Two weeks for this?

[The Falcon Strike]

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.

Shit by product of a band aid rule.

Surely there can be discretion.

Thomas took his eyes off the play and jumped at a bloke - massive difference to fyfe.

As mentioned before though - hunts is even worse, no other option but to bump

 

[hoss]

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.

Everyone watching the game, including supporters of both teams, the media and umpires thought it was within the rules hence no free for the head clash. The AFL are trying to enforce their new rule, but this is not the type of incident the rule was introduced for. If they are consistently apply their interpretation like this over the year the season will be a shambles.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Shit by product of a band aid rule.

Surely there can be discretion.

Thomas took his eyes off the play and jumped at a bloke - massive difference to fyfe.

As mentioned before though - hunts is even worse, no other option but to bump

Yep - the Hunt one was even worse. If he didn't do anything, his player would have probably gotten away or if he chose to tackle, he would have either given away a free for holding the man or with no prior, caused a ball up. Instead he ensured Geelong got possesion back.

Fyfe could have tackled, but if he tackled I think he may completed the tackle late and given away a free kick

Not sure about a smother option, however

 

[Monkey King]

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

This makes me sad how the AFL have successfully brainwashed supporters to the point they now actually trumpet the AFL's rubbish themselves. Getting suspended for a clash of heads is just about the most stupid thing I could think of. If they clashed heads in a tackle it would be ok, but not in a bump; which to me seems like the AFL are saying that a tackle is more legitimate than a bump. The game has been changed. I don't like it.

 

[Quinz]

WRT Brownlow eligibility, I think negligent acts shouldn't make you ineligible, only reckless or intentional acts that result in a suspension.

 

[benbanjo]

Shame you can't use precedents.

This video just makes me think Buckley is a loser....

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

This makes me sad how the AFL have successfully brainwashed supporters to the point they now actually trumpet the AFL's rubbish themselves. Getting suspended for a clash of heads is just about the most stupid thing I could think of. If they clashed heads in a tackle it would be ok, but not in a bump; which to me seems like the AFL are saying that a tackle is more legitimate than a bump. The game has been changed. I don't like it.

It really isn't hard to choose not to hit someone in the head. Fyfe didn't have to bump, and in effect he hit someone in the head. Rules are rules whether you like them or not.

 

[master bate]

Personally I don't mind that this is a reportable/suspendable offense.

Consider this - Rischitelli is in the action of kicking the ball (ie. vulnerable) gets cleaned up to the head and comes off bleeding after a big knock. That is was Fyfe's head that caused the damage not his shoulder or elbow doesn't change that it's a suspendable offense. It's still a dangerous act likely to risk concussion and facial fractures (the two big things we want to rule out - rightly or wrongly).

However surely unintended accidents with minimal damage are perfect candidates for reprimands. Add in Fyfe's carry over points and you get a 1 week suspension. Instead of that it starts at 2 weeks and can't come down.

The MRP grading seems to be the real problem here.

 

[master bate]

This makes me sad how the AFL have successfully brainwashed supporters to the point they now actually trumpet the AFL's rubbish themselves. Getting suspended for a clash of heads is just about the most stupid thing I could think of. If they clashed heads in a tackle it would be ok, but not in a bump; which to me seems like the AFL are saying that a tackle is more legitimate than a bump. The game has been changed. I don't like it.

The AFL isn't saying tackles are more legitimate but that bumps (on a one per one basis) cause more concussions, bleeding and broken jaws and facial bones than tackles. Considering there are minimal bumps but a tonne of tackles each week I'd say that is likely true.

Jaw and facial fractures are part of the game. Jono Brown has smashed every bone twice and he's still fine. I'd hate that we softened fundamental rules to prevent something that is super hard to prevent

However, concussions are something we know little about. The evidence is minimal. But they are looking more and more nasty. Changing the game to prevent concussions may end up being a masterstroke.

