I love this time of year. I love it when we see brilliant individual performances, such as Nick Davis’ last quarter heroics against Geelong in the 2005 semis, where he kicked four goals.
I love it when we see the hunger of clubs that seek redemption, such as Geelong who fell short in 2008, but tasted the ultimate success the following year in 2009. How sweet.
I love it when we see things that defy belief, such as a club that finished ninth (Carlton) defeating the club that finished fifth (Richmond) in 2013.
Stranger still, this is the time of year where it is possible to see two clubs attack the ball equally with such ferocity in a grand final that there is no winner and no loser, and both teams must play again, as was the case with St Kilda and Collingwood in 2010.
I love this time of year because anything can happen.
But this time of year is not just about the finals. It’s also a time for the AFL to look back and review the home-and-away season. To look at what worked and what didn’t, and evaluate what needs tinkering and what needs to be scrapped altogether.
I would suggest that the AFL start with the Match Review Panel (MRP).
With AFL being a contact sport, the MRP obviously cannot be scrapped altogether. However, changes must be made. Currently, we have a system that is so systemically riddled with inconsistencies that you would have a better chance of knowing if Adelaide was going to turn up to play this week than knowing the outcome of a MRP decision.
These inconsistencies frustrate players, coaches and supporters alike. At the beginning of the season, we were told by the MRP that the head was sacrosanct and that players who elected to bump and make head-high contact would find themselves sitting on the sidelines the next week.
This was the fate that befell Nat Fyfe, who was reported and suspended for two weeks for making head-high contact on the Gold Coast’s Michael Rischitelli in Round 2. In the weeks that followed, Melbourne’s Jack Viney and Sydney’s Dan Hannebery were reported for similar offences. However, neither player was suspended as the MRP held that they had no realistic alternative option but to make contact.
The MRP was more than likely correct in finding Viney and Hannebery not guilty. Both players had their eyes on the ball and, ultimately, were so committed to gaining possession of the ball that the head-high contact they made with the opposition was inevitable.
But wasn’t this also the case with Fyfe? The answer has already been well documented.
Aside from the issues surrounding head-high contact, the MRP must also fix the way in which it evaluates suspensions. The punishment has not always fitted the crime in 2014.
Acts which are intentional, malicious and in complete abrogation of the spirit of the game must be punished accordingly.
It sickens me a little that Nat Fyfe and Reece Conca were both suspended for two weeks. In fact, it sickens me a lot.
Fyfe was going for the ball. Conca was going for Devon Smith’s head, unknowingly to Smith, who was running to the interchange gate, only to be hit from behind.
What message are we sending to the spectators and future players of the game? And why do players try and justify their actions by saying they had a ‘brain fade’?
AFL is a contact sport and players impliedly agree to receive contact from each other in the course of the game. However, they do not agree to being punched, kicked or choked. These actions amount to assault.
If Brian Lake were to choke someone on the streets of Melbourne he would find himself in a far worse predicament than a 4-week hiatus from football. The MRP had the opportunity with Lake’s case to show the broader community that such vicious actions will not be tolerated. Yet, the MRP relinquished this opportunity and Lake served only two more games on the sideline than Fyfe.
These systemic issues need to be rectified before the 2015 season begins.
Nat Fyfe’s second suspension for the season, striking in Round 21, is the best thing to happen to the MRP this year, after much speculation that the Fremantle star might miss out on the Brownlow because of his first suspension in Round 2. The issue has now been put to bed.
Cat
Roar Guru
And how does the AFL and clubs manage when every single person cited will challenge every single case because there is no reason not to. You saw how long one Fyfe appeal took, imagine trying to do 20+ cases every round.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
nope just those don. Not a fitness guru either (physio's don't deal with this, despite what you may think) - biomechanics is my specialty and I may do an article probably in the next few months that may interest you on this. Magpies aren't that hard to get a game for to be honest, haven't been as dominant in the SANFL since the Power entered the AFL. but why stress yourself about me since you are so happy all the time? chill out buddy - I think you need to.
Smithy
Guest
Oh FFS go back and look what he was reported for. Two of the incidents were a freaking joke. He only served two weeks for the third one because of the stoopid loading of the first two, which were patently unfair and disproportionate.
