Applying the Fyfe Rule

Remove this Banner Ad

Well, just saw the Merrett incident. Can't believe the result will be the same. fyfe should have gone into that contest with a fist to the head as well. Better chance to reduce opposition numbers...
 
He is smart and claim he did not hit the head. Video is not clear. Missed the criteria for high bump

According to the Suns footy manager, he didn't claim that at all. He claimed the contact to the head was accidental and most of the contact was to the chest.

Zorko certainly didn't get a blood nose and cut on his cheek from hitting the ground as was suggested earlier. He landed on his back.

Based on that, we made a mistake not challenging Fyfe, especially given he was getting a 2 week ban regardless.
 
According to the Suns footy manager, he didn't claim that at all. He claimed the contact to the head was accidental and most of the contact was to the chest.

Zorko certainly didn't get a blood nose and cut on his cheek from hitting the ground as was suggested earlier. He landed on his back.

Based on that, we made a mistake not challenging Fyfe, especially given he was getting a 2 week ban regardless.

I got my info from the tribunal tweeter stream so....

On the more detailed write up,

"My shoulder and chest made contact with his shoulder and chest … our heads did not clash," May told the Tribunal.

"I made first contact with his shoulder and chest region and if I did get him in the head it would have been minimal contact.

"I felt it was too late to tackle him as the ball was about to leave his boot. I don't think I had an alternative."

I'm quite sure someone coached him what to say. He argued both in not hitting the head, and having no other reasonable alternative.

I agree that Fyfe should have rolled the dice at the tribunal, though it's a lot harder for him to get off than may did.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

One of the things that shat me most with the May one (He def. made head contact, as stated he landed on his back, so the damage to the head which Zorko came straight off with, must have come as part of the bump).. is the part of their successful defence argument that he had no option to tackle because Zorko had already kicked the ball... WELL WTF DO YOU THINK RISCHITELLI HAD DONE, and yet all last week the football world was adament that Fyfe should have tackled as he had the option to.
 
^^ Exactly. They were the same except that May's I guess was a glancing blow whereas Fyfe's was more front on (i.e. he hurt himself just as much).

The powers that be were totally inept not to challenge Fyfe's ban. But for the cut eye, there was no concussion, no broken jaw, no worries. Rischitelli played out the game fine. It was a total over-reaction by the MRP to an ill-thought out new rule and the club should have had the balls to argue that the force was insufficient.
 
Just posting this in the first Fyfe thread I saw on your board as a bit off-topic. I saw an article that Fyfe now has his own clothing label - Saint Street Clothing. I googled it and nothing came up, have I got the name right (for anyone who may know)?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remove this Banner Ad

Applying the Fyfe Rule

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top