-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Fyfe
- Thread starter boncer34
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Chism
Franks & Beans
- Sep 7, 2008
- 39,177
- 39,269
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Cowboys/Pacers HotSpurs/Dodgers
Correct call and Fyfe did not deserve weeks for that or even a fine.
Famous last words. Vickery or Zac Dawson to accidentally knock out the umpire this week.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,287
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You spelt, 'spelled' wrong.
- Jul 2, 2012
- 4,152
- 6,909
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
how so?
- Aug 20, 2010
- 16,816
- 22,327
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Both ways are correct
AFL LOL!
Fyfe's hand were no where near the ball. Love how they lie to suit their argument. He tried to clear space with his body and got it all wrong. This is the same shit Jack Ziebell got multiple weeks for when he went to contest the ball, actually got his hands to it, but hit Aaron Joseph in the head.
Jack Ziebell should be suing the AFL for every farcical suspension that he has copped, that is not replicated for the AFL's love children.
And if it were Jack Ziebell or Stevie J or a number of other players who did it they would have got at least a week.
But we all knew he was getting off. There was no way they would have suspended him for that. He would have just about had to take someones head off, even then I'm sure they would have found a way to get him off
I am actually glad he didn't get suspended, because at the end of the day he was just trying to clear space and got it slightly wrong, no malice or no intent to hit Jacobs, so I'm fine with the no suspension.
But what really pisses me off is the suspension of players for acts that are less or the equal of this. The AFL really needs to get their shit together, either don't suspend players or suspend everyone for the same actions? They just make up shit to suit themselves and they wonder why the average footy fan is becoming disillusioned? As long as the AFL continues to not be transparent and make up things from week to week, then fans will start to lose interest in the game.
Currently we have a game of half court basketball that is being scripted by the AFL to suit agendas.
I really like this post! Very well said. It is the inconsistency of the MRP that is staggering.
FastLane
Club Legend
hear hear!
- Jun 9, 2015
- 12,582
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
So no one has any problem with Fyfe having his arm away from his body and making facial/head high contact with his elbow whilst his arm was away from his body? I don't think there is much in, much much less than the Farrenn Ray? Joel Selwood incident similar a few years ago where Selwood needed stiches in his mouth. Probably didn't deserve to go but loved how most media instantly dismissed it as he is in everybodys dreams of a night time
Absolutely hilarious, is there a league which cheats as openly or as often as the AFL?
I'm glad Fyfe is still eligible but as usual the league has prevented an absurd outcome produced by an absurd rule by undertaking an even more absurd interpretation of that rule. Which will create it's own absurdities in time..
The underlying problem is that once upon a time when you got suspended for seriously violent or dirty acts it made some sense that it affected brownlow eligibility. But ever since the AFL moved to the duty of care model, players can and do miss games and cop fines for being careless. Whether or not that is a good idea is a whole different argument, but most inside onballers will find themselves in a situation similar to Fyfes situation sooner or later, and when they do they typically get sanctioned, because the AFL wants them to take special care not to slide in and hit opponents high.
If the AFL wants to continue to follow that approach, a more sensible outcome would have been to suspend Fyfe for 1 week as the rules plainly require, but change the brownlow eligibility rules before this years count, so it takes multiple reckless or one intentional incident to make someone ineligible for the Chaz.
I'm glad Fyfe is still eligible but as usual the league has prevented an absurd outcome produced by an absurd rule by undertaking an even more absurd interpretation of that rule. Which will create it's own absurdities in time..
The underlying problem is that once upon a time when you got suspended for seriously violent or dirty acts it made some sense that it affected brownlow eligibility. But ever since the AFL moved to the duty of care model, players can and do miss games and cop fines for being careless. Whether or not that is a good idea is a whole different argument, but most inside onballers will find themselves in a situation similar to Fyfes situation sooner or later, and when they do they typically get sanctioned, because the AFL wants them to take special care not to slide in and hit opponents high.
If the AFL wants to continue to follow that approach, a more sensible outcome would have been to suspend Fyfe for 1 week as the rules plainly require, but change the brownlow eligibility rules before this years count, so it takes multiple reckless or one intentional incident to make someone ineligible for the Chaz.
lol at the North tough guys ganging up on him while he is on the ground
you mean this one? not remotely similar
you mean this one? not remotely similar
Another scripted 'WWE style' comedy outcome from the AFL tribunal.........how can anyone be surprised nowdays at the happenings at AFL land. There's been enough negative stories this year without front page 'headlines' the morning after the Brownlow count.
Similar in the premise that Jack Ziebell was attempting to win possession. If you look at the vision Ziebell actually gets his hands to the ball, unlike Fyfe. It's not Jack's fault that he is harder at the ball than Fyfe
The umpire can actually can be heard saying "he just went for the footy" and paid no free kick.
In fact the more I look at the two, other than the impact itself, the Ziebell one is more of an attempt to win the ball than Fyfe. One gets 3 weeks the other nothing, go figure?!?!
- Aug 30, 2013
- 10,699
- 12,702
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Stevie J go for a hard ball get? Lol
Agree with most the sentiments here- right decision (i.e Fyfe not being suspended) but at the same time just highlights how dodgey the AFL is. Plenty of incidents similar would've copped a fine at least- and Fyfe himself would've if it was his first or second fine. You don't want players rubbed out for things like that, or ineligible to win brownlows, BUT consistency wise and following the way in which these sorts of incidents have been looked out- he should've been rubbed out.
Right result, no doubt a dodgy process heavily influenced by Fyfe and media backlash if he got rubbed out.
That and Hodge decision proves AFL going to look after themselves and the bottom line before making any tough calls.
Right result, no doubt a dodgy process heavily influenced by Fyfe and media backlash if he got rubbed out.
That and Hodge decision proves AFL going to look after themselves and the bottom line before making any tough calls.
Chris grant agrees
- Sep 8, 2008
- 7,559
- 11,342
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
agreed, just had the idea but saw you had it. Intentional and reckless makes someone ineligible, careless and incidental should not affect Brownlow. Makes too much sense and the AFL are against that..
PoppedCorn
Saints
- Dec 29, 2009
- 20,257
- 39,568
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
gee whiz boy o boy
who woulda thunked it
imagine if that was stevie baker
75 weeks for shite like that
Last edited:
