GWS v Swans

[Nico]

Absolutely correct, they call it 'unsociable footy", what a crock......


Actually, for the reasons you state after 'But:', I think the answer to the first question you pose is Yes. He's a thug, and his pathetic post match 'apologies' to the affected player are just a cover up for his true intentions, and that is to injure players. The MRP should send him a strong message......4 weeks minimum. He could have broken Wingards neck!!

The old post match apology. Mitchell did exactly the same after he one of his kneeing incidents. The whistle had been blown and he continued on. I don't know if the ump called play on but he lined him up from a long way off. He could easily have tackled him against the post or through the points if he was to prevent him coming around to kick the goal. It is clearly a Hawthorn tactic to take opposition game players out of the action. Just happens too often not to be. I don't think he can get it down graded with an early plea given he served 4 weeks earlier this year. I still don't get why he didn't get cited for that sly clip to the nose of Grimes behind play against Richmond.

[Wardy]

If Fyfe is "rubbed out" it won't be for today's incident, it will be for the accumulation of three similarly careless incidents in one season. Clearly fines have no deterrent effect on him.

Agree Anne and I shod have been clearer - Fyfe is no where near as snippy and sneaky like Hodge is - but if he's been fined on a number of occasions this year (and his previous suspensions have to play a part) - it might only be for a week - but he should be rubbed out. As for Hodge - throw the book at him!

[liz]

Agree Anne and I shod have been clearer - Fyfe is no where near as snippy and sneaky like Hodge is - but if he's been fined on a number of occasions this year (and his previous suspensions have to play a part) - it might only be for a week - but he should be rubbed out. As for Hodge - throw the book at him!

I don't think Fyfe should be suspended (or even fined, if that were an option) for the most recent incident. I do think he was a tad lucky on the last two occasions - especially the first one when he flung his leg out. But this time he was competing for the ball. Although the particulars are different, I think it is a similar situation to the Hanners "hit" on Hurley last year, and another similar one from earlier this year. In both cases Hanners made head high contact but was legitimately and realistically competing for the ball. Fyfe does need to be a little careful, though. He competes so hard on occasions and sometimes on the edge of what is realistic. One day he will cause an injury to someone.

[jono2707]

Fyfe's incident looked bad at first but on further review he should be ok. Hodge should get at least 3 for what he did.

But with the MRP who knows? Throw some random numbers up in the air and see what lands. That's about where they are at at the moment.

[stevoswan]

The old post match apology. Mitchell did exactly the same after he one of his kneeing incidents. The whistle had been blown and he continued on. I don't know if the ump called play on but he lined him up from a long way off. He could easily have tackled him against the post or through the points if he was to prevent him coming around to kick the goal. It is clearly a Hawthorn tactic to take opposition game players out of the action. Just happens too often not to be. I don't think he can get it down graded with an early plea given he served 4 weeks earlier this year. I still don't get why he didn't get cited for that sly clip to the nose of Grimes behind play against Richmond.

The damning thing in regard to the Hawks snipers is the players who are their victims: Wingard, Walker, Fyfe, Tom Mitchell, Swallow.....all potential match winners and nice to have 'out of the way', there's a definite pattern here.

[Industrial Fan]

If you take the post out of the equation and just consider where Wingard was on the field, i.e. the boundary line, he could have ended up in the fence. Would proximity to the fence then be a consideration? If so, why isn't the post? Also, players are very aware of the posts, they seem to be able to dodge them in most circumstances. I don't know the answers, just looking at the possibilities.

If he'd bumped him somewhere other than his head, but he still made contact with the post I'm sure it would be classed as incidental contact. Should still get rubbed out as he chose to bump and got nothing but head. The post was just a potential amplifier for the consequences imo.

[Ludwig]

I don't think Fyfe should be suspended (or even fined, if that were an option) for the most recent incident. I do think he was a tad lucky on the last two occasions - especially the first one when he flung his leg out. But this time he was competing for the ball. Although the particulars are different, I think it is a similar situation to the Hanners "hit" on Hurley last year, and another similar one from earlier this year. In both cases Hanners made head high contact but was legitimately and realistically competing for the ball. Fyfe does need to be a little careful, though. He competes so hard on occasions and sometimes on the edge of what is realistic. One day he will cause an injury to someone.

It's not at all like the Hanners incident. Hanners turned his body and was going for the ball, so the head high contact is incidental to the contest. But Fyfe runs past the ball and goes for the player. He doesn't even attempt to take possession of the ball and doesn't even appear to be looking at the ball. To me it's more like the Buddy incident on Edwards where Buddy runs past the ball and hits the man.

I don't think Fyfe is a dirty player and he probably deserves to win the Brownlow. Who knows what the MRP will do, but if Fyfe didn't already have 2 strikes against him, it's hard to see how that incident doesn't incur at least a fine. It's only a question as to whether the AFL wants to bend the rules to have another manipulated outcome. The 'fairest' part of the Brownlow rules is the problem, but those are the rules. We all know that the rules are just 'guidelines' for the AFL.

If Hodge gets less than 3 weeks it's probably beneficial for the Hawks as it gives him a couple of weeks rest. Hawthorn play the bottom 2 sides to finish off the season.


Fyfe cleared. Not surprised and not bothered by the decision, except that the MRP will have to follow that president in the future. You can also say that Buddy was playing the ball when he hit Edwards too.

[stevoswan]

Fyfe in the clear......common sense prevails!

[Industrial Fan]

Protected species

[stevoswan]

Protected species

Not at all.....just not a dirty sniper like the real protected speices, Hawthorn stars.

[stevoswan]

Hodge gets two, back just in time for the finals and only misses playing the two bottom teams. Now there's a protected speices/club! Graded 'careless', when it was reckless, and graded medium impact to the head, what, because Wingard played on? Should have been high impact, but hey, let's just forget the point post eh? What if he ended up on the deck with a broken neck, or a cracked skull? The look on Hodges face as he is approaching Wingard says it all....careless? More like 'reckless with intent!' It's a joke.....

[Nico]

I can't believe these 2 results. Goodes gets career pilloried for "sliding in" yet here is Fyfe doing nothing different. This rule was brought in when the Collingwood player (cant remember his name) suffered quite a significant neck injury. The North player had his head down going for the ball and Fyfe came from a long way off to "go low". Spare me please.

As for Hodge... he has already gone for a serious offence this season. Doesn't that count for anything. This fine business and softening of penalties is a recipe for a very serious injury to a player. 3 "tough" men of a bygone era officiating on MRP. Maybe they should add some credibility and appoint a 4th... Leigh Matthews.