Match Review Panel: Fyfe Fined $1000, cleared to play

[westdog54]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-18/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-seven

Nat Fyfe, Fremantle, has been charged with tripping Koby Stevens, Western Bulldogs, during the third quarter of the Round Seven match between Fremantle and the Western Bulldogs, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday May 16, 2015.

In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Western Bulldogs Football Club, it was the view of the panel the incident should be classified as intentional conduct with low impact to the body. The offence was classified as a $1500 sanction. The player has no applicable bad record. An early plea can reduce the penalty to a $1000sanction.



Really? A deliberate trip, a dangerous, stupid act that has no place in our game, earns a $1000 fine?

Really?

[bulldogtragic]

I hope they're sending Chris Grant his brownlow. Or do we need stars of minor teams like North & Bulldogs to lose brownlows to show that stars of bigger teams shouldn't have equal treatment.

If that was Lin Jong he'd be rubbed out. This is making me annoyed. A lot.

[LostDoggy]

Not unexpected, don't know how low impact a leg swipe is that literally kicks a bloke off his feet and lands him on his arse. What is the escalation, medium he breaks his leg, high he kicks his leg clean off, severe............?

[boydogs]

At least they recognised it was intentional

[Webby]

Not unexpected, don't know how low impact a leg swipe is that literally kicks a bloke off his feet and lands him on his arse. What is the escalation, medium he breaks his leg, high he kicks his leg clean off, severe............?

Everybody's very lucky Stevens had his weight off his left leg. Otherwise it could've easily caused serious damage. (I was there when Paul Dear kicked Peter Foster and it was almost identical - but for the fact that Fossie had his foot planted and supporting his body weight.)

Can't help but think this was a bit of a fix by the AFL. They're avoiding an awkward Brownlow scenario. Had Joe Bloggs been reported, he'd have copped a week.

Nonetheless, I'm quite happy for Norf not to face a Fyfe-less Dockers next week. He makes a 5 goal difference to Freo, so I'm happy that Norf will get them at full strength.

[1eyedog]

Everybody's very lucky Stevens had his weight off his left leg. Otherwise it could've easily caused serious damage. (I was there when Paul Dear kicked Peter Foster and it was almost identical - but for the fact that Fossie had his foot planted and supporting his body weight.)

Can't help but think this was a bit of a fix by the AFL. They're avoiding an awkward Brownlow scenario. Had Joe Bloggs been reported, he'd have copped a week.

Nonetheless, I'm quite happy for Norf not to face a Fyfe-less Dockers next week. He makes a 5 goal difference to Freo, so I'm happy that Norf will get them at full strength.

I agree 100%. The North board was going into meltdown at the prospect of not facing Fyfe next week :D

[merantau]

If we are talking about certain players getting favourable treatment because of their high profile, the most damning case is Joel Selwood. I saw some stats on free kicks earned for head high tackles. He is NO. 1 - 2nd is light years behind him. Anomalies like that don't happen by chance. The shoulder shrug should be treated like diving in soccer - it's cheating. I think Joel Selwood would probably have to draw and quarter an opponent before getting reported. Gary Ablett Jnr is another - you can't touch him - but he's allowed to punch a bloke without being suspended. James Hird was another - got the inside running over an entire career.

[Twodogs]

Can we appeal to the CAS?

[bornadog]

I posted in another thread that Riewoldt should have been reported. Another case of a high profile player getting away with it. Believe me Brodie Smith agrees with me.

[LostDoggy]

He is lucky in two parts. 1. It was in the back of the leg. 2. It was koby.

[GVGjr]

I posted in another thread that Riewoldt should have been reported. Another case of a high profile player getting away with it. Believe me Brodie Smith agrees with me.

A number of years ago I saw a Collingwood player (Tarpey I think) make a huge collision with his own team mate knocking him rotten.
I wonder if we will ever get to the stage that 'dangerous play' isn't necessarily limited to collisions with the opposition?
If it's dangerous it shouldn't matter.

[bornadog]

A number of years ago I saw a Collingwood player (Tarpey I think) make a huge collision with his own team mate knocking him rotten.
I wonder if we will ever get to the stage that 'dangerous play' isn't necessarily limited to collisions with the opposition?
If it's dangerous it shouldn't matter.

Riewoldt came in pretty hard and hit his head on Smith's and concussed Smith Why is this not reportable yet May from the Suns gets 3 weeks for a bump that was also accidental.

[GVGjr]

Riewoldt came in pretty hard and hit his head on Smith's and concussed Smith Why is this not reportable yet May from the Suns gets 3 weeks for a bump that was also accidental.

