The AFL match review panel is unreliable

Quite the dramatic flare you've got going. Getting any nibbles for your scripts in the bog apple?

'Seeing Tex Walker lying on the ground after he tried to bump Mitchell was pretty funny to the casual observer.' Yeah, we really want to see out best players get taken out with an illegal raising of the knee that corks the opposition player don't we, really funny, not! 'I mean, talk about David vs Goliath.' David could drop Goliath with a kick to the nuts or a knee to the hip or thigh, does that make David the better man? 'He would never complain in public like Walker. ' No, he just takes the law into his own hands and dishes out his own forms of retribution as he sees fit. 'Mitchell abides by the rules he plays by' Like kneeing the opposition? Your post hasn't done Mitchell any favours and it doesn't shed a favourable light on Hawks fans. Three players get corked by Mitchell in half and season and you think it's funny and happy days alround and that anyone that cops a knee on the hip or thigh should grin and bear it. You can add 'liar' to Mitchell's rap sheet while you're at it. Sure he plays great footy and he's been a great servant to your club but open your other eye and you will see the negative side of Mitchell like the rest of the footy community that don't support Hawthorn.

Except they didn't cite him when he punched Duryea in the face without having his eyes in the ball for about 6 minutes leading up to his attempted "spoil". At least Lewis had his eyes on the ball when he whacked Goldstein in the face with his spoil. As for Mitchell, it is such a beat up. Probably not his action towards Griffen, but the other two are amusing. Seeing Tex Walker lying on the ground after he tried to bump Mitchell was pretty funny to the casual observer. I mean, talk about David vs Goliath. Except in this story Goliath logs on to Twitter and complains to the world. And then does it again. Mitchell plays hard and for keeps. He would never complain in public like Walker. Examples of this are Stevie J whacking him in the back in Round 1 and Fasolo from the Pies doing a similar thing recently. Both times he said there was nothing in it, when it looked pretty bad, especially as he didn't have the ball either time. Mitchell abides by the rules he plays by. And doesn't whine about it. Probably explains why he is a three-time premierships player, premiership captain and one of the players if his generation. And why Tex Walker is a good forward. One of them will be an AFL Hall of Famer, the other, a rampant tweeter.

They would cite Fyfe for expelling wind in the vicinity of the umpire.

Johnno, Johnno, Johnno the trouble with your fairytale the same fairytale that the MRP used is that they got it wrong! !/ it wasn't careless it was INTENTIONAL 2/ Just cause he is a tough nut and got up and took his kick it was MEDIUM Impact 3/ of course it was high it was his FACE PART OF (the supposed protect the HEAD) So no it wasn't the only thing they could do. What they should have done is pick the corret categories then it would/should have been WEEKS!! He is a dirty player that's why he got rubbed out last year and some people and obviously the MRP went poor fyfie he didn't get his brownlow aw well we willl get it for him this year.

Hellabloodyluyah Josephine, I agree with your statements 110% Fyfe in particular is definately a protected species I don't barrack for either team, but his actions in that match deserved at the very least 1 match. He wasn't watching the ball, he had his back to it, he was late, he turned his own head so he didn't connect with Duryea's arm (so he didn't get hurt) then whacks a guy in the head, anyone (except the other protected species sooky lala Nick Reiwoldt) would have got weeks. not good enough MRP

Dubai - I've seen quite a few instances over the years where a high profile player was reported during finals or in the prelim. The tribunal have often been more lenient at these times, is that protection of a species? I think it has been in quite a few of them. During that same season players were getting rubbed out for the exact same incident so I'm not sure what else you could call it? Fyfe wasn't protected last year I agree, and he hasn't been protected this year either but given the chance they just might. Last year he was ineligible for the Brownlow and fortunately for everyone Priddis pipped him in the votes tally so it ended up being a non-issue but the media and public debate leading into the Brownlow count about Fyfe's ineligibility was something the AFL wouldn't have enjoyed. This year he is clear favourite and with the 3 strikes rule they don't have any choice other that to suspend him. In years gone by he may have been given preferential treatment I'm quite sure of it. The example I have used could be applied to any star player. I just used Fyfe for the example.

