Fyfe trip to cost him the 2015 Brownlow?

[Borry]

Shock horror, fans cracking the shits over a penalty given correctly according to the laws of the game which were modified due to their constant whinging and moaning on how the game's gone too soft.

 

[Oxirane]

I'd imagine contact above the knee would be considered a kick and not a trip

Do the MRP still have different weightings for things (like when striking was always less than rough conduct) or do they just use that table now?

I ask because Naitanui's dangling leg hit Redden on the quad and he was fined for tripping.

 

[Fyfetheknife]

Johnson didn't even get a fine. No case to answer for. The only reason Fyfe got a fine instead of a suspension was that the AFL doesn't want the same situation as last year. Too bad Fyfe keeps exposing the corruption of the AFL and their favourable treatment of dirty players that are a Brownlow chance.

Or maybe it's because the incident only warranted a fine? **** me

 

[Dacksaredown]

Glad he got off because I like him and I think he's the best in the league at the moment but Jesus I thought he'd get a week for that. It was a pretty awesome leg sweep karate kid style

 

[StingBitten]

Fyfe is the darling of the AFL. This was clearly a ban of some sort; he gets away with this sort of shit every year and now he might actually win a Brownlow.

We should just rename the AFL the WAFL as there's clearly a bias favouring West Australian players; and we all know that aiding a West Australian team into the Grand Final will result in a negative financial loss - and we all know about the long-term magic of negative gearing.

I'm going to go down to Domain Stadium formerly knock as Pattersons Stadium formerly known as Subiaco Stadium and punch it in the headband.

Down with Shelbyville.

 

[I am Jack]

Freo supporters need to stop embarrassing themselves.
Fyfe shown what we all know - he isn't fair. Year after year he does silly things that warrant suspension.
It just happens that this year, Nat Fyfe is by far and away the best player in the league. So he is afforded luxuries - like Judd was.
It is no knock on Fyfe that he isn't fair. The best player in the league isn't determined by the Brownlow medal. If it was - Ablett jr would've stocked his shelf, and his old man would've laughed at him and said "long way to go yet kid".

 

[Righteo]

Freo supporters need to stop embarrassing themselves.
Fyfe shown what we all know - he isn't fair. Year after year he does silly things that warrant suspension.
It just happens that this year, Nat Fyfe is by far and away the best player in the league. So he is afforded luxuries - like Judd was.
It is no knock on Fyfe that he isn't fair. The best player in the league isn't determined by the Brownlow medal. If it was - Ablett jr would've stocked his shelf, and his old man would've laughed at him and said "long way to go yet kid".

Keep on battling away champ, you'll get some decent bites soon enough.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

Stevens's thoughts irrelevant.

No its not. If it were to somehow go right to the tribunal he could testify to it doing no damage whatsoever and again say he felt it an accident.

 

[I am Jack]

Keep on battling away champ, you'll get some decent bites soon enough.

I tell it how it is. Sweep kicks don't belong on a football field, they belong in a martial arts arena.
Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Some Idiot]

He would have been the only player this year TO get rubbed out on a tripping charge

Even under the old system the normal penalty was a reprimand and carry over points

What is going on in this thread?!

It was a bit worse than the average trip, kicking someone's legs out from number them. But moving on. Fine with the decision, if they are consistent.

 

[Feerits Elf]

I think he's lucky.

Is he the only player to ever not get rubbed out on a tripping charge?

I'm not having a dig. He is the best player in the game and I hope he does win the Brownlow.

Is this a serious question?

2015 Elliott, Ebert, Z Clarke
2014 Dawson, L McDonald
2013 Hodge
2012 Swan, Ryder
2011 Goodes

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Deserved a week. Got him around the knee, had the potential to cause serious injury.

Happy he got off, as it's better to see the best players playing and that we won't get the likely complaining about how unfair it was that he got suspended, but should have gone.

 

[peppy la pew]

Another AFL pet gets off. Another example of the Judd rule coming into effect.

How did he get off ?

He got the same punishment that all the other players got this year for a similar offence.

Are you really that stupid

 

[peppy la pew]

Keep on battling away champ, you'll get some decent bites soon enough.

10/10 for effort from me, consistency is awesome.

 

[Schauermann]

All this discussion makes me think: Why not drop that best and fairest overall. Apart from becoming ineligible after a suspension Brownlow is mainly a best award. Like als those club-"best and fairest" as well.

Actually is pretty stupid to combine it anyway. I'd say it is highly unlikely the best players is the fairest at the same time.

