http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2013-04-30/freo-to-challenge-fyfe-ban
QuoteFremantle will challenge the two-match suspension handed down to Nat Fyfe by the AFL Match Review Panel.
Risky move?
Would've thought it'd be hard to challenge the verdict of intentional, body contact, low impact? ???
I do agree that it's risky but they must have something they think they can argue down and win. The only thing I can see is that Jackson was basically holding down Fyfe (sitting on his knees and hand on chest while watching the play continue on).
Yeah think you're right... Maybe they'll say something about Jackson shoving Fyfe but I'm not sure it will excuse it :-[
Oh well, they must have something up their sleeve if they're challenging!
Good news for my SC and DT if he gets off.
They must be confident he'll get off, because they're playing Gold Coast this week but if he fails he'll miss the clash against Collingwood.
Exactly Jroo
I hope he gets off cos I put money on him to win the Brownlow earlier this year.
http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2013-04-30/freo-to-challenge-fyfe-ban.workstation
Fremantle will have to do without the prodigious talents of Nat Fyfe for the next fortnight
after his appeal to overturn a two-week suspension failed at the AFL Tribunal tonight.
He will now miss Saturday night's match against Gold Coast at Metricon Stadium and the following week's
blockbuster battle with Collingwood in Perth
I am hearing rumours that Freo may pay the money and challenge the appeal
What does that mean, valk? I wasn't aware that they could challenge it again??
So do they pay a fine and get another review of it? ???
They pay a hefty fee and then they can appeal at the court of arbitration (I think, dont quote me on that).
Ah, I see! Thanks!
Not sure what's going on here though, there must be something significant that they are trying to argue if they are taking it this far :o Or are they just trying to keep him in contention for the brownlow? ???
What happens if they lose the appeal again, risk of more weeks?
Quote from: Toga on April 30, 2013, 08:37:27 PM
Ah, I see! Thanks!
Not sure what's going on here though, there must be something significant that they are trying to argue if they are taking it this far :o Or are they just trying to keep him in contention for the brownlow? ???
What happens if they lose the appeal again, risk of more weeks?
Would have to be some pretty handy lawyers to go from 2 weeks to not even a reprimand.
Didn't even know you could challenge for a second time...Hope he gets off. Players should be allowed to retaliate if their tagger is being too forceful. :-X
The footage is damning ::)
How does Glass get off and Fyfe gets two weeks? Surely Glass has a bad record, he cleans people up whenever he gets the
chance (e.g. J. Brown last year). MRP has already been poor this year starting with Lindsay Thomas.
Lyon must have put a chunk of money on Fyfe for the Brownlow :P
slowed down it looks really bad, is there real time footage? like fyfe could have been trying to push him off, then when he stood up his leg came out?
Quote from: Clyde Frog on April 30, 2013, 10:29:52 PM
How does Glass get off and Fyfe gets two weeks? Surely Glass has a bad record, he cleans people up whenever he gets the
chance (e.g. J. Brown last year). MRP has already been poor this year starting with Lindsay Thomas.
Lyon must have put a chunk of money on Fyfe for the Brownlow :P
that's it j brown wtf!! is this ur research haha. shouldnt of even gone to the MRP
They weren't trying to get Fyfe off, they trying to change the charge from intentional to reckless. This would incur a 1 week fine and less carry over points.
An interesting point (which the tribunal appeared to just ignore) is that Fyfe wasnt even looking at Jackson when he stuck his leg out - so how can that be intentional.
Have to wait and see this morning if Freo do decide to appeal.
Honestly can't believe they would challenge when we have GC this week and the Pies next week.
It just wasn't smart
Quote from: valkorum on May 01, 2013, 09:13:18 AMAn interesting point (which the tribunal appeared to just ignore) is that Fyfe wasnt even looking at Jackson when he stuck his leg out - so how can that be intentional.
Can you link me to the footage that you can clearly see Fyfe's eyes looking in the opposite direction to Jackson's body?
But come on valk, ever heard of a 'look away handpass'? The players eyes aren't on the target but its defintely intentional..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdfXzzq3y_Y
That's the only camera angle we've got I think...
So you can't see Fyfe looking/not looking at Jackson but he must've known he was there, Jackson's hand was on his chest!
I agree it's probably a bit harsh a sentence but the intent & contact was there so imo there wasn't really much point of challenging at all..
Quote from: elephants on May 01, 2013, 12:37:58 PM
Quote from: valkorum on May 01, 2013, 09:13:18 AMAn interesting point (which the tribunal appeared to just ignore) is that Fyfe wasnt even looking at Jackson when he stuck his leg out - so how can that be intentional.
Can you link me to the footage that you can clearly see Fyfe's eyes looking in the opposite direction to Jackson's body?
But come on valk, ever heard of a 'look away handpass'? The players eyes aren't on the target but its defintely intentional..
To be honest Ele, I didnt even notice that Fyfe wasnt looking at Jackson. I noticed that Jackson wasnt looking at Fyfe and was just sitting on his legs and his hand was in his chest. While on the subject of "Come on Valk"... you cant tell me that the "kick" was all that hard and IMO that means Jackson is a bit soft.