Yeah I know they are the rules. It it doesn't mean that I have to agree with all of them eg previous records. Yeo didn't intentionally mean to hit him in the nose, he's got a clean sheet as well. Fyfe's was more intentional for mine and he hasn't got a clean record. As a I said above, I don't have an issue with Fyfe/Duryea but I do with Yeo/Webster. It's the rules that needs to be changed. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one which is fine.

The MRP is inconsistent - I totally agree with that sentiment. What I do disagree with - totally - is this absurd notion that Fyfe is a protected species. Last year's 2-week suspension for the head clash is testament to that.

Chris - the UAE is 12,000 kilometres away from Tasmania. But even so, I can see that Fyfe made contact with the soft part of his forearm. As such, the free kick and the subsequent 50-metre penalty, is all it deserved. So let's move on, shall we?

Jax - just watched the Yeo incident and it is more akin to the lewis incident. Fairly whacks Webster across the nose. Medical report would have assessed the damage to Webster was caused by Yeo. I think medium impact was fair. 2 weeks is the rules. Look at the rule book. Careless, medium, high contact = 2 weeks. Yeo knew this, accepted the ban early and copped only 1 week. 1. Previous good record means zip this year 2. The difference is low impact / Medium / high / severe - Fyfe was deemed low as Duryea was unhurt. Yeo was medium as his opponent left the ground with blood streaming form his face. Doctors reports would have been used to assess both incidents There is no consistency issue with Fyfe and Yeo as far as I can see .... except the ump should have given Webster a 50m penalty like Duryea got as well. Yeo's looked more intentional to me - round house swing. Typically to spoil (without chopping arms) his fist should have kept going straight and not across his face. Both got the correct penalty

One more point on intent. Yeo was definetely accidental. Fyfe was arguably accidental yet both were ruled careless. Weigh ALL of the above up and... If Fyfe gets a fine then Yeo didn't deserve 2 weeks for causing a player to leave the field under the blood rule. No damage to Webster other than a blood nose, unbelievable. Webster was subbed out of the game later but that was due to friendly fire when his own teammate Dempster collected him, not Yeo.

Thanks Johno... I don't have a problem with that but I have a problem with the consistency. Let's compare Fyfe to Yeo. 1. Careless (same as Fyfe) 2. Medium (Fyfe low) 3. Head (same as Fyfe) Injury to player - Webster left the field for 10 minutes under the blood rule, some players bleed easier than others. Taylor didn't bleed and didn't leave the field. The only difference was the impact. Penalties Yeo - 2 weeks Fyfe - fine I can't be 100% sure but I don't think Yeo had ever been cited before, correct me if I'm wrong. Fyfe has been cited on numerous occasions. He certainly has the worst record of the two. Does that seem fair and consistent? Just because someone says these are rules it doesn't mean they are right. I see stupid rules in the game and I see our politicians making them everyday. Garbage in, garbage out.

Yes. I'm not saying that he should have been suspended but that is definetely in the backs of their minds.

It's a tough one because I believe Yeo's strike was not intentional but he got 2 weeks. Fyfe's was clumsy at best and he didn't have his eyes on the ball and he received a fine. If you look at the Yeo vision you will see that he missed the ball by a few centimetres and he had his eyes on the ball. Unfortunately the player ended up with a bloody nose so the MRP viewed the strike as more severe than Fyfe's. The lower the extent of the injury the lower the penalty with the MRP this year. While that makes some sense on the one hand i.e. The injury outcome it's far from perfect. I think Fyfe had more intent for the man that the ball which sets a dangerous precedent because he could quite easily have broken his nose. He didn't break his nose I know but geez it's a fine line. I think they need to increase the weighting with regards to intent and leave the injury outcome as it is. That might be a fairer method and it might mitigate the disparities that we see with the MRP these days.

Spot on.

The commentators on the TV coverage "he's not getting reported for that is he" "Looks like he slipped when he was wrong footed" "ahhh he threw the leg out" "Send him a fine and lets get on with it" Seems like most agree - a suspension would have been over the top The whole Fyfe should be suspended smacks of people who plonked some cash on either Hanneberry or Mitchell for the Brownlow

Do some research on Sam Mitchell and his knees - there are reports going back to 2008 about him doing it. You've picked the wrong bloke to have a crack at in relation to getting favourable treatment