Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 69

Thread: #AFL Round 11 Weekly Discussion Thread

  1. #37
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    3,484
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    So Fyfe gets a one week ban for his high hit on Greenwood. I'm not surprised. I was watching that game and when it happened, I thought 'he's in trouble there....' When you break it down, high contact, reckless, forearm, off the ground and the fact it could have been avoided.....MRO had no alternative but to suspend. Pending an appeal, no Brownlow for Nate......
    Glad to see serial stager Rance has been fined, been exaggerating contact for years, a blight on the game, should be playing soccer!

  2. #38
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,774
    The Fyfe one is interesting because it's been classified as intentional. Normally that grading is kept for off-the-ball incidents, whereas this was in the general vicinity of the ball. Given the MRP/MRO's propensity for grading seriousness of impact according to whether the receiving player is forced off the ground (leading to low impact in this instance), grading it as intentional is what takes it from a fine to a suspension.

    That does leave the door open for Fyfe and Freo to appeal, given how unusual it is to grade on-ball incidents as intentional. I'd go even further and say that the AFL is inviting Fyfe to appeal. If he accepts the assessment, he is saying that yes, he intentionally struck Greenwood. The cynic in me reckons that the AFL/MRO wants to distance itself from the notion that Brownlow fancies are given special treatment, but don't actually want him to miss a week (and therefore become ineligible for the Brownlow). Otherwise they could have graded it as careless/medium, on the grounds that the potential to cause injury was higher than the injury actually caused (which they explicitly - in their own rules - have the ability to do).

  3. #39
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    2,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    With Crows v GWS match just starting we have now seen all the indigenous jumpers. I think both of these teams look good - but none over the whole weekend have come near the beauty & meaning of the jumpers worn by the Swans. Well done by all concerned at the Swans, I’m very proud of them.
    http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/Sampl...elandscape.jpg

    It is stunning!

  4. #40
    Not sure where the best spot for this is but I'll try here: Nathan finally getting reward for effort - AFL Players. Article by Zak Jones about his brother, Nathan, playing 250 games.

  5. #41
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,802
    Glad to see that Rance has finally been fined for his staging. After Sinclair was fined they really had no choice.

    I'm surprised that Fyfe received 1 week after Mitchell was only given a fine earlier in the year. Mitchell's incident was worse because it was behind play and he ran, jumped and hit Goldstein with a forearm.

  6. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by crackedactor View Post
    Just on that topic! They said on 105.6 radio that Longmire has a belief that there is a conspiracy against Sydneysides and was disgusted afterthe2016 GF.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Here’s what I know. I’m friends through work with two people at the Swans - a board member, and a staff member.

    I don’t pretend to know what Horse thought directly. But I do know from the other two the entire club - from the board to the coaching staff to the players - were irate after the 2016 GF. It wasn’t so much a direct claim of conspiracy, but the sense the umpiring that day was both clearly bad and clearly that all the mistakes favoured one side.

    They particularly felt the decision against Jack and 50m just prior to half time when the Dogs when forward and kicked a goal was a big turning point, and one the AFL subsequently admitted was wrong. We went from building off Kennedy’s all time quarter and having a decent lead, to a thin margin and them with momentum.

    The club was privately seething about the whole affair but couldn’t say anything. Can you imagine a ‘loser’ in a GF raising umpiring?

  7. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by I’m-uninformed2 View Post
    Can you imagine a ‘loser’ in a GF raising umpiring?
    If it was Hawthorn, yes.

  8. #44
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    The Fyfe one is interesting because it's been classified as intentional. Normally that grading is kept for off-the-ball incidents, whereas this was in the general vicinity of the ball. Given the MRP/MRO's propensity for grading seriousness of impact according to whether the receiving player is forced off the ground (leading to low impact in this instance), grading it as intentional is what takes it from a fine to a suspension.
    I’ve posted the following comment in another forum but it is relevant to Liz’s comment above (although I know from previous posts that Liz won’t agree with me on this).

    In my view the Fyfe incident is an example of why the grading of ‘reckless’ should be re-introduced, to sit between ‘careless’ and ‘intentional’. There is too big a difference between a careless act and one that is deliberate for these two descriptions to cover every circumstance.

    Grading Fyfe’s strike as ‘intentional’, that is Fyfe’s intent was to hit Greenwood in the head, is saying Fyfe is a thug. I just don’t believe that. And I suspect Fyfe would be more upset with that categorisation than with the one-week suspension and loss of Brownlow eligibility.

    I think the current classification table is leading Hocking/Christian to work backwards. They thought this was bad enough to deserve a week suspension, but a classification of ‘careless’ would only have been a fine. So they graded it as ‘intentional’.

    Under the pre-2015 system, a classification of a reckless, low impact, high strike would have led to a one-match penalty, that is the same outcome as now applies to an ‘intentional’ strike. In my view a truly deliberate (intentional) strike to the head, that is the player had no other intent than to hit the other player in the head, deserves a harsher penalty than one match (as it would have received under the old system).

    Fyfe has some history of over-commiting and making reckless attempts to bump or intercept. and I don’t disagree with the one match suspension as such. I do however disagree with the ‘intentional’ description.