Quote from: Toga on May 01, 2013, 01:11:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdfXzzq3y_Y
That's the only camera angle we've got I think...
So you can't see Fyfe looking/not looking at Jackson but he must've known he was there, Jackson's hand was on his chest!
I agree it's probably a bit harsh a sentence but the intent & contact was there so imo there wasn't really much point of challenging at all..
They werent trying to challenge to get off, they were challenging the charge from intentional to reckless, which would still come with a 1 week suspension.
Quote from: valkorum on May 01, 2013, 03:03:48 PM
While on the subject of "Come on Valk"... you cant tell me that the "kick" was all that hard and IMO that means Jackson is a bit soft.
But at the same time a bit of a jab into the kidneys is never fun..
Quote from: Toga on May 01, 2013, 03:06:31 PM
Quote from: valkorum on May 01, 2013, 03:03:48 PM
While on the subject of "Come on Valk"... you cant tell me that the "kick" was all that hard and IMO that means Jackson is a bit soft.
But at the same time a bit of a jab into the kidneys is never fun..
Exactly. It's unnecessary, irrelevant of how 'hard' it was. Jackson was making the most out of it clearly searching for a free. But calling a professional AFL footballer soft? Ok mate ;)
I have copped bigger hits than that in my footy career and I keep on playing..... and I am nowhere close to being a professional football player (although I have played at Subiaco Oval :P)
Either way I think the the initial agreement that Fyfe should have accepted the 1 week suspension has been lost - I think we can all agree he should have taken the week.
Haha Jackson didn't go off though :P He got up and kept playing.
Anyway, thats beside the point haha.
Fyfe and Freo should have copped the week, agreed.
Quote from: elephants on May 01, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
Haha Jackson didn't go off though :P He got up and kept playing.
Anyway, thats beside the point haha.
Fyfe and Freo should have copped the week, agreed.
But he did go down like Jack Darling
Quote from: valkorum on May 01, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: elephants on May 01, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
Haha Jackson didn't go off though :P He got up and kept playing.
Anyway, thats beside the point haha.
Fyfe and Freo should have copped the week, agreed.
But he did go down like Jack Darling
Or a Scooter/Shuey/Hams going for a high free kick hey ele ;)
Quote from: valkorum on May 01, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: elephants on May 01, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
Haha Jackson didn't go off though :P He got up and kept playing.
Anyway, thats beside the point haha.
Fyfe and Freo should have copped the week, agreed.
But he did go down like Jack Darling
Who cares if he goes down if he gets up like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijVbrAOIfmg
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t90_LRXT0e8
#donthatehimbecauseyouainthim
Quote from: Ricochet on May 01, 2013, 03:29:23 PM
Quote from: valkorum on May 01, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: elephants on May 01, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
Haha Jackson didn't go off though :P He got up and kept playing.
Anyway, thats beside the point haha.
Fyfe and Freo should have copped the week, agreed.
But he did go down like Jack Darling
Or a Scooter/Shuey/Hams going for a high free kick hey ele ;)
Puh-lease ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtlHvwAwHU4
At least we don't get opposition players wrongly suspended! Plus, there's nothing in the rules saying being first to the ball means you can't win a free kick!? (Ok, ignore the sliding rule :P)
Haha wow at those flips lol :o 8)
Ducking should be classed under staging.
Quote from: Ziplock on May 01, 2013, 03:47:42 PM
Ducking should be classed under staging.
But being first to the footy shouldn't right? Teams need to change their tackling technique ;)
Quote from: elephants on May 01, 2013, 03:50:31 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on May 01, 2013, 03:47:42 PM
Ducking should be classed under staging.
But being first to the footy shouldn't right? Teams need to change their tackling technique ;)
Have to agree even though I was trying to stir you up before. Joel Selwood put it something like... "exploiting a players weakness in not being able to get low enough or not being strong enough to tackle me below the shoulders".
Quote from: Ricochet on May 01, 2013, 04:00:42 PM
Quote from: elephants on May 01, 2013, 03:50:31 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on May 01, 2013, 03:47:42 PM
Ducking should be classed under staging.
But being first to the footy shouldn't right? Teams need to change their tackling technique ;)
Have to agree even though I was trying to stir you up before. Joel Selwood put it something like... "exploiting a players weakness in not being able to get low enough or not being strong enough to tackle me below the shoulders".
Yeah man, I remember talking to you about it and I remember you had the
right stance :)
its playing for a free, which (despite the term 'winning' a free kick isn't what free kicks are allocated for), it should be classed as the same as staging, if not worse because it risks player injury through deliberate head high contact (albeit to themselves).
Quote from: Ziplock on May 01, 2013, 06:34:19 PM
its playing for a free playing hard footy. which (despite the term 'winning' a free kick isn't what free kicks are allocated for), it should be classed as the same as staging, if not worse because it risks player injury through deliberate head high contact (albeit to themselves). The Selwood brothers middle names are 'contested ball' and they are all champions.