Very inconsistent. May's was a very bad call.

[Ozza]

Riewoldt came in pretty hard and hit his head on Smith's and concussed Smith Why is this not reportable yet May from the Suns gets 3 weeks for a bump that was also accidental.

Not defending Steven May's suspension (which was quite ridiculous in severity) but the two examples are not at all similar.

Riewoldt came in to tackle and the players heads clashed in the process. Just unfortunate and incidental.

[soupman]

Not defending Steven May's suspension (which was quite ridiculous in severity) but the two examples are not at all similar.

Riewoldt came in to tackle and the players heads clashed in the process. Just unfortunate and incidental.

Agree.

Aside from intentional headbutts headclashes are kind of exempt imo. Riewoldts tackle had an unfortunate result but it was not malicious or even particularly careless. Besides unlike the May case they can't do the whole "he had other options".

[bulldogtragic]

A number of years ago I saw a Collingwood player (Tarpey I think) make a huge collision with his own team mate knocking him rotten.
I wonder if we will ever get to the stage that 'dangerous play' isn't necessarily limited to collisions with the opposition?
If it's dangerous it shouldn't matter.

That post will find itself in the media. Fascinating question, and by the attitude of those administering the system you'd they would have to at some point. I remember reporting two nut case brothers in a reserves game in about 1999 for punching each other (nut cases as they were so crazy and aggressive even their team mates were telling opposition players not to break it up). I think they both got 3 or 4 each. Extending reportable incidents to other team mates in dangerous play only seems logical, as does the outcry from the players association.

[Ghost Dog]

I am disappointed. A knee injury can ruin a playing career. If it was intentional is he still the fairest player in the comp?

[Ghost Dog]

Maybe best Fyfe, but not fairest.

[bornadog]

Not defending Steven May's suspension (which was quite ridiculous in severity) but the two examples are not at all similar.

Riewoldt came in to tackle and the players heads clashed in the process. Just unfortunate and incidental.


Agree.

Aside from intentional headbutts headclashes are kind of exempt imo. Riewoldts tackle had an unfortunate result but it was not malicious or even particularly careless. Besides unlike the May case they can't do the whole "he had other options".

I don't see anything different. May was going the side bump and his shoulder hit the players head. Riewoldt came in like a steam train and his head hit Smith's and concussed him. Tell me where they are different.

It is not unfortunate and incidental, he should tackle properly and not concuss a player. The AFL rules have been changed to protect the head, unless you are Nick Riewoldt of course. If the two players were both going for the ball, then I agree with you about accidental clash of heads, but Smith had the ball and was tackled with force.

[Greystache]

That post will find itself in the media. Fascinating question, and by the attitude of those administering the system you'd they would have to at some point. I remember reporting two nut case brothers in a reserves game in about 1999 for punching each other (nut cases as they were so crazy and aggressive even their team mates were telling opposition players not to break it up). I think they both got 3 or 4 each. Extending reportable incidents to other team mates in dangerous play only seems logical, as does the outcry from the players association.

It might be an urban myth but didn't the VFL bring in the overarching rule of bringing the game into disrepute because Steve MacPherson got reported for belting an opposition runner, and when he went before the tribunal he asked where it said in the rules you couldn't hit a runner. It wasn't mentioned so they let him off.

[soupman]

I don't see anything different. May was going the side bump and his shoulder hit the players head. Riewoldt came in like a steam train and his head hit Smith's and concussed him. Tell me where they are different.

It is not unfortunate and incidental, he should tackle properly and not concuss a player. The AFL rules have been changed to protect the head, unless you are Nick Riewoldt of course. If the two players were both going for the ball, then I agree with you about accidental clash of heads, but Smith had the ball and was tackled with force.
I can't agree at all.

I'm in the camp that thought May's suspension was bullshit, he did the right thing and only knocked Rockliff out because Rockliff was too stupid to anticipate or intitiate what was the obvious thing to do at that point, bump. Having said that though the tribunal argued that May should have gone the ball, which was a viable alterntive, even though I think May took the better and more logical option.

Riewoldt did come flying in and the tackle was weirdly executed. If he had have concussed Smith with any other body part I'd be all for him getting looked at, but the head clash was neither intentional or beneficial in any way to either player. Head clashes have never been reportable or even a free kick.

The AFL has cracked down on head high bumps because they are reckless and a conscious choice by the player, therefore preventable. A head clash is never intentional, and while the tackle was poorly executed in the end its a bad message to punish someone for purely accidental contact, especially when the only other option would be to absolutely kill him with a bump and potentially be ruled out for 4 weeks.

