If Fremantle’s Nathan Fyfe finishes atop the Brownlow Medal count on 22 September, it will be a bittersweet moment.
He will have finished ahead of his peers as the best player for the 2014 season in the eyes of the umpires, however he won’t be eligible to collect the sport’s most coveted individual honour, because he was rubbed out for two weeks earlier in the season.
The Brownlow is officially awarded to the “best and fairest” player over the home-and-away rounds. Fyfe’s suspension rules him out of the second part of the necessary criteria to win the medal.
Should he finish on top of the account – with the traditional asterisk alongside his name for an ineligible player – he will join Corey McKernan (1996) and Chris Grant (1997) as the only men to have recorded the most votes but not been declared the winner.
Fyfe’s ‘crime’ was committed in Round 2 of the season. He was handed a two-week holiday by the match review panel after it assessed that his contact to Gold Coast’s Michael Rischitelli was negligent conduct, with medium impact and high contact.
The point of Fyfe’s body that struck was his opponent was his own head, causing both to leave the ground under the blood rule.
It is hard to imagine that a player would ever intentionally use his own head to strike an opponent. But, nonetheless, he was handed a two-week suspension. At the time he was on the second line of betting, behind Gary Ablett, for the Brownlow.
When the MRP handed down its decision many in the football world felt Fyfe had been dealt with unfairly. As the season has unfolded, the MRP has failed to act with any real consistency when it comes to the level of penalties it has meted out.
In the past two weeks we have seen two Richmond players banned for totally unsavoury, and dare I say, cowardly incidents.
West Coast ruckman Dean Cox was exceptionally fortunate not to sustain a broken jaw when Tyrone Vickery landed a round-arm right to the face. Cox was knocked unconscious and did not return to the ground.
The MRP handballed the matter straight to the tribunal after it assessed the incident as intentional (three points), severe impact (four points), and high contact (two points). The total of nine points triggered an automatic tribunal appearance, where the Tigers ruckman was handed a four-match ban.
In many people’s eyes the penalty was not truly commensurate with the crime.
However, it is the case involving Vickery’s teammate, Reece Conca, that is impossible to fathom.
After a scuffle with Greater Western Sydney’s Devon Smith, the pair headed toward the interchange bench. Initially trailing several metres behind Smith, Conca accelerated and upon reaching him delivered a forceful right elbow to the back of the head.
Incredibly, the MRP determined that the penalty for Conca would be the same as that handed Fyfe – two weeks.
Fyfe was attempting to knock Rischitelli off his kick while in general play. Conca delivered his blow with the ball nowhere in sight and with Smith totally unprepared for such contact.
Speaking of blows, how lucky was Brisbane’s Daniel Merrett on the weekend?
Merrett’s late and crude attempt to spoil Melbourne’s Cameron Pederson left the Demon with a badly bloodied nose. The Lion was running directly at Pedersen and jumped in the air to spoil. He got the slightest touch on the ball while his elbow smashed into his opponent’s nose.
His actions were deemed to be accidental and he was not cited, unlike Fyfe whose head-to-head clash cost him a fortnight.
It is impossible to fathom how Fyfe and Conca’s actions could be deemed to be of equal severity. It defies logic, given the suspension that Fyfe received, that Merrett had no case to answer.
Fyfe is currently leading the AFL Coaches’ Award by a whopping 15 votes. There is no guarantee that the umpires will vote in similar fashion for the Dockers’ dynamo, but Fyfe will be among the leading vote-winners.
Should he win, it will throw an even sharper spotlight on the MRP.
And that, given its determinations this year, is not a bad thing.
Martyn50
Guest
All discussion about Fyfe winning will be extinguished after Mondays review of his forceful contact to the head of the Geelong player Saturday night. The Geelong play leaving the ground concussed
Strapon1
Guest
You must be the mafia in your own lunch box don freo
Strapon1
Guest
As I said only freo supporters whining don freo
Jax
Guest
you hit the nail on the head, probably without realising it Gene. If Fyfe had carried out the same bump just a few weeks later he would not have been suspended and therefore still eligible for the award. How fair is that? MRP is a joke and it's a travesty that a decision that a few men made in a room on a certain time in the season 'may' block Fyfe winning the medal, should he get enough votes of course.
Jax
Guest
since when have votes been awarded to the 'fairest' player on the field and if they aren't why is the fairest component of the award given so much weight when determining the winner? Picture it - three umps in the rooms post-game asking each other who the 'fairest' player was today! They cast their fairest votes. Once that's done they ask each other who the 'best' player was today and again cast their votes. It never happens and they don't ask who the 'fairest and best' was today either. They vote on the best, period! Fairest is a throwback to a bygone era when fights, bumps and king hits were far more common than they are today. I like the traditions of the game and I think we tamper with them too much already but this fairest rule has to change. I hated seeing Chris Grant lose out on the medal and I'd hate to see the same happen to Fyfe. There should be an element of fairest in the award but it needs to be massaged into a 'fairer and better' system than it is today. How about this for a solution - if a player is rubbed out deduct Brownlow votes off him based on the severity of his indiscretion and let everyone know eg Fyfe has been suspended for 2 weeks so we will deduct 2 Brownlow votes from him for that accidental clash but he remains eligible. It's ludicrous that a player can have an incredibly consistent season of great footy spread across 23 games and be ineligible for something that happened in a split second and in the case of Fyfe accidental. The penalty for such an indiscretion as it stands is far too severe because it completely disregards an entire seasons good work. Especially when we have a MRP that is so inconsistent from week to week, never mind season to season. The concept needs tweaking but it has to be better than the system we have currently. Good article Glenn
manpurple
Guest
Bugger the Brownlow,Who cares what the umps think anyway? He'l be happy with his Norm Smith Medal
Don Freo
Guest
Where have you strapped it on? Your head?