Don Freo
Guest
Common sense. The moment we tried to copy a rugby system, it was bound to fail.
Don Freo
Guest
What was thuggish about the first two? Johnson got off for worse than Fyfe's first and if you think his second was thuggish, you are sounding more and more like...Rick Disnick, Master of every UNi Degree, GWS fitness guru, Port Magpies footballer extarordinaire,...and what else have you trumpeted as your credentials? Ruler of the world?
Cat
Roar Guru
Problem is what to use instead ...
Michael huston
Guest
My bad, but what I meant was the whole system. That is, the AFL and all parties it encompasses. Everyone up there has a different idea on things.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
I don't think I have said anything some people in the media haven't said already. Hell I gave him a massive wrap in a thread only yesterday. I'm a big fan of the boy - I just don't think he needs to be doing what he is doing. As for the purple fans - well they are entitled to their opinion of course. For the record - despite losing some respect in my eyes, a bit of thuggery can sometimes go a long way. I just don't think it helps Fyfe in anyway what so ever. Likewise Barry Hall is the biggest thug I have ever seen and I was 40 metres away from this incident on the boundary. Most disgraceful bit of play I have seen. He could have killed Staker, his lights were out on the way down! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5qVLJEOTpo The worst part is when Hall was asked why he did it he replied, "I don't know". And he wonders to this date why the Swans sacked him...
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
No i said he is starting to look like a little thug, I never said he was a thug - big difference Dal... I could say the same thing about your insta-judement comment only in reverse... I'd hardly call 3 incidents a small amount of information either. He strikes me at best a negligent player that can at times gets frustrated. And yes - he is potentially come a little thug, Barry Hall was a BIG thug!
Cat
Roar Guru
Well said, too many people have no idea how the system works and just spew out mistruths based on misconceptions.
langou
Roar Guru
He plays a very competitive and physical game and just needs to ensure he doesn't cross the line. Against Hawthorn he came out really fired up and right from the start I was concerned he would get himself reported. He needs to make sure we doesn't do anything stupid in the finals.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
If he is a thug I don't think he's a "little" one....but that reaction is typical insta-judgement, generalising for small amounts of information. Pretty typical these days.
Maggie
Guest
Michael, just like the author of this article you are overlooking the fact that there are three different bodies in the AFL's penalty process: the MRP; the Tribunal; and the AFL Appeals Board. The MRP had no involvement in the Viney case other than to refer It straight to the Tribubal. After a Tribunal hearing on a rough conduct charge Viney was suspended for two games, Viney and the Melbourne FC then appealed the decision to the AFL Appeals Board which upheld the appeal, finding that Viney had not intended to bump but rather braced for contact he could not avoid. It is simply wrong to even mention this decision in an article about the MRP.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Fyfe is 22, almost 23. I'm prepared to write off these incidents as unfocused, youthful competitiveness. If he can channel it better - and he will, as he gets older, and as Ross Lyon gets his hooks into him - it's going to make him an even better player. I don't see Fyfe as a thug, there wasn't much malice in any of his suspensions. He will be one of the great players of this decade.
Axle an the guru
Guest
Gee Rick those words (little thug)will get you in trouble with those purple boys from the west again. I personally dont think Fyfe has done much wrong,i agree with the talent factor though,he's a bloody good footballer.
Axle an the guru
Guest
The best thing for the MRP would be its dismantling and then retiring to the history books. It would go into the chapter of, the never to be seen again.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
I was a big fan of Fyfe and I still am with regards to his talent. However, I don't respect him at the moment for this is his third incident in 2 years. That's quite a lot for a 24 year old??? He is starting to look like a little thug and although the Lewis incident wasn't much, he is just getting involved in too many of these incidents for my liking. He needs to earn the respect back because one thing is for certain - he is a great player. He could even be one of the best and he doesn't need to be doing these petty little acts.
Michael huston
Guest
Lakes was the most barbaric thing I've seen done since the Barry Hall days. I think the MRP showed their tendency to respond too much to the publics opinion. Fyfe was the unlucky target of the bump rule, next was Viney. But the public made such an uproar about Vineys case and he escaped penalty because of it, as did others who followed. To me, that proves the MRP doesn't know what the hell it's doing.