#AFL Round 11 Weekly Discussion Thread

[dejavoodoo44]

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.

[Ludwig]

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.

[MattW]

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.

[Ludwig]

Yes, good point about the need for reckless to be included.

I would have 3 gradings for intent: Reckless, @@@@less* and Spineless.

And my 3 gradings for impact are: Glanced, Ranced and Pantsed.

A Spineless Pantsing goes straight to the Tribunal of Judicial Experts:

WonderwordzFunny_9.jpg

* (A word that begins with an 'f', has an 'e' as its 2nd letter and ends with 'ckless' has apparently been banned from the dictionary. I wish someone would send me an email on newly banned words. It's getting harder to separate the hypocrisy of the AFL from that of society in general).

[dejavoodoo44]

I would have 3 gradings for intent: Reckless, @@@@less* and Spineless.

And my 3 gradings for impact are: Glanced, Ranced and Pantsed.

A Spineless Pantsing goes straight to the Tribunal of Judicial Experts:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2150[/ATTACH]

* (A word that begins with an 'f', has an 'e' as its 2nd letter and ends with 'ckless' has apparently been banned from the dictionary. I wish someone would send me an email on newly banned words. It's getting harder to separate the hypocrisy of the AFL from that of society in general).

Nice photo of the 2016 GF umpires.

[liz]

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.

You know my thoughts on this, but I'll share them with others.

I think there's a trade-off between granularity and simplicity. When the three categories - intentional, reckless and negligent - existed, it was excruciating watching media commentators trying to get their heads around the distinction between reckless and negligent, and I don't think the MRP achieved consistency in their classification of incidents between these two categories.


No two incidents are ever the same, and there's an inherent issue trying to assign incidents that fall along a continuum into a number of discrete categories. There will always be incidents that you compare that look very similar, yet are met with a different penalty because the boundary needs to fall somewhere. This applies whether there are two, three, or more categories. I don't think introducing additional granularity enhances the perception of fairness. It just introduces further muddiness.

I think part of the problem comes with labelling these categories with English language words that don't have precise meanings, or where the nuance of the meaning depends very much on context. In particular, "intentional", used in common English, has a connotation of pre-meditation about it, and it's easy to see why Fyfe would object to his action being implied as pre-meditated. Even most off-the-ball incidents that occur on the football field I doubt are pre-meditated - they are opportunistic, instantaneous actions. "Brain fades" maybe. I don't think even Barry Hall's infamous punch had any element of pre-meditation about it.

Even within the limitations of the current system, Christian could have got to a one week suspension for Fyfe (which does feel right) by labelling his action as medium rather than low force. Unfortunately the match review system has backed itself into a bit of a corner by so consistently tying penalty to injury outcome, rather than addressing the nature of the action. But the MRO does have the ability to assign a higher impact grading based on potential for injury, and I don't think it's unreasonable to assess that jumping in the air, raising a forearm or elbow and making solid contact with an opponent's head is fairly likely to cause injury and hence should be classified as medium impact.

[mcs]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/brown-gets-a-raw-deal-from-umpires-20180604-p4zjew.html

Now Brad Scott is getting in on it.... no mention of some of the laughable frees he got given in that game though And of course Clarkson having another go - gosh I hope his wees and poos go absolutely nowhere this year.

[liz]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...04-p4zjew.html

Now Brad Scott is getting in on it.... no mention of some of the laughable frees he got given in that game though And of course Clarkson having another go - gosh I hope his wees and poos go absolutely nowhere this year.

Which is amusing, because as soon as Brown realises he's out of position in a marking contest and feels a modicum of pressure from behind, he launches himself forward in a "Rance-like" motion and draws free kicks from it. He has received an average of 2.5 free kicks a game so far this season, significantly ahead of the next highest key forward. Maybe the umpires have been reviewing their performances North games and realise they've been duped a bit.

[mcs]

Which is amusing, because as soon as Brown realises he's out of position in a marking contest and feels a modicum of pressure from behind, he launches himself forward in a "Rance-like" motion and draws free kicks from it. He has received an average of 2.5 free kicks a game so far this season, significantly ahead of the next highest key forward. Maybe the umpires have been reviewing their performances North games and realise they've been duped a bit.

My thoughts exactly Liz - he did it to great effect on several times in the game against us. Got at least 2 or 3 frees where he was nowhere near in position to actively engage in the marking contest (i.e. it was over his head as he had misjudged it), so used his Rance trick to fool the umpires into thinking he was infringed.

[stevoswan]

Clarkson and Scott are just dumb hypocritical sooks.....always have been.....and they know where their teams reside. Longmire is not dumb, that's why he keeps his mouth shut and he also knows where his team resides......outside the 'heartland'. It must be furking frustrating for everyone involved at our club.

[Meg]

Following the Fyfe hearing at the Tribunal where Fyfe/Freo are arguing for a downgrade from ?intentional? to ?careless?. So showing video of past strikes which have been graded as careless:

Tweedie showing other videos of careless striking:
- Kurt Tippett on Dylan Grimes
- Tim Membrey on Dylan Grimes

Tribunal chairman David Jones about Grimes: "He's having a bad trot"

????????????[emoji38]

[Ludwig]

It must be furking frustrating for everyone involved at our club.

It's particularly furking frustrating for me that you can say furking Eddie McGuire loves Mason Cox, but I can't say @@@@less (?????????? in Vulgarian does pass through the filter though) without getting @#$%!& over.

[CureTheSane]

Interesting reading about all the drama surrounding the Melbourne Collingwood Queens Birthday game and who should have it as a home game.
Eddiie on the rampage crying unfair (while he sits back with his 'other' 3 or 4 blockbuster games that are locked in every year, guaranteeing a huge gate and income.
Feel like posting again the reason why Collingwood should be the last team to be included in the Anzac game based on the circumstances around the actual war, but what's the point...

[Mel_C]

Which is amusing, because as soon as Brown realises he's out of position in a marking contest and feels a modicum of pressure from behind, he launches himself forward in a "Rance-like" motion and draws free kicks from it. He has received an average of 2.5 free kicks a game so far this season, significantly ahead of the next highest key forward. Maybe the umpires have been reviewing their performances North games and realise they've been duped a bit.

I was just saying the same thing to my dad when we were discussing the Rance incident. You perfectly described exactly what Brown does and from memory he got away with it at least twice against us.

[liz]

I see Hardwick has come out and complained about the meedja picking on poor Rance and saying he's not the only player to milk a free (which is true but not an excuse, not when it was as blatant as that). It's in contrast to Longmire's observation that he doesn't think Sinclair will repeat his actions. Would be nice if Hardwick had just said something similar, except for Rance it's a habit he needs to get out of.

Some have tried to excuse the action, saying it was a free anyway and Rance just made sure the umpires saw it. I'm far from convinced that it should have been a free kick. Contact from McKernan was clearly in the side, not the back of Rance. Although he slightly extends his arms as the ball approaches and he prepares to mark it, there is no sudden jerk that suggests he pushed Rance away with any force. Had Rance not dived, it might have been possible to infer whether there was a pushing motion but Rance's actions make it impossible to tell.