Fyfe trip to cost him the 2015 Brownlow?

[smeltitdeltit]

Mate you are getting more idiotic by the post. The rule is definite not requiring interpretation. Where the rules require interpretation, it usually starts 'In the opinion of the umpire.....'

Suckling went a long way off his line and that is 'play on' under the rules. If you want to that big a stretch under the guise of interpretation then there are almost no rules any more because they can be 'interpreted' to mean anything you like and that is clearly wrong.

The free against Ballantyne was also wrong. Two players touch off the ball does not equal a free kick, even if one of them takes a dive in front of the umpire. Unless you want to go to the point that any touch of the ball is a free kick....and please show me that rule if you think thats the case. That would also mean about 2, 000 free kicks per game. Thats close to maximum level stupid. Oddly enough, most opposition supporters and 'experienced' former players all pointed out how wrong that decision was

That rule was the same when Gieschen made his statement. Do you think he came up with that by himself or was that a directive from the laws of the game? Hint. It's the second option.


Ok so now with Ballintyne you want to allow interpretation.
"Prohibited contact:
Laws of Australian Football 2015 49 48 Laws of Australian Football 2015

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:

(e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;

Pretty black and white to me.
But guess what? They use INTERPRETATION to stop your scenario playing out.
Bouncing the ball every 15 meters? Very specific hey! Very loosely adjudicated
The list goes on.

 

[imperial_oz]

You are blind, Fyfe clearly sticks his leg out. Very minimal contact, but pattern behaviour.

Mitchell on the other hand, did not have his Brownlow chances questioned to a chorus of 'nothing in it' He was pilloried, copped his whack and...lo and behold...has not transgressed since. crime - punishment - improved behaviour. How the system is supposed to work.

But your talk of Mitchell (and arced runups) is all deflection. Since you are very good with the biomechanics explanations, could you elucidate on why Fyfe has his leg out so awkwardly in the above pic? I mean, he goes from not having his leg extended to having his leg extended, right at the moment Suckling was going to run by him and inside 50...I'm not bright enough to figure it out, could you explain it for me?

I could but I doubt you would have sufficient capacity to understand.

Try diving full stretch on to the ground and seeing how control you have over your legs as you bounce.

Also try not to be the obvious troll and take two screen grabs as though thats the entire body of evidence. The video clearly shows Fyfe diving forward in an attempt to spoil a kick into the forward 50, not sweeping the leg.

As for Mitchell getting pilloried, thats a joke. He kneed a number of players this year and only got a 1000 dollar for one of those offences. Hawthorn continued to make excuses for him and continually denied he did anything wrong. As for getting it out of his game, thats another laugh isnt it

 

[imperial_oz]

That rule was the same when Gieschen made his statement. Do you think he came up with that by himself or was that a directive from the laws of the game? Hint. It's the second option.


Ok so now with Ballintyne you want to allow interpretation.
"Prohibited contact:
Laws of Australian Football 2015 49 48 Laws of Australian Football 2015

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:

(e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;

Pretty black and white to me.
But guess what? They use INTERPRETATION to stop your scenario playing out.
Bouncing the ball every 15 meters? Very specific hey! Very loosely adjudicated
The list goes on.

1. You are assuming Ballantyne initiated the contact, not something I would agree with since both players were moving in straight lines
2. Where was the free when Ballantyne was thrown to the ground by Lake, off the ball.

So its interpret things in one direction?

We are arguing in circles here. You are incapable of admitting you are wrong and pretending that rules should be interpreted in a manner that suits you only. Come back when you grow up a bit

 

[Mr Lizard]

Try diving full stretch on to the ground and seeing how control you have over your legs as you bounce.

Also try not to be the obvious troll and take two screen grabs as though thats the entire body of evidence. The video clearly shows Fyfe diving forward in an attempt to spoil a kick into the forward 50, not sweeping the leg.

As for Mitchell getting pilloried, thats a joke. He kneed a number of players this year and only got a 1000 dollar for one of those offences. Hawthorn continued to make excuses for him and continually denied he did anything wrong. As for getting it out of his game, thats another laugh isnt it

He wasn't bouncing. The leg goes out to the side on his way down. There is no clear and concise footage of this, as channel seven did not start with their game of "How many weeks" so the replay was minimal. There is the angle I took caps of, and there is a wider shot from another angle. I did the best I could with whats available, but you can watch for yourself on the link. Rather than call me a troll, watch that portion again. I'm yet to see a credible explanation for why his leg goes out to the side like that.




I remember Mitchell acknowledging he had to keep his knees in, so you are just talking complete smack on that last.

 

[imperial_oz]

He wasn't bouncing. The leg goes out to the side on his way down. There is no clear and concise footage of this, as channel seven did not start with their game of "How many weeks" so the replay was minimal. There is the angle I took caps of, and there is a wider shot from another angle. I did the best I could with whats available, but you can watch for yourself on the link. Rather than call me a troll, watch that portion again. I'm yet to see a credible explanation for why his leg goes out to the side like that.




