Fyfe - how many weeks?

[strobe00]

True. It is a chook raffle.

And suspect there will be a bunch of players clenching their fists to avoid slogging someone during finals.

 

[blue harvest]

Is striking always considered intentional? Wonder if josh gibson is aware of that. Wasn't his hit on conca classed as negligent?

He certainly dodged a bullet didn't he?

So no... in play striking is not judged the same as out of play striking. The gibson decision proves that.

Lucky for the hawks as that would have been a longer holiday if he'd copped intentional, high contact, medium impact. Wouldn't be escaping with a reprimand in that case would he?

Gibson's intent was to spoil, not strike. If they thought he intended to strike they would have classed it intentional.

 

[strobe00]

Gibson's intent was to spoil, not strike. If they thought he intended to strike they would have classed it intentional.

You make my own point for me. If the incident had been out of play it would have instantly been assigned as intentional. Because it was in play they can apparently use the other gradings.


Different rules based on in play or out of play. Which was my point.

 

[blue harvest]

You make my own point for me. If the incident had been out of play it would have instantly been assigned as intentional. Because it was in play they can apparently use the other gradings.


Different rules based on in play or out of play. Which was my point.

If Fyfe did that in play it would still be classified intentional, because he intended to strike.

If Gibson did that out of play then yes it would prove he was intending to strike. That doesn't mean they judge intent differently. They look at it and decide if he intended to strike or not.

 

[worthy]

Did I hear this right, Freo/Fyfe went into the hearing to challenge the "intentional" part of the charge, and then proceeded to admit to intentionally striking Lewis.
Where's the face palm pic

 

[W.C. Fry]

Freo need to sack their tribunal team. Not being able to get Crowley off pinching when the only evidence was a little shits testimony of getting pinched 300 times was laughable. This Fyfe case was even worse. Challenging an intentional strike by admitting it was intentional??? Wow.

 

[QPower]

Ken Hinkley was right. You get what you deserve.

 

[MattyB_76]

Is striking always considered intentional? Wonder if josh gibson is aware of that. Wasn't his hit on conca classed as negligent?

He certainly dodged a bullet didn't he?

So no... in play striking is not judged the same as out of play striking. The gibson decision proves that.

Lucky for the hawks as that would have been a longer holiday if he'd copped intentional, high contact, medium impact. Wouldn't be escaping with a reprimand in that case would he?

This has been common knowledge since the start of the 2012 season. In an effort to stamp out off-the-ball incidents, the AFL decided that all off-the-ball incidents would be classed as intentional.

Personally, I think it would have been graded as reckless if it happened on-the-ball.

 

[Jake1987]

Nonsense on idea that there is no difference between intent to body strike and intent to high strike. Chairman Howie stated himself: "it is necessary for the jury to be convinced it was an intentional high strike, not just an intentional strike".

Yet never gave the decision to the jury to deliberate on, just ruled himself.

Not my words, rather the words of the chairman himself. Clearly the tribunal take the position that there is a difference.

My take being, sending it to the jury to decide on would have surely had it downgraded to reckless and 1 week.

 

[cryptor]

"Making contact" is not "striking". That's my point. He did not admit to striking.

"Striking" had already been confirmed and accepted as being what had occurred by the video footage. Saying "made contact" in this instance refers to striking. He effectively admitted his intention was to strike.

The rules are quite air tight on this given what has happened and how Freo decided to challenge it. The intentional conduct grading in the law book is quite thorough and reads like it was written specifically for this incident.

 

[Furn2]

I still dont get why you wouldnt just take the 2 weeks with just 7 carry over points. Its 2 dead rubbers anyway.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

"Striking" had already been confirmed and accepted as being what had occurred by the video footage. Saying "made contact" in this instance refers to striking. He effectively admitted his intention was to strike.

The rules are quite air tight on this given what has happened and how Freo decided to challenge it. The intentional conduct grading in the law book is quite thorough and reads like it was written specifically for this incident.