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Despite the fact the incident happened under Demtriou's tenure? He took over on June 4th and the incident occurred in March. MRP also takes in damage caused. Fyfe's caused a strong amount of damage, Franklin's and Goodes' did not hence why they were let off. I agree they probably should have been charged and given their history, both were lucky not to but clearly damage caused carries a momentous weight in the deliberation of weeks given (of it a charge is given).
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
All 2 of them?
Strapon1
Guest
He doesn't win cause he got suspended and it only the sook la la's from west who are fighting it what about all the past players that have polled higher than the winner and didn't get Charlie eg Chris grant ect get over it freo supporters he doesn't win this year move on
Cat
Roar Guru
Makes a hell of a lot more sense then your lame searching for needles in a haystack momentum excuse. Fyfe bumped him, they clashed heads, Fyfe is guilty. Simple. Done.
Don Freo
Guest
You're making up your own rules now. Rischitelli chose to turn up to the game...it is, therefore, his fault. How many actions do you want to go back? At this rate, you'll have Geelong as reigning Premiers because they won it...some time in the past.
Cat
Roar Guru
If Fyfe did not make a choice to bump, the head clash would not have occurred, therefore simple logic dictates it was Fyfes choice to bump that caused the head clash, therefore he is guilty under the rules.
Don Freo
Guest
Matt, in Secondary school English at Year 12 level, to read literally is a D level skill. To get a C or more, students must be able to identify connotation. There is connotation in Glenn's comparisons. Literal repetition of detail about points and discounts does not acknowledge Glenn's argument that the same penalty for incongruous acts needs to be examined...and changed.
Don Freo
Guest
It came via a shoulder clash...the head clash followed. The accidental (not negligent) clash of heads was instigated by Rischetelli's momentum not by Fyfe's choice to clash shoulders. How was Chris Bond to know the application would change later and not even cite careless acts like Goodes and Franklin. If Freo knew that the AFL's intransigence was going to be 'transigent', they would have appealed. If the AFL turn from a policy once and so definitely, they can turn from it retrospectively. I am sure they will. If the big IF does happen and Nat tops the poll, the flack will be crazy. If it is not turned around before the count, it will identify the new CEO as ineffectual and undermine his tenure...too scared to second guess Andrew Demetriou and what his tenure set in place. It is a big leadership moment for Gillon McLaughlin. The head can still be sacrosanct. To exonerate accidents is not in conflict with that position.
Vea
Guest
His suspension included carry over points from the season before. So it would be a bitter pill for the lad cop.
Cat
Roar Guru
You are simply delusional Don Freo. How exactly was the rule applied wrongly? "A player electing to bump will be cited for rough conduct if contact comes via a head clash" Thats the rule, its black and white, and very simple. Fyfe chose to bump, a head clash occurred as a result of that bump. Are you now arguing that Fyfe didn't choose to bump or that their wasn't a head clash? There is no other out you can argue.
Matt
Guest
Not sure if it has been mentioned previously however 2 glaring mistakes in the article - 1. "It is hard to imagine that a player would ever intentionally use his own head to strike an opponent". That is why they graded the charge as negligent, not intentional. 2. "Incredibly, the MRP determined that the penalty for Conca would be the same as that handed Fyfe". After all of these years I would expect a reporter to understand the system. Conca was assessed with 325 points and Fyfe was assessed with 225 points. Factually incorrect to say that the MRP determined the penalties to be the same. Fyfe plead guilty in the 2013 season to a charge that ordinarily would have seen him out for 2 weeks. In essence he got that charge as 1 week with a probation 87.5 points. Without the prior crime and probation his suspension this year would have been 1 week with a probation of 68.75 points.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Nope - I agree with Gene on this one. The rules were applied exactly as Gene has stated, any other interpretation just seems silly because it is quite black and white. At the time of the incident he is correct also in saying that was the LAW. Had he appealed it 'MAY' have been upheld, but that is a very BIG may. Should the same incident occur this round then he 'MAY' also get cited by the MRP. We just don't know and that's the whole point of this article, the inconsistency is a complete sham. I don't blame the MRP for their decision, but I do blame them for not citing other players for similar incidents involving the head high hits this year. I also blame the AFL for rubbing players out from Brownlow contention for accidents. That has nothing to do with being fair and that's also critical to how a solution is forged going forward.
Don Freo
Guest
Gene...I can't help myself, I have to say it, 'Dill!' We know the rules...but your reading of facts is twisted. That is never the point of anyone's posts here. They were applied wrongly. If they were appealed, the appeal would have been upheld. Now don't repeat yourself with another restatement. Just go and read your posts and be happy that you agree with you.