I remember Mitchell acknowledging he had to keep his knees in, so you are just talking complete smack on that last.

Well the only smack talk I've seen is you making a completely false claim that Fyfe 'swept the leg' and we both know that didn't occur. You are a troll and a poor one.

As for Mitchell, he pretended he kneed players in 'self defence' another poor lie and only admitted he needed to stop doing it when he was called out on his repeated behaviour on television. Lets not pretend the little grub has suddenly seen the light. He's just avoiding the bad publicity because he knows the AFL won't be able to get him off again like last time.

 

[Mr Lizard]

...we both know that didn't occur.

This is incorrect. I'm not sure how much of my posting you have comprehended but my contention has been that he did, in fact, sweep the leg.

Somewhat similar to this:

No more with your Mitchell deflections please. Straighten up your arc.

 

[HairyO]

So does Fyfe's trip on Suckling last night draw a fine (seeing as it won't affect his Brownlow chances) or does he get away with it again?

Free kick was the right call. He was off balance so it would be hard to call deliberate. Balantyne's deliberate trip should cop a fine or even a week.

Tackling Breust over the boundary should have been a report. Lake was reported for far less on Vickery.

Pretty sure Lake will be reviewed more closely by the MRP than Fyfe this week.



Will be interested to hear the excuse this time. Was he making an elbow to do the chicken dance and accidentally got the point of it too close to the opposition player's head?

I think his excuse would be that this was the 2013 Grand Final and he has already served his 2 week penalty.

 

[imperial_oz]

This is incorrect. I'm not sure how much of my posting you have comprehended but my contention has been that he did, in fact, sweep the leg.

Somewhat similar to this:

No more with your Mitchell deflections please. Straighten up your arc.

So your evidence against Fyfe is from a different game. Seems legit

Fyfe didn't sweep the leg as you falsly claimed. He didnt do it at least 3 times this year as you falsly claimed. Mitchell hasn't changed his tactics, again as you have falsly claimed.

Give it up. This keyboard warrior rubbish is achieving nothing. You are just a low rent troll

 

[Mr Lizard]

troll

I'm not trolling at all, just airing my opinion. Sorry that you are having trouble dealing with it, I guess?

There are a lot of similarities between that gif against the Dogs and last night. Fyfe attempting a smother on the right boot, gets beaten on his right side, right leg goes out sideways to make contact. The angles against the Dogs (Crameri? Stringer?) led to a more forceful hit, but the AFL has usually been pretty stringent on this type of contact. Doesn't take much to get a broken leg out of these.

 

[imperial_oz]

I'm not trolling at all, just airing my opinion. Sorry that you are having trouble dealing with it, I guess?

There are a lot of similarities between that gif against the Dogs and last night. Fyfe attempting a smother on the right boot, gets beaten on his right side, right leg goes out sideways to make contact. The angles against the Dogs (Crameri? Stringer?) led to a more forceful hit, but the AFL has usually been pretty stringent on this type of contact. Doesn't take much to get a broken leg out of these.

You don't get any better do you. Every time you get put under scrutiny you worm you try to worm your way out.

You made a couple of crap statements and got called on it. It seems the video replay doesn't support your garbage call so you use video from another game and say its similar. You made a statement that he 'swept the leg' when the video shows he didn't. You resorted to two selected screen captures and left out 99% of the video and every time you get shown up, you ignore 99% of whats posted and select one word on which you attempt a response.

Crap on all you want. Your posts have nothing, are worth even less and just show you up as having no idea....and even less class.

Go and take the win, however you got it. You are making better Hawks supporters look bad

 

[Mr Lizard]

wormy worm worm

I posted the link to the vid, you idiot, and invited you to have another look. If I had oogac skills I'd have made a gif.

Look at the footage and at the gif, and the similarities are there. You keep telling me I didn't see what I saw, that I am making it up. Then something about Mitchell, deflections, arcs, and then some insults...I dunno what to say. I'm interested to see what the MRP has to say now that Brownlow isn't a factor.

Sorry for your loss.

 

[imperial_oz]

I posted the link to the vid, you idiot, and invited you to have another look. If I had oogac skills I'd have made a gif.

Look at the footage and at the gif, and the similarities are there. You keep telling me I didn't see what I saw, that I am making it up. Then something about Mitchell, deflections, arcs, and then some insults...I dunno what to say. I'm interested to see what the MRP has to say now that Brownlow isn't a factor.

Sorry for your loss.

You posted a lot of stuff. All of which has been shown to be wrong.

Your response is to edit my posts. I guess thats all you have. Pathetic really

 

[Mr Lizard]

All of which has been shown to be wrong.

You've shown nothing to be wrong, you've just disagreed with me.

(and insults and deflections)

 

[imperial_oz]

You've shown nothing to be wrong, you've just disagreed with me.

(and insults and deflections)

So, you have nothing?

 

[smeltitdeltit]

1. You are assuming Ballantyne initiated the contact, not something I would agree with since both players were moving in straight lines
2. Where was the free when Ballantyne was thrown to the ground by Lake, off the ball.