I do agree. I'm more suggesting that the only way to get a lesser penalty was to argue it was not a "strike", but an effort to get past a player who youd have to suggest was defacto shepherding you from reaching a contest. Then the act of contact to the head was not part of a "strike", and you'd then argue your guilty of some sort of misconduct, low impact, accidental high contact. And I'm not arguing the video evidence would back this up, it's just the only way you could get a lesser penalty.

If we were to appeal again, it would have to be on the grounds that the tribunal misinterpreted Freo's argument as being guilty of a strike to the body, rather guilty of contact to the head that resulted from an action that was not striking, simply trying to get past a player. accept it was reckless and resulted in a head impact. THe risk is would that actually result in a lower punishment anyway?

Either that or we take the new penalty and sack our legal representative as he is seriously leading us down the garden path.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

I still dont get why you wouldnt just take the 2 weeks with just 7 carry over points. Its 2 dead rubbers anyway.

We kinda do need to win one of them. If we lose to Brisbane (always a tough trip and they are in some sort of form), and then the last to Port (a play off for 4th spot) then we potentially slip to 5th - percentages are pretty close.

Had we not been humilated by St Kilda (and given we've since lost by a point away to the cats and had a good home win vs Hawks that result is looking odder by the day) then maybe we'd not have appealed.

 

[strobe00]

If Fyfe did that in play it would still be classified intentional, because he intended to strike.

If Gibson did that out of play then yes it would prove he was intending to strike. That doesn't mean they judge intent differently. They look at it and decide if he intended to strike or not.

Striking in play has been given reckless or negligent on a number of occasions, as there is the potential excuse of it being a legit challenge.

Off the ball doesn't have the same latitude as there's no other reason to do it. But where someone is hit first matters for in play incidents. Doesn't matter for out of play. The treatment of the incident is different when it's in play or not.

It's done in any case.

 

[strobe00]

This has been common knowledge since the start of the 2012 season. In an effort to stamp out off-the-ball incidents, the AFL decided that all off-the-ball incidents would be classed as intentional.

Personally, I think it would have been graded as reckless if it happened on-the-ball.

I'd have thought so too. Which is why the challenge was made I suspect. It's a blanket assignment, based on trying to stamp out all off the ball incidents. The details of the case re: initial location of the strike apparently don't matter as it was off the ball, despite the fact that the treatment of in play incidents DOES consider the initial point of contact.

Personally I don't believe that a bloke smacking another in the head by accident should be treated identically to one that picks his spot and belts a bloke straight in the head. This treatment of intent doesn't matter to the tribunal. I think the challenge would have held up in a court of law. But the mrp isn't a court of law, so doesn't need to operate according to the same standards. Not a bad thing overall but unlucky for fyfe.

Hopefully the blanket intentional classification is enforced for all future incidents, as this looks like it establishes a clear precedent.

Wouldn't be the first time fyfe has gotten done for something this year and then the interpretation has changed down the track.

 

[MattyB_76]

I'd have thought so too. Which is why the challenge was made I suspect. It's a blanket assignment, based on trying to stamp out all off the ball incidents. The details of the case re: initial location of the strike apparently don't matter as it was off the ball.

Hopefully the blanket intentional classification is enforced for all future incidents, as this looks like it establishes a clear precedent.

Wouldn't be the first time fyfe has gotten done for something this year and then the interpretation has changed down the track.

I'm pretty sure the conduct aspect has been consistent for a while for everything off the ball. I don't see this Fyfe one bucking any trend.

 

[strobe00]

I'm pretty sure the conduct aspect has been consistent for a while for everything off the ball. I don't see this Fyfe one bucking any trend.

It's the first one I've seen where body contact ended up as head contact.

As long as the same interpretation is applied for all future cases then that's life.

We've seen interpretations changed to suit media uproar before though, so I won't hold my breath. If it had been hodge or mcveigh that did it... I can't help but think the interpretation would have changed. I genuinely think it would have.