 

[strobe00]

Personally I think head clash rough conduct should be discounted compared to classing it the same as a shoulder charge to the head.

Calling it medium impact because it split skin is crap, if thats why they classed it medium. It split skin because of the areas of the body that collided. If fyfe had hit him in the head with his shoulder risch would have suffered a much heavier knock to the head. Wouldn't have bled. But could have concussed him. If he hadn't bled would it have been classed as light?

Chris Judd split pav's face open with an elbow that was deemed insufficient force to constitute a report.

Just seems disproportionate to classify it as medium. If they're worried about traumatic brain injury then a head clash is much less likely to cause that, compared to a head high bump. Lumping them in on the same basis seems clumsy to me. Stitches surely aren't much fun but they're a different kettle of fish compared to a neck injury or concussion.

 

[The Swert]

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.

Lets go back to 2009....

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...ns-suspension-two-weeks-is-a-disgrace.622552/

The most controversial suspension of the year was Franklin getting 2 weeks for bumping Cousins in a very similar way.
It spawned dozens of threads on this forum with most neutrals equally upset with the death of the bump as they are now.



This decision set a precedent that has haunted the AFL ever since. The Fyfe decision has been treated just the same.

I blame Nick Maxwell and Collingwood for forcing the rule change in early 2009 after their successful appeal of his hit on McGinnity.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Whether you like it or not, these incidents will be harshly dealt with & the Rugby League accident will only stiffen the AFL's resolve.

 

[maryjames]

Lets say fyfe gets knocked out and the other player is not hurt at all. Would fyfe still get 2'weeks?

 

[King Elvis]

Pathetic, bullshit suspension.

I only saw the 'incident' yesterday; two weeks for that?

What a joke.

 

[Monkey King]

The AFL isn't saying tackles are more legitimate but that bumps (on a one per one basis) cause more concussions, bleeding and broken jaws and facial bones than tackles.

I don't see it that way. If he tackled and they clashed heads there would be no suspension. When he bumped and they clashed heads there was a suspension. This is an indication that bumping is not deemed as legitimate an action as tackling, as the head clash itself is entirely incidental and the bump was otherwise delivered fairly and in a accordance with the rules. Seeing a suspension like this makes me sad for our game.

 

[Topkent]

Its going to lead to players ducking there head when they bump almost like the NFL players hit to completely avoid head contact, either that or sheparding will be completely removed from the game and you will no longer be able to touch anyone without the ball

 

[Bender571]

A hypothetical using the Hunt case. Daniel Rich sees Hunt is about to shepherd him and knows contact is coming. How hard would it be for Rich to throw his head forward when contacts made, clash heads, and then grab his head. He potentially injures Hunt, potentially gets a free kick and potentially gets him suspended. I not saying Rich did this, I'm just saying how it's possible for players with questionable morals to exploit this rule. The shepherd is at real risk.

 

[ziad]

the game is losing its way. being suspended an accident isn't what the makers intended.

 

[Juggs Magnetic]

The AFL will soon have to outlaw bumps and tackles, possibly even marking contests, if they truly are serious about getting rid of any head contact.
Any bump has the ability to create accidental head to head contact, heads can clash in a tackle.
If Jeremy Howe goes up for a mark and his foot makes contact with someones head will he be in trouble? He chose to stand on the guys head, he could have waited till the ball came to ground, he could have chosen to use his body in a marking contest rather than recklessly jumping and making contact with someones head with his shoe.

Tribunal Report: Charged with taking a speccy.
Reckless: 2 points
Low Impact: 1 point
Head contact: 2 points
5 activation points, 2 week suspension.

 

[Pessimistic]

Poor old taylor hung must be amazed that wanganeen bumped him in vfl granny and hunt was out of it for a good 20 mins

 

[greatgatsby]

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.

