Shouldn't be rubbed out for these incidents.

 

[Upgrayedd]

If Michael had braced for the impact maybe he wouldnt of headbutted fyfe?

Im not sure what else Fyfe could of done, Maybe try to drill into him that the AFL is a non contact sport

 

[hoss]

Like I said, he went for the player instead of the ball and got him in the head. He therefore deserves to be suspended.

Unlike you, not everyone believes in 'ban the bump' though. Some of us purists (old-timers) would like it retained. Every time a player bumps or shepherds they 'go the player' as you call it. I'm sick of all the changes.

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

Unlike you, not everyone believes in 'ban the bump' though. Some of us purists (old-timers) would like it retained. Every time a player bumps or shepherds they 'go the player' as you call it. I'm sick of all the changes.

No matter what your thoughts are on given rules, ultimately rules are rules. Fyfe got him in the head when he could have avoided it, therefore he deserves to be suspended.

 

[hoss]

No matter what your thoughts are on given rules, ultimately rules are rules. Fyfe got him in the head when he could have avoided it, therefore he deserves to be suspended.

You don't get it. No intent to do anything wrong. I think he doesn't deserve to be suspended. 80% of footy followers see that. You don't, I accept that. Your type of 'new breed' don't agree with body contact - I have a different opinion.

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

You don't get it. No intent to do anything wrong. I think he doesn't deserve to be suspended. 80% of footy followers see that. You don't, I accept that. Your type of 'new breed' don't agree with body contact - I have a different opinion.

Choosing to bump someone in the head when he could have tackled is intent. I do agree with body contact, but it does need to be within the rules.