There was a predictable outcry on Twitter when the AFL announced that Brisbane Lion Daniel Merrett could accept a two-week suspension for his forearm to the face of Gold Coast Sun David Swallow.
Immediately, all thoughts turned to Fremantle’s Nathan Fyfe, who was forced to accept the same sanction for an accidental head clash caused by choosing to bump the week before.
The raw data of those two collisions equating to those two penalties is, of course, grossly unfair. Lost in the immediate outrage of such incidents, usually led by tabloid journalists, is the different penalties and discounts that apply.
Merrett was actually given a certain amount of loadings points, which equated to a three-week suspension. In almost every scenario, a player pleading guilty is eligible for a 25 per cent discount on his penalty. In Merrett’s case, this was enough to get his points shifted to the two week barrier. Fyfe, unfortunately, had prior convictions that led to his penalty being increased from one week to two.
Despite the outrage from professional muck-rakers the likes of Channel Seven’s Mark Stevens and the Herald Sun‘s Jon Ralph (even the usually measured Gerard Whateley called the penalty “manifestly inadequate”), three weeks for Merrett is a worthy suspension for the incident in question.
Simply put, the greater good is served by players being entitled to a 25 per cent discount for pleading guilty. The tribunal doesn’t have to sit for several hours a week, any number of players and club officials aren’t inconvenienced over what could be a triviality or foregone conclusion and, perhaps most importantly of all, players get back on the field sooner.
So Daniel Merrett’s two weeks isn’t the problem. It’s having rules in place that sees Nathan Fyfe get two that is.
The DNA of Australian Rules football is players being spectacular and tough. The game was built on a base of high marks and hard bumps. While we still see the former, with Collingwood’s Jamie Elliott providing a prime example on the weekend, the latter has sadly been in the process of being phased out over the last few seasons by the game’s rule-makers and administrators.
The game is at its most exciting when hard, competitive men are bashing and crashing into each other from all angles with brutal force and a fierce desire to either win the football or protect their teammates.
When we think of the most memorable matches, and close grand finals are often at the top of the list, they are always extreme physical contests. No quarter asked, and none given. We want and need our players to be displaying fearlessness and ferociousness, and thinking of nothing but the contest, not second-guessing themselves and doubting their instinct as they approach an opposition player.
A stray, forceful elbow to the face with the intent to hurt? Yes, three weeks. Charging towards an opponent, leaving the ground to break a jaw with your shoulder? Sure, give him a holiday.
But laying a fair, hard, hip-and-shoulder bump, one that every AFL player would give out and receive many, many times a season, and missing games due in incidental and accidental head contact? Absolute nonsense that reaches into the heart of the fabric of our great game, and rips it apart.
Accidents happen. It’s a contact sport. And thuggery has been stamped out of the game.
Daniel Merrett will serve his rightful penalty. It is fair. It is just. Nat Fyfe’s treatment has been anything but.
Cameron Rose
Expert
The Brownlow criteria needs to be addressed so trivial incidents like Fyfe's, which contain no maliciousness whatsoever, and are simply an accident, do not prevent a player from winning.
Cameron Rose
Expert
I couldn't agree more Judy, May being cited shows how embarrassingly far we've gone in the wrong direction.
Don Freo
Guest
Fyfe negligent? What did he neglect? Shoulder first...then the head bumped into the other bloke's. He didn't even neglect the laws of physics. The problem is the points system. Thuggery (Merrett) playing footy is 20 times as bad as Fyfe's accident playing footy. Make the penalty 20 times as long. If Demetriou and co are monitoring football discussion websites, they must address Fyfe's inelligibilty for Charlie. Everyone thinks it's unfair. Anyone out there think Fyfe is or was unfair?
Judy Atu
Guest
They definately got the Merrett case wrong too light a punishment.The good news Steven May got off, he should never have been cited in the first place it was a legal bump
TomC
Roar Guru
I stand to be corrected, but I think Steven May's penalty was one week, with an early plea just getting him a points deduction.
