Fyfe, Ablett cleared by MRO

Exactly right DC. Although you're shaking the tree a different way than me, since 2003 the Eagles have had a FF/FA differential total of 919, but have only topped the table 6 times The next best is North with a total of 472. The worst is Sydney with -516. Of course, that includes about 140 away games. Consider that in 2016,the Western Bulldogs had the highest positive figure of all teams in all years since 2003 of 112. What on earth could the Eagles have been doing that led the umpires to view them so favourably/

Fyfe was extremely lucky to get the Brownlow he won. Should have been suspended that year.

A big maybe but I guess you could be right. I don't understand how he didn't have a case to answer against Lynch. Ablett's I can understand.

For the Durdin one - they still had to be able to fit it into the MRO criteria (otherwise refer directly to the tribunal). The only options in the first category are 'careless' and 'intentional'. I'd argue that the actions of Durdin were not in any way careless. I reckon an appeal could assert that. Mainly because - he's gone in low, and braced, and bumped to the body (that's the initial primary action). The connection of head to head was due to the momentum of Rohan and not due to the momentum of Durdin. And it only occurred because Rohan wasn't braced and his head/neck whipped forward. The other possible out is to explore the definition of contesting the ball. That's the 'out' that allowed Zurhaar to not be sanctioned for the connection with Liam Jones last week and also the Taylor Garner and Tom Stewart 'incident'. I reckon an argument can be put forward that give that were Rohan not blocked - then he would almost certainly be impacting the kicker (via latish bump of the kick or a full length dive/smother) - so - - if one argues that the ball was in fact being contested via the actions of the 3 players then that's an 'out' as well. The MRO has gone hard line simply because of the outcome - however.....culpability is placed squarely on Durdin. The irony here is that in Australian Football you have the odd situation in a shepherd scenario - - often you see the blocker coming and either try to get past (a bit like a car trying to race over the crossing before the train comes through) or you try to crash into the blocker and at least hurt him a bit (whilst also showing the coaches that you tried your hardest to chase/pressure the kicker). Rohan really should have been aware of Durdin - and he didn't get across the tracks in time.....but the train driver is being penalised here.

About time something went Fyfe's way at the MRO... he's been rubbed out for less in previous seasons. Hasn't been much of a protected love child in the past.

The year Priddis won. Fyfe missed those two games and lost by 2 votes? Had he not be suspended I reckon he would of been a real chance of making up the votes to Priddis.

Haha says the WC fan whose team has headed the frees for/frees against differentials for over a decade.

He actually bounced up off his upper arm, that and the ball was in play between them until Lynch knocked it on, paired with the minor impact the decision has some supporting logic.

Very similar incident twelve months ago, Jack Graham rubbed out for late high contact with a forearm against Brisbane. Zorko got straight up and suffered no ill effects. Christian cited the intermittently-applied “potential for serious injury”. Richmond took it to the tribunal and lost. The AFL is in a very disappointing state in general and if not for love of my club, it would probably be enough for me to walk away.

Was that the year that Fyfe was suspended for having a head clash with someone? He was extremely unlucky to get that first suspension

fyfe & ablett protected love children of the AFL . what an embarrassment to the game letting these 2 teachers pets off yet giving Gov a $2000 fine for a bump . incompetency reigns supreme at head quarters lead by the biggest clown outfit on the planet

For any Tigers supporters that remember Jack Graham's hit on Zorko? last year Rd. 4 (which he got a week for), I fail to see how both of Ablett's hits got nothing. Ridiculous double standards.

Of course they were LOL , was anyone suprised.?? Every mug punter in the land knows there are two sets of rules ... one for Gillons favorites and one for everyone else.

What year did Fyfe lose a Brownlow?

Meanwhile the Western Bulldogs are wondering who's going to cop Princess Gary's weekly high and late but cunningly low impact hit.

Sorry, I disagree. The tribunal shouldn't be second guessed. If it was good enough to be reported last week they both should have been reported this week. If the tribunal lets them both off fine but the referral decision should be the same each week. Having said that I am happy Fyfe got off as he has been unfairly reported in the past when doing nothing different to other people not reported.

I saw the Cousins incident differently, both players were going for the ball and the ball was still in the vicinity in a 50/50 contest. Yes he did brace himself and got the player in the head with his elbow. SPS did go down but was not concurred and took his free kick. They are two different incidents but l still think Ablett this week wasn't contesting the ball him jumped off the ground which in the past has been a big no no. Fyfe was also lucky. I just want consistency in the decisions made and l wouldn't be the only one. No one knows from one incident to the next what penalty a player may or may not receive. A big overhaul is needed or new personnel who can make the tough calls.

"Both Cousins and Grimes clearly made contact with a forearm which was braced, anticipating contact (significantly later after disposing of the ball, too), making it hard to argue anything other than deliberate attempt to contact the opposition player. Ablett’s contact with Essendon’s Dylan Shiel was more of a glance, but more importantly, was made with an arm held loosely and not cocked or braced for a collision." RoCo's words but says exactly how I see the differences.

Maybe Hawthorn should of Cat but doesn't account for this week's incident. Thought the Shiel one was a 50/50 but thought he would go for jumping off the ground and hitting a player clearly in the head with a forearm. They have set a precedence now. Not sure Cousins would have got off, not high profile enough

Nah he’s right mate. I don’t reckon anyone should be rubbed out for that but they would both be gone if they weren’t both Brownlow fancies. The AFL know how close they are getting to some very embarrassing Brownlow medal nights