Time will tell though. Could be a while as its a pretty unusual case.

 

[blue harvest]

Nonsense on idea that there is no difference between intent to body strike and intent to high strike. Chairman Howie stated himself: "it is necessary for the jury to be convinced it was an intentional high strike, not just an intentional strike".

Yet never gave the decision to the jury to deliberate on, just ruled himself.

Not my words, rather the words of the chairman himself. Clearly the tribunal take the position that there is a difference.

My take being, sending it to the jury to decide on would have surely had it downgraded to reckless and 1 week.

They were the words of the blogger on the AFL website, not Howie.
I think the blogger made a mistake and meant to say Howie said it is not necessary for the jury to be convinced it was an intentional high strike, just an intentional strike. All of the other commentary he was making each side of this statement supports this. The blogger said Howie isn't buying the defence and he thought it would stay at 2 weeks given Howie's opinion.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Well it'd be handy if you picked a more relevant quote next time.

Your point about intention seems clear to you. But the rules for intention change when it's in play or not.

If an action is in play... then one rule holds... non-intentional contact to the head is considered non intentional. If the action is out of play this rule is thrown out and a blanket intentional is applied regardless of what part of the body was hit first.

It seems simple, but the law needs to be tested as the current laws don't spell this situation out explicitly. I'm sure they'll be reworded to suit at some point. The "unless there is clear evidence that the result wasn't intended" provides room to challenge.

If you can't understand that the way the tribunal rules are currently stated provides some wiggle room, then my commiserations. The world must be very different when you see it as black and white.

I had so many choices to pick from in quoting you, sorry, I'll try harder next time.

As for the highlighted, you appear to still be confused. You're melding two elements of the offence in together. Once you untwist that in your mind, it will all become clear to you.

an example :

1. The action was intentional
2. The contact was high
3. There was low impact.

You keep putting 1 and 2 together and basing your argument on it. They're two seperate elements.

 

[cryptor]

I do agree. I'm more suggesting that the only way to get a lesser penalty was to argue it was not a "strike", but an effort to get past a player who youd have to suggest was defacto shepherding you from reaching a contest. Then the act of contact to the head was not part of a "strike", and you'd then argue your guilty of some sort of misconduct, low impact, accidental high contact. And I'm not arguing the video evidence would back this up, it's just the only way you could get a lesser penalty.

If we were to appeal again, it would have to be on the grounds that the tribunal misinterpreted Freo's argument as being guilty of a strike to the body, rather guilty of contact to the head that resulted from an action that was not striking, simply trying to get past a player. accept it was reckless and resulted in a head impact. THe risk is would that actually result in a lower punishment anyway?

Either that or we take the new penalty and sack our legal representative as he is seriously leading us down the garden path.

They'd tear that argument to shreds for a few reasons.

Best quit while they're ahead and definitely find some new legal rep. Preferably someone who is familiar with AFL tribunal law, or has even just read the book once.

 

[Impunity!]

I had so many choices to pick from in quoting you, sorry, I'll try harder next time.

As for the highlighted, you appear to still be confused. You're melding two elements of the offence in together. Once you untwist that in your mind, it will all become clear to you.

an example :

1. The action was intentional
2. The contact was high
3. There was low impact.

You keep putting 1 and 2 together and basing your argument on it. They're two seperate elements.

This is correct, strobe00 - I was there.

The questions were:

1. Did Fyfe intend to strike? Answer: Yes (Fyfe admitted)
2. Was the impact low? Answer: Yes (MRP ruling not challenged)
3. Was Lewis hit high? Answer: Yes (Video, also Fyfe admitted the strike "slipped up" due to Lewis' arm)

Therefore, intentional/low impact/high.

That is why the Chairman didn't even refer it to the jury - there was no question of fact to refer.

As for precedent, please note the tribunal is not bound by the rules of precedent, and can inform itself in any way it deems fit.

 

[strobe00]

I had so many choices to pick from in quoting you, sorry, I'll try harder next time.

As for the highlighted, you appear to still be confused. You're melding two elements of the offence in together. Once you untwist that in your mind, it will all become clear to you.

an example :

1. The action was intentional
2. The contact was high
3. There was low impact.

You keep putting 1 and 2 together and basing your argument on it. They're two seperate elements.

They're only separate because of the blanket assumption that all off ball actions are intentional, and there is no consideration of whether the resulting contact to the head was intended or not.

This distinction is made for on ball incidents. It isn't for off ball incidents. Fyfe wasn't aiming at lewis' head. But he got done for it as if he had. If it had happened on ball it would have been given reckless.

It's a blanket application that doesn't consider whether the result was intended, or a by product. I have a problem with that, and would even if it was a player from another team. Would care a lot less, but that'd still be my belief.

 

[Impunity!]

They're only separate because of the blanket assumption that all off ball actions are intentional, and there is no consideration of whether the resulting contact to the head was intended or not.

This distinction is made for on ball incidents. It isn't for off ball incidents. Fyfe wasn't aiming at lewis' head. But he got done for it as if he had. If it had happened on ball it would have been given reckless.

It's a blanket application that doesn't consider whether the result was intended, or a by product. I have a problem with that, and would even if it was a player from another team. Would care a lot less, but that'd still be my belief.

That's not correct, all that is considered is whether the intention was to strike. Intention as to target or impact are not relevant.

Fyfe admitted his intent was to strike, so whether it had been on or off the ball, his admission means the intent was locked in.

 

[strobe00]

This is correct, strobe00 - I was there.

The questions were:

1. Did Fyfe intend to strike? Answer: Yes (Fyfe admitted)
2. Was the impact low? Answer: Yes (MRP ruling not challenged)
3. Was Lewis hit high? Answer: Yes (Video, also Fyfe admitted the strike "slipped up" due to Lewis' arm)

Therefore, intentional/low impact/high.

That is why the Chairman didn't even refer it to the jury - there was no question of fact to refer.

As for precedent, please note the tribunal is not bound by the rules of precedent, and can inform itself in any way it deems fit.

I can understand that that is how the gleeson and howie approached it. As I've said a few times now I have a problem with the fact that fyfe is copping exactly the same penalty as if he'd punched lewis straight in the face, despite the contact to the head being accidental.

Forseeable, but accidental. Would have been reckless if on ball. Automatically assigned as intentional as it was off ball.

What do you think is dodgier. A bloke punching someone straight in the face, or punching him in the arm and accidentally collecting him in the face? I don't care that the tribunal doesn't distinguish between the two. Use your own head and tell me what you personally think.

The way the tribunal has applied the laws they're treating both actions in exactly the same way.

 

[strobe00]

This is correct, strobe00 - I was there.

The questions were:

1. Did Fyfe intend to strike? Answer: Yes (Fyfe admitted)
2. Was the impact low? Answer: Yes (MRP ruling not challenged)
3. Was Lewis hit high? Answer: Yes (Video, also Fyfe admitted the strike "slipped up" due to Lewis' arm)

Therefore, intentional/low impact/high.

That is why the Chairman didn't even refer it to the jury - there was no question of fact to refer.

As for precedent, please note the tribunal is not bound by the rules of precedent, and can inform itself in any way it deems fit.

I can understand that that is how the gleeson and howie approached it. As I've said a few times now I have a problem with the fact that fyfe is copping exactly the same penalty as if he'd punched lewis straight in the face, despite the contact to the head being accidental.

Forseeable, but accidental. Would have been reckless if on ball. Automatically assigned as intentional as it was off ball.

What do you think is dodgier. A bloke punching someone straight in the face, or punching him in the arm and accidentally collecting him in the face? I don't care that the tribunal doesn't distinguish between the two. Use your own head and tell me what you personally think.

The way the tribunal has applied the laws they're treating both actions in exactly the same way.