So its interpret things in one direction?

We are arguing in circles here. You are incapable of admitting you are wrong and pretending that rules should be interpreted in a manner that suits you only. Come back when you grow up a bit

I'm not the one suggesting the rules be followed literally to letter of the law in one instance, but ignored and relaxed in another.
Basically you're a hypocrite.
End of the day, winners are grinners and enjoy your little whinge-fest, woe is me, us vs them, umpires are corrupt, blah blah blah, I've got a Grand Final to plan for.
Enjoy the off season.

 

[Mr Lizard]

So, you have nothing?

I've posted my thoughts, what else do you want chief?

Attempts to smother right foot kick? check
Kick held back, Fyfe beaten on right side? check
Fyfe's right leg extends, contacting opponents leg? check

They aren't the same, but there are plenty of similarities between these incidents. There was another similar incident against the Hawks at Aurora, but the only game footage provided by the official broadcasters is of Mitchell's knee and Fyfe's 'spoil' against Duryea. Getting a screen cap of that is more labour than I am prepared to enact for you, you'll just have to take my word for it. I think it was Liam Shiels who was tripped in that instance.

 

[imperial_oz]

I'm not the one suggesting the rules be followed literally to letter of the law in one instance, but ignored and relaxed in another.
Basically you're a hypocrite.
End of the day, winners are grinners and enjoy your little whinge-fest, woe is me, us vs them, umpires are corrupt, blah blah blah, I've got a Grand Final to plan for.
Enjoy the off season.

I've never suggested that rules be followed literally in some circumstances and not others. I'm saying follow the rules as written...always.

I pointed out to you a very clear and simple example of two players coming together resulting in an undeserved free to Hawthorn, yet when an intentional act took place with Lake throwing Ballantyne to the ground off the ball, its play on. You agree with this, so who is the hypocrite here.

The Suckling kick was play on and the goal should not have counted. The first Ballantyne incident was not triggered by any player, so no free kick.

Just imagine how much harder that game would have been with accurate competent umpiring. You might have won but you'd have to say its doubtful......and the whole footy world knows it. Live with that, champ

 

[imperial_oz]

I've posted my thoughts, what else do you want chief?

Attempts to smother right foot kick? check
Kick held back, Fyfe beaten on right side? check
Fyfe's right leg extends, contacting opponents leg? check

They aren't the same, but there are plenty of similarities between these incidents. There was another similar incident against the Hawks at Aurora, but the only game footage provided by the official broadcasters is of Mitchell's knee and Fyfe's 'spoil' against Duryea. Getting a screen cap of that is more labour than I am prepared to enact for you, you'll just have to take my word for it. I think it was Liam Shiels who was tripped in that instance.

Give it up. You have access to the whole video but it shows you to be wrong so you take two screen grabs and bullshit.

Like I said, you have nothing.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Give it up. You have access to the whole video but it shows you to be wrong so you take two screen grabs and bullshit.

Like I said, you have nothing.

You have access to the whole video, and it shows me to be right.

(we aren't really going places here)

(also, it wasn't play on, have a look on the video for that too)

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I've never suggested that rules be followed literally in some circumstances and not others. I'm saying follow the rules as written...always.

I pointed out to you a very clear and simple example of two players coming together resulting in an undeserved free to Hawthorn, yet when an intentional act took place with Lake throwing Ballantyne to the ground off the ball, its play on. You agree with this, so who is the hypocrite here.

The Suckling kick was play on and the goal should not have counted. The first Ballantyne incident was not triggered by any player, so no free kick.

Just imagine how much harder that game would have been with accurate competent umpiring. You might have won but you'd have to say its doubtful......and the whole footy world knows it. Live with that, champ

Where did I agree that the lake one was ok? I don't even remember the incident. Are all your tears clouding your vision and the words jumble together on the screen?
Please quote me saying the lake one was ok!
Please find that quote or are you going to be too scared and embarrassed to admit you made it up? Champ.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

1. You are assuming Ballantyne initiated the contact, not something I would agree with since both players were moving in straight lines
2. Where was the free when Ballantyne was thrown to the ground by Lake, off the ball.

So its interpret things in one direction?

We are arguing in circles here. You are incapable of admitting you are wrong and pretending that rules should be interpreted in a manner that suits you only. Come back when you grow up a bit

Well so far we've clarified you're completely wrong with one of the incidents in question, with any luck they'l publish the findings on the other one! (Suckling)


"
An off-the-ball incident involving Fremantle's Hayden Ballantyne and Hawthorn's Matt Suckling has been given the tick of approval.

"I'm really comfortable with that decision because if you look at the down the ground vision Hayden moves in the direction of (Suckling) and makes contact," Kennedy said.

"There are lots of places Ballantyne could have run and we believe it was a correct free kick."


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-28/some-grounds-are-difficult-places-to-umpire

 

[Some Idiot]

That's a few times now that Fyfe has performed his sliding tackle move and almost broken someone's leg. Needs to be stamped out of the game