Quote from: Ziplock on May 01, 2013, 06:34:19 PM
its playing for a free, which (despite the term 'winning' a free kick isn't what free kicks are allocated for), it should be classed as the same as staging, if not worse because it risks player injury through deliberate head high contact (albeit to themselves).
So is running through the mark with your opponent close to you to try and get a 50 for your team, or when a player dives at the ball taking a step forward so they collect your legs to earn a free kick under the new rules, or letting the ball run out after a kick in when no-one has touched it so you get the free kick, or letting the ball run out and throwing your hands in the air after someone kicks it down the line to get a deliberate, or letting go of the ball as you are getting tackled and pinning the tacklers arm so he holds you for longer and you get the free kick,
Its just being smart enough to regain to the ball or gain an advantage for your team
Quote from: Ricochet on May 02, 2013, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: Ziplock on May 01, 2013, 06:34:19 PM
its playing for a free, which (despite the term 'winning' a free kick isn't what free kicks are allocated for), it should be classed as the same as staging, if not worse because it risks player injury through deliberate head high contact (albeit to themselves).
So is running through the mark with your opponent close to you to try and get a 50 for your team, or when a player dives at the ball taking a step forward so they collect your legs to earn a free kick under the new rules, or letting the ball run out after a kick in when no-one has touched it so you get the free kick, or letting the ball run out and throwing your hands in the air after someone kicks it down the line to get a deliberate, or letting go of the ball as you are getting tackled and pinning the tacklers arm so he holds you for longer and you get the free kick,
Its just being smart enough to regain to the ball or gain an advantage for your team
most of those arent applicable as they're gameplay rules rather than rules implemented to protect players safety. The one I've highlighted is another that should constitute staging.
Quote from: Ziplock on May 02, 2013, 10:57:20 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on May 02, 2013, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: Ziplock on May 01, 2013, 06:34:19 PM
its playing for a free, which (despite the term 'winning' a free kick isn't what free kicks are allocated for), it should be classed as the same as staging, if not worse because it risks player injury through deliberate head high contact (albeit to themselves).
So is running through the mark with your opponent close to you to try and get a 50 for your team, or when a player dives at the ball taking a step forward so they collect your legs to earn a free kick under the new rules, or letting the ball run out after a kick in when no-one has touched it so you get the free kick, or letting the ball run out and throwing your hands in the air after someone kicks it down the line to get a deliberate, or letting go of the ball as you are getting tackled and pinning the tacklers arm so he holds you for longer and you get the free kick,
Its just being smart enough to regain to the ball or gain an advantage for your team
most of those arent applicable as they're gameplay rules rather than rules implemented to protect players safety. The one I've highlighted is another that should constitute staging.
What about pinning the arm of a tackler so you get a free kick for holding the man. Players will do whatever they can to will the ball back or get a free kick. And some players are dumb enough to get sucked in to it
its unsportsmanly, but it's not really a physical danger?
like, you can be penalised for unsportsmanlike conduct, that being said, I cant see the afl really pinning people for those- there's no point, it's too subjective/ hard to define if it's intentional for a free (for instance, running across the mark so you have to be followed, or running across the mark purely to get into an open space/ receive the ball). The subjectivity makes it problematic to pin players for, and since they're not really endangering anyone, it's not really a necessity.
Purposely stepping forward so that contact is made with your shins, or ducking your head in a contest should be paid as free kicks against you though- in the first instance you're endangering yourself with the sliding rule, and also the player going in, without legitimately making a contest for t he ball, while in the second instance you're putting yourself at risk of concussion, head and neck injuries.
Quote from: Ziplock on May 02, 2013, 01:38:50 PM
its unsportsmanly, but it's not really a physical danger?
like, you can be penalised for unsportsmanlike conduct, that being said, I cant see the afl really pinning people for those- there's no point, it's too subjective/ hard to define if it's intentional for a free (for instance, running across the mark so you have to be followed, or running across the mark purely to get into an open space/ receive the ball). The subjectivity makes it problematic to pin players for, and since they're not really endangering anyone, it's not really a necessity.
Purposely stepping forward so that contact is made with your shins, or ducking your head in a contest should be paid as free kicks against you though- in the first instance you're endangering yourself with the sliding rule, and also the player going in, without legitimately making a contest for t he ball, while in the second instance you're putting yourself at risk of concussion, head and neck injuries.
But then Selwood can argue he is lifting his arms to break the tackle and get away... then it is also too hard to define
as I said, in an ideal world you would penalise all unsportsmanly conduct, but thwe majority of them arent actually causing physical harm, so it's not worth the trouble to penalise them and make that distinction.
In this case of ducking, or purposely getting someone to hit you below the legs, it's got large potential for physical injury, so in those cases it is worth the trouble and should be penalised.
Sorry mate I disagree. Its part of the game and players need to adapt. Some are clearly smarter, stronger, better and are exploiting their opponents because of it.