  9. #45
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel_C View Post
    I'm surprised that Fyfe received 1 week after Mitchell was only given a fine earlier in the year. Mitchell's incident was worse because it was behind play and he ran, jumped and hit Goldstein with a forearm.
    The Mitchell incident is another example (in my view) of Hocking/Christian working backwards from the penalty they thought it deserved (a fine because the strike was so slight - probably because Goldstein is a lot taller than Mitchell so Mitchell couldn’t quite reach!)

    Clearly it was an intentional, high strike with low impact. But that classification would have led to a one-match penalty (the ‘intentional’ part being the decider but irrefutable as it was behind the play).

    So to avoid this outcome, they called it ‘misconduct’ (hence a fine) rather than ‘striking’.

    The match review system is no less subjective now than it was before under the MRP.

  10. #46
    Senior Player dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    2,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    I’ve posted the following comment in another forum but it is relevant to Liz’s comment above (although I know from previous posts that Liz won’t agree with me on this).

    In my view the Fyfe incident is an example of why the grading of ‘reckless’ should be re-introduced, to sit between ‘careless’ and ‘intentional’. There is too big a difference between a careless act and one that is deliberate for these two descriptions to cover every circumstance.

    Grading Fyfe’s strike as ‘intentional’, that is Fyfe’s intent was to hit Greenwood in the head, is saying Fyfe is a thug. I just don’t believe that. And I suspect Fyfe would be more upset with that categorisation than with the one-week suspension and loss of Brownlow eligibility.

    I think the current classification table is leading Hocking/Christian to work backwards. They thought this was bad enough to deserve a week suspension, but a classification of ‘careless’ would only have been a fine. So they graded it as ‘intentional’.

    Under the pre-2015 system, a classification of a reckless, low impact, high strike would have led to a one-match penalty, that is the same outcome as now applies to an ‘intentional’ strike. In my view a truly deliberate (intentional) strike to the head, that is the player had no other intent than to hit the other player in the head, deserves a harsher penalty than one match (as it would have received under the old system).

    Fyfe has some history of over-commiting and making reckless attempts to bump or intercept. and I don’t disagree with the one match suspension as such. I do however disagree with the ‘intentional’ description.
    Yes, good point about the need for reckless to be included.

  11. #47
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Rai
    Posts
    5,932
    Quote Originally Posted by I’m-uninformed2 View Post
    Here’s what I know. I’m friends through work with two people at the Swans - a board member, and a staff member.

    I don’t pretend to know what Horse thought directly. But I do know from the other two the entire club - from the board to the coaching staff to the players - were irate after the 2016 GF. It wasn’t so much a direct claim of conspiracy, but the sense the umpiring that day was both clearly bad and clearly that all the mistakes favoured one side.

    They particularly felt the decision against Jack and 50m just prior to half time when the Dogs when forward and kicked a goal was a big turning point, and one the AFL subsequently admitted was wrong. We went from building off Kennedy’s all time quarter and having a decent lead, to a thin margin and them with momentum.

    The club was privately seething about the whole affair but couldn’t say anything. Can you imagine a ‘loser’ in a GF raising umpiring?
    In the context of the scrutiny over the goal review system this season where the AFL are trying to get this aspect of the game centremetre perfect, we can reflect on the 2016 GF where blatant umpiring errors (or bias if you like), dictated the outcome of the most important game of the year. Yet this aspect of umpiring cannot even be discussed in a public forum by the parties most effected.

  12. #48
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    I’ve posted the following comment in another forum but it is relevant to Liz’s comment above (although I know from previous posts that Liz won’t agree with me on this).

    In my view the Fyfe incident is an example of why the grading of ‘reckless’ should be re-introduced, to sit between ‘careless’ and ‘intentional’. There is too big a difference between a careless act and one that is deliberate for these two descriptions to cover every circumstance.

    Grading Fyfe’s strike as ‘intentional’, that is Fyfe’s intent was to hit Greenwood in the head, is saying Fyfe is a thug. I just don’t believe that. And I suspect Fyfe would be more upset with that categorisation than with the one-week suspension and loss of Brownlow eligibility.

    I think the current classification table is leading Hocking/Christian to work backwards. They thought this was bad enough to deserve a week suspension, but a classification of ‘careless’ would only have been a fine. So they graded it as ‘intentional’.

    Under the pre-2015 system, a classification of a reckless, low impact, high strike would have led to a one-match penalty, that is the same outcome as now applies to an ‘intentional’ strike. In my view a truly deliberate (intentional) strike to the head, that is the player had no other intent than to hit the other player in the head, deserves a harsher penalty than one match (as it would have received under the old system).

    Fyfe has some history of over-commiting and making reckless attempts to bump or intercept. and I don’t disagree with the one match suspension as such. I do however disagree with the ‘intentional’ description.
    Compelling post, Meg.

    I think one week is an appropriate penalty. He raised the elbow after the ball was tapped on and the elbow hit the opponent's head. It was an avoidable incident; he made a decision that resulted in high contact being made. That seems to be the tenor of Christian's finding - he intended to strike because he could have chosen not to. However, it was a split second decision and I agree there may be room for a middle ground rating like 'reckless' to distinguish between that and a calculated act. I suppose the grading could address intent and premeditation, though.

    I was surprised there were so many commentators of the view he'd get off.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO