#AFL Round 11 Weekly Discussion Thread

[liz]

It's bizarre how a team can look so inept for a month and then come out and play like GWS did. I don't believe they've had any injured players return that can account for such a sudden recollection of how to compete.

And it was good to finally have a quality match to watch this weekend. Even if we did have to wait a long time for it.

[barry]

Kelly, Davis and Paton are two pretty big ins for GWS that have strung a few games together.

[crackedactor]

Umpires are murdering GWS. This home town bias needs to be addressed.

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

[crackedactor]

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

Of course they all laughed, but I did not hear a whisper from horse after the 2016 GF on umpires or the AFL? Does anyone know what they are talking about???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[707]

GWS looked really good this evening. Excellent win against the Crows and the crowd AND THE UMPIRES at AO. Great match to watch. If the Giants keep up today?s form it will put a few teams , including the Swans, on notice.

I'll just add to your incomplete comment Meg!

[stevoswan]

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......

[707]

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!

[liz]

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).

[stevoswan]

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/Samples/596990-tlslargelandscape.jpg

It is stunning!

[bloodspirit]

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.

[Mel_C]

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.

[I?m-uninformed2]

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?

[Bloods05]

Can you imagine a ?loser? in a GF raising umpiring?

If it was Hawthorn, yes.

[Meg]

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.

[Meg]

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.