Judy Atu
Guest
Merrett should have got 5 - 25% down to 4 it was intentional and not necessary, on the other hand Steven May does a normal hip and shoulder that goes on in every game and gets 2 weeks down to one, it should never have been reported, and hopefully they see sense tonight at the tribunal
Nick Inatey
Guest
Not quite sure if I could endorse Gerard Whateley being described as measured. He is a touch prone to hyperbole, much in the same vein as Kent Brockman.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Are they the ones that go straight to the tribunal? I suppose they're for the Barry Hall on Brent Staker type swings. That's fine by me.
Alex
Roar Rookie
Cam I believe that when the conduct has been ruled "intentional", there should be no prospect for a 25% reduction due to an early guilty plea. What are your thoughts?
dave
Guest
It makes perfect sense If we could just find out whos daghter Fyfe has been playing around with.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
yes Cam, it certainly seems that way.
MRL
Guest
Agree PP VII. No courage in raising a forearm like Merrett's to someone who is not expecting it. A raised forearm is a defensive act!
Cat
Roar Guru
I never said the MRP doesn't have the scope to rule on sling tackles. It does and has, in fact it ruled on one this very round, Thomas initially copped a one-match suspension for his sling tackle on Dogs' skipper Ryan Griffen, but he has a good record so he can cop a reprimand and 93.75 carryover points. Actual grading was Negligent, Low impact, High contact, 125 points. Does anyone under stand the relationship between activation points and demerit points? I don't, not fully at least. Merrett: 7 activation points for 325 demerit points (46.4 demerit points per activation points) Fyfe: 5 activation points for 225 demerit points (45 demerit points per activation points) Thomas: 4 activation points for 125 demerit points (31.25 demerit points per activation points) Both Fyfe and Thomas were charge with Rough Conduct while Merrett was booked on Striking. The system is so confusing and convoluted.
Cameron Rose
Expert
The lack of malice in today's football is an important point Pope. There is a basic absence of it and thuggery, so the game is clean. Suspending players for a clean bump with incidental and accidental contact is too far the other way. It's just wrong.
Cameron Rose
Expert
It's an interesting observation Jess and I for one like it. The Byron Pickett type shirt-front to the head has been wiped out, and fair enough, but we've clearly gone too far the other way when minor incidents are even getting cited, let alone suspended.
Jess
Guest
Going back to the Suns v Freo game. Fyfe lays a bump on a suns player which results in both players going off with blood from the head, but both played on and (had he not been cited) both would have played the next week. Purely because it was a head injury fyfe was rubbed out for 2. Same game, Suns player chooses to bump Barlow instead of tackle. Barlow does his knee, out for six weeks, no citing. Either you cite all players bumping that causes an injury, or you let the rule go. A small amount of blood that has no affect on that player completing the game or competing the next week should not amount to a 2 week holiday
Cat
Roar Guru
Now that, AR, I can wholeheartedly agree with.
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
Gene I'm not sure you're entirely nailing the use of the word "semantics" there, i.e. getting caught up on specific meaning of a particular word and being distracted from the ultimate importance of the context/argument. I'd also say the MRP certainly does have scope to rule on sling tackles. I'm sure there's some allowance under unduly rough conduct provisions if there's nothing more specific. I think there's even precedence. Didn't a sling tackle result in someone getting weeks a few years ago, involving a Crows player maybe?
AR
Guest
Hmmm...point taken. It's a flawed system - certainly fails the 'gut test'.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Perhaps but I'm not condoning it. It's gutless to iron out someone who's eyes are on the ball. Merely drawing a comparison between the acceptance of former violent intent back then and the general lack of malilce of today's era. This was also only a "highlights" package and the overwhelming majority of players were clean but every team had a few thugs that often bought retaliation. I understand Gene that you discovered footy only recently. It's well worth a trip into the archives to see how the game has evolved.