Mate, I'm not sure how old you are and therefore how much footy you've seen. But you don't seem to get that this 'rule' - 'interpretation' would be more accurate (which hasn't applied to this great game for more than 99% of its existence) is fundamentally changing the game. The real issue isn't Nate Fyfe, but why faceless administrators are taking the game in a direction that the overwhelming majority of fans doesn't support. As another poster ungraciously suggested, if you don't wish ever to see anyone hurt on a sporting field maybe footy isn't for you.

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

Mate, I'm not sure how old you are and therefore how much footy you've seen. But you don't seem to get that this 'rule' - 'interpretation' would be more accurate (which hasn't applied to this great game for more than 99% of its existence) is fundamentally changing the game. The real issue isn't Nate Fyfe, but why faceless administrators are taking the game in a direction that the overwhelming majority of fans doesn't support. As another poster ungraciously suggested, if you don't wish ever to see anyone hurt on a sporting field maybe footy isn't for you.

What you don't seem to understand is that a rule is a rule. Whether or not you like the rule is up to you. Fyfe knew the rule, and he broke the rule.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

WRT Brownlow eligibility, I think negligent acts shouldn't make you ineligible, only reckless or intentional acts that result in a suspension.

Agree with this.

Although most fans don't like the direction the tribunal has gone in these past few years, I'm slowly coming to the view that it is fair enough. Yes it makes football less exciting to watch, but at the end of the day it is not our heads on the line, and it is not us who are going to be facing legal action down the track when permanent damage occurs.

So if the AFL wants to impose suspensions for players basically not being careful enough in their contact, as long as they are consistent so be it- if they think that level of stringency will make people be more careful and protect other players, that's their call.

However, it is totally insane that someone can't win a brownlow on the basis of that. The no brownlow with a suspension rule made sense when suspensions were reserved for serious things, because the AFL doesn't want thugs or cheats to walk away with the medal (hi Jobe). But it is madness that someone like Fyfe can lose eligibility for being mildly careless- there's nothing remotely unsportsmanlike or malicious about what he did.

 

[clogged]

However, it is totally insane that someone can't win a brownlow on the basis of that. The no brownlow with a suspension rule made sense when suspensions were reserved for serious things, because the AFL doesn't want thugs or cheats to walk away with the medal (hi Jobe). But it is madness that someone like Fyfe can lose eligibility for being mildly careless- there's nothing remotely unsportsmanlike or malicious about what he did.

It isn't insane, it is best and fairest. If the AFL thinks this isn't fair and therefore worthy of suspension, then so be it. The issue is that this is worth missing two games. There are other means by which to deal with these incidents which don't unfairly punish the club or player, such as fines. Apply those and let incidents that are actually not 'fair' be worthy of both suspension and loss of Brownlow eligibility.

 

[Bulldocker]

It really isn't hard to choose not to hit someone in the head. Fyfe didn't have to bump, and in effect he hit someone in the head. Rules are rules whether you like them or not.

Why don't you just shut the f*** up. Your logic belongs in the toilet. So - just supposing we all agree with you that Fyfe should have tackled or smothered...... can you please then tell us all with your "no grey area" thinking what Hunt's option was? Perhaps he should have chose to lie on the ground in the hope that the opponent tripped over him rather than laying a fair shepherd. Oh, and btw - suppose Fyfe did tackle and still created head-to-head accidental contact, how can that be any differently assessed? NFI! Accidental head contact will always happen in our great game. The irony is that Fyfe get's 2 weeks in our game for a nick above someone's eye but the poor guy that laid the NRL tackle that ACCIDENTLY put someone in a wheelchair only gets 7. At least the NRL judiciary understands intent. Our MRP was put in place to stamp out the vicious behind play stuff. But like everything else these days, these morons have got too serious about themselves and create ridiculous laws of the game like this to try to justify their last remnants of relevance to the AFL.
You opened your stupid mouth on here with a ridiculous statement and are now just too far past stupid to back down. The lawmakers of today's game are currently so far up their own arses that they might even find you there!