As for Riewoldt getting off because of who he is, I don't see it. I hate the guy as much as anyone, but the reason he got off has nothing to do with who he is.

[bornadog]

I can't agree at all.

I'm in the camp that thought May's suspension was bullshit, he did the right thing and only knocked Rockliff out because Rockliff was too stupid to anticipate or intitiate what was the obvious thing to do at that point, bump. Having said that though the tribunal argued that May should have gone the ball, which was a viable alterntive, even though I think May took the better and more logical option.

Riewoldt did come flying in and the tackle was weirdly executed. If he had have concussed Smith with any other body part I'd be all for him getting looked at, but the head clash was neither intentional or beneficial in any way to either player. Head clashes have never been reportable or even a free kick.

The AFL has cracked down on head high bumps because they are reckless and a conscious choice by the player, therefore preventable. A head clash is never intentional, and while the tackle was poorly executed in the end its a bad message to punish someone for purely accidental contact, especially when the only other option would be to absolutely kill him with a bump and potentially be ruled out for 4 weeks.

As for Riewoldt getting off because of who he is, I don't see it. I hate the guy as much as anyone, but the reason he got off has nothing to do with who he is.

Well I can't see why you can hit someone with your head and not be reported but if its a shoulder you can be reported.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[G-Mo77]

It might be an urban myth but didn't the VFL bring in the overarching rule of bringing the game into disrepute because Steve MacPherson got reported for belting an opposition runner, and when he went before the tribunal he asked where it said in the rules you couldn't hit a runner. It wasn't mentioned so they let him off.

That's hilarious. :D

[westdog54]

It might be an urban myth but didn't the VFL bring in the overarching rule of bringing the game into disrepute because Steve MacPherson got reported for belting an opposition runner, and when he went before the tribunal he asked where it said in the rules you couldn't hit a runner. It wasn't mentioned so they let him off.

Similar story - A few years ago Jonathan Brown was charged with "Unduly Rough Play" as a result of an incident that happened after the quarter time siren.

The Brisbane Lions argued successfully that because the game was not in progress, i.e. the players weren't "in play", the charge could not be sustained.

The offence was quirckly amended from Rough play to rough conduct.

[Ozza]

I don't see anything different. May was going the side bump and his shoulder hit the players head. Riewoldt came in like a steam train and his head hit Smith's and concussed him. Tell me where they are different.

It is not unfortunate and incidental, he should tackle properly and not concuss a player. The AFL rules have been changed to protect the head, unless you are Nick Riewoldt of course. If the two players were both going for the ball, then I agree with you about accidental clash of heads, but Smith had the ball and was tackled with force.

You have to be kidding. The rules, and precedents, are very clear about choosing to tackle rather than choosing to bump.
Riewoldt comes in clearly attempting to tackle, actually does execute a tackle but in the process of Smith moving and the angle Riewoldt comes in on - they end up both clashing heads.

Its a 360 degree game, played at a frenetic pace. These sort of incidents will occur from time to time. I don't see either player being in the wrong. Riewoldt is allowed to 'tackle with force'....he is encouraged to tackle with force...unfortunately for him, the head clash meant he was knocked out cold midway through. He is also allowed to run at, and tackle a player 'like a steam train'....this is also encouraged and lauded by coaches, fans and players.

I find your attitude towards this case to be based on it being Riewoldt involved. And to me, that is petty.

[Ozza]

Well I can't see why you can hit someone with your head and not be reported but if its a shoulder you can be reported.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Do you think there will be an insurgence of players running around smashing other players heads, with their heads, leaving them both knocked out?

[bornadog]

Do you think there will be an insurgence of players running around smashing other players heads, with their heads, leaving them both knocked out?

Of course not.

I am merely pointing out the inconsistency with rules.

I am also not being petty, I am expressing my opinion. You have your opinion I have mine.

[Ozza]

Of course not.

I am merely pointing out the inconsistency with rules.

I am also not being petty, I am expressing my opinion. You have your opinion I have mine.


It isn't an inconsistency in the rules. He has chosen to tackle. The players have clashed heads. If he had chosen to bump - he would likely have been penalised, but rather, he did exactly what the current rules of the game would suggest he should.

The comment about pettiness comes in - when you say "unless of course you're Nick Riewoldt".

[bornadog]

It isn't an inconsistency in the rules. He has chosen to tackle.

ok, tell me this, if Riewoldt tried to tackle but instead of hitting Smith with his head but with a round arm that happen to concuss him, what would be the outcome.

[F'scary]

Fyfe kicked Kobe.

It was not a trip.

Great message to send to the lower leagues.