Fairness obviously is pretty difficult to rate anyway. Has a lot of personal view about it. Probably could make a different award more based on acts of fairness and when voted somehow. More like a goal of the year or that army award. But I actually can't think of that many outstanding acts of fairness in games that happen week in week out. So pretty difficult anyway. Perhaps letting just players vote is a good idea.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

All this discussion makes me think: Why not drop that best and fairest overall. Apart from becoming ineligible after a suspension Brownlow is mainly a best award. Like als those club-"best and fairest" as well.

Actually is pretty stupid to combine it anyway. I'd say it is highly unlikely the best players is the fairest at the same time.

Fairness obviously is pretty difficult to rate anyway. Has a lot of personal view about it. Probably could make a different award more based on acts of fairness and when voted somehow. More like a goal of the year or that army award. But I actually can't think of that many outstanding acts of fairness in games that happen week in week out. So pretty difficult anyway. Perhaps letting just players vote is a good idea.

The idea is that the 'best' player in the game should earn that accolade by always playing within the rules and the spirit of the game. Fyfe doesn't do that. That's why he doesn't deserve the award.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Lucky boy - potentially quite a dangerous action.

 

[cryptor]

All this discussion makes me think: Why not drop that best and fairest overall. Apart from becoming ineligible after a suspension Brownlow is mainly a best award. Like als those club-"best and fairest" as well.

Actually is pretty stupid to combine it anyway. I'd say it is highly unlikely the best players is the fairest at the same time.

Fairness obviously is pretty difficult to rate anyway. Has a lot of personal view about it. Probably could make a different award more based on acts of fairness and when voted somehow. More like a goal of the year or that army award. But I actually can't think of that many outstanding acts of fairness in games that happen week in week out. So pretty difficult anyway. Perhaps letting just players vote is a good idea.

There's plenty of other 'best' player awards.
The Brownlow is actually for the fairest and best player. Emphasis to the fact that fairest is put first.
Fairness is also incredibly easy to rate. You don't get suspended (or even fined really) for illegal acts and you don't play with the assistance of PEDs. It's pretty simple yet one Brownlow in the last few years is tainted and we'll likely have another one tainted by years end also.

 

[Moo]

I tell it how it is. Sweep kicks don't belong on a football field, they belong in a martial arts arena.
Stop embarrassing yourself.

If only there was an independent tribunal that could review the evidence visual and testimony and decide if it was an accidental trip or a sweep kick?

Then there would be no arguing just one party apologising for their incorrect view, if only ......

 

[peppy la pew]

The idea is that the 'best' player in the game should earn that accolade by always playing within the rules and the spirit of the game. Fyfe doesn't do that. That's why he doesn't deserve the award.

So much burn from Geelong supporters

 

[tacopavlich]

I tell it how it is. Sweep kicks don't belong on a football field, they belong in a martial arts arena.
Stop embarrassing yourself.

Let it go mate. If you observed the incident objectively and read the rules the outcome could have only been a fine, there wasn't a remote chance of a suspension. I don't know if your mom died tripping down stairs or something but you've had a strange agenda in this thread.

 

[Schauermann]

There's plenty of other 'best' player awards.
The Brownlow is actually for the fairest and best player. Emphasis to the fact that fairest is put first.
Fairness is also incredibly easy to rate. You don't get suspended (or even fined really) for illegal acts and you don't play with the assistance of PEDs. It's pretty simple yet one Brownlow in the last few years is tainted and we'll likely have another one tainted by years end also.

Like in any jurisdical system not being fined doesn't always mean you are innocent and ans vice versa Unsufficent force for example does not always make a player fairer, perhaps he is only not strong enough to do damage, while getting suspended for something accidental (it was even called accidental in the rules at least by media last year) doesn't make somebody unfairer. And when it comes to PED you might not even know about it.

 

[HeaveHo_WeBlow]

Wut?

In short I was saying, it could of ended up a broken leg.

None the less, atleast the MRP has been consistent this year.
Hopefully the scare young Fyfe needs to keep his brownlow chances alive all year.

 

[estibador]

The idea is that the 'best' player in the game should earn that accolade by always playing within the rules and the spirit of the game. Fyfe doesn't do that. That's why he doesn't deserve the award.

That's an antiquated notion from back in the day when you had to punch someone in the face in full view of the umps to be deemed an 'unfair player'.

Nowadays they pour over every little contest in super slow-mo using 15 different camera angles in an effort to suspend players for misjudging the slightest contact in the heat of battle.

People who still insist suspended players shouldn't be able to win the award have lost context of why the 'fairest' rule was introduced in the first place. I'd like to see an amendment where only incidents deemed worthy of being sent straight to the tribunal make you ineligible, because those are the real dog acts that the ineligibility rule was introduced to address in the first place.

 

[garrydavis]

It looked more like a reflex action. Due to the careless nature of it the $1000 fine was probably accurate.

So I was right about this, and the Johnson incident while other idiots were calling for their heads.