Fyfe - how many weeks?

[Reginald Perrin]

Freo/Fyfe, so hard done by

How about get some dicipline happening?

How about getting some finals happening?

 

[hoss]

Freo/Fyfe, so hard done by

How about get some dicipline happening?

Your obsession is telling.

 

[Ripper]

So the you agree that the decision to not change the plea to guilty was futile?

And on a slightly different point - how certain are you that he acted outside the allowed scope?

He pleaded guilty to intentional , body , low impact or Reckless , high , low impact. Not to Intentional , high , low.

It was up to the jury to decide which one fitted best.

 

[DanWA]

Proceeds?

Would you care to point out how you have arrived at your ludicrously stupid position?

His previous suspension history and all the other hits that he didnt get pinged for, was surprised they highlighted this and not the hit on Langdon

 

[DanWA]

You are as insignificant as your ridiculous and moronic posts. Now stop embarrassing yourself and go away. I'm starting to feel sorry for you ... clearly out of your depth here.

Yep playing the man and not the post is the right thing to do?

 

[Suma Magic]

He pleaded guilty to intentional , body , low impact or Reckless , high , low impact. Not to Intentional , high , low.

It was up to the jury to decide which one fitted best.

I was more looking for something in the rules about his ability to not allow the jury to rule, not just your opinion.

I retain my view that it was the worst appeal in afl history, given they were told in advance they couldn't win.

 

[DanWA]

How about getting some finals happening?

Nice troll post, how many premierships you got again?

 

[DanWA]

Your obsession is telling.

What obsession?

 

[DanWA]

I was more looking for something in the rules about his ability to not allow the jury to rule, not just your opinion.

I retain my view that it was the worst appeal in afl history, given they were told in advance they couldn't win.

My thoughts exactly, besides trying to get it down to 1 week (which i what i thought it should have been at worst)

I cannot fathmon how they thought it should be let go

 

[Ripper]

I was more looking for something in the rules about his ability to not allow the jury to rule, not just your opinion.

I retain my view that it was the worst appeal in afl history, given they were told in advance they couldn't win.

Check the rules or the thread on the Freo board.

 

[Suma Magic]

Check the rules or the thread on the Freo board.

I'm genuinely interested in knowing if he acted outside the rules in the case. But I can't be bothered looking up the rules to find out if he has. Ill check out the Freo thread, but I'm sceptical that ill find anything other than opinion.

 

[Ripper]

I'm genuinely interested in knowing if he acted outside the rules in the case. But I can't be bothered looking up the rules to find out if he has. Ill check out the Freo thread, but I'm sceptical that ill find anything other than opinion.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/fyfe-in-trouble.1073448/page-20#post-34626978

 

[Reginald Perrin]

His previous suspension history and all the other hits that he didnt get pinged for, was surprised they highlighted this and not the hit on Langdon

The word you were hunting for was precedes. His 2 previous suspensions hardly qualify him as a dirty player, especially as one is universally accepted to be the direct result of a poorly written rule, and "all the other hits" is an irrelevance that exists in your mind only.

It's Langford btw and they didn't highlight his hit on Fyfe either, so what?

 

[hoss]

Yep playing the man and not the post is the right thing to do?

Yawn. You were the one playing the man.

 

[Ripper]

I'm genuinely interested in knowing if he acted outside the rules in the case. But I can't be bothered looking up the rules to find out if he has. Ill check out the Freo thread, but I'm sceptical that ill find anything other than opinion.

Here's a probably more relevant one.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/fyfe-in-trouble.1073448/page-19#post-34626595

 

[Suma Magic]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/fyfe-in-trouble.1073448/page-20#post-34626978

Cheers.

 

[Suma Magic]

Here's a probably more relevant one.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/fyfe-in-trouble.1073448/page-19#post-34626595

The rules also say (I just had a quick look) that the "Chairman manages process and decides on points of law."

That's the opposing argument.

So I suppose the argument should be: was the Chairman deciding on a point of law?

I don't know the answer for sure, but I think he was.

 

[samFFC]

Except it's not a court of law.

But it tries to emulate this. Are you saying setting precedents to maximise consistency is a bad thing?

 

[Ripper]

The rules also say (I just had a quick look) that the "Chairman manages process and decides on points of law."

That's the opposing argument.

So I suppose the argument should be: was the Chairman deciding on a point of law?

I don't know the answer for sure, but I think he was.

He is wrong , the player at the tribunal is supposed to be judged by his peers that have played the game. Not by "points of law", which he got wrong anyway.

 

[DanWA]

The word you were hunting for was precedes. His 2 previous suspensions hardly qualify him as a dirty player, especially as one is universally accepted to be the direct result of a poorly written rule, and "all the other hits" is an irrelevance that exists in your mind only.

It's Langford btw and they didn't highlight his hit on Fyfe either, so what?

Its clear that your judgement is clouded, i might be the same if it were an Eagles player so you can slide for that one

 

[DanWA]

Yawn. You were the one playing the man.

I clearly wasn't.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I must be. I can't understand what you're talking about. What was your point? That I was looking at a different table to the fella I was talking to?

Or was it just a general obnoxious query?

My point was, it's been explained to you multiple times why it is deemed intentional and you keep trying to argue about where Fyfe intended to hit him and why that, in your view makes it unintentional.
It doesn't matter where he connected as to whether it was intentional or not.

 

[Suma Magic]

He is wrong , the player at the tribunal is supposed to be judged by his peers that have played the game. Not by "points of law", which he got wrong anyway.

The chairman decides on points of law. It's just a matter of whether its a point of law.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

We need a new legal team. If fyfe had said he swung his arm across to try and get past the player, and in the motion of forcing his way past he inadvertently made contact to the head with his upper arm, however while there was some high contact it was in no way a striking action. Point out who strikes with their bicep? That may have won.

You can't admit to striking but missing. Otherwise you'd not give high tackle frees against players who meant to tackle at a legal height.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

Just to add to that... Arguing it was not a strike, rather an attempt to get past a player that went wrong, that would have been negligent or reckless. There was no way that arguing it was a strike that was not meant to make high contact was going to work.