The Fyfe incident?
And then defame Mark after the game, with the communication specialists lapping it up.
They will probably miss the bags as much as they miss the goals.
Think his knee collided with an opposition player and did some damage.
That looked purely accidental to me.
Think the point of Warner’s article was that Keane put out two conflicting views in the space of 15 minutes ( the first one being explained away as a draft).
Anyone got the two different versions? How different were they?
from Herald Sun article
AFL changed its explanation of Nat Fyfe incident after incorrectly sending draft version
MICHAEL WARNER, Herald Sun, May 17, 2018 4:19pm
THE AFL has conceded it made a “mistake” in a communique explaining the decision to clear Brownlow favourite Nat Fyfe of an incident that left St Kilda’s Jake Carlisle concussed on Saturday night.
Carlisle was knocked out early in the second quarter at Optus Stadium after Fyfe’s knee collected him in the head as he was contesting a ground ball.
An initial statement from the Match Review Officer tweeted by AFL media manager Patrick Keane on Monday afternoon concluded that Fyfe had sought “to make contact with the ball with his foot”.
“As he reaches to the ball with his foot, contact is made with his knee to Carlisle’s head, as Carlisle reaches for the ball,” the statement said.
“It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Fyfe’s action was not careless and was not unreasonable in the circumstances.”
Nat Fyfe had no case to answer for his clash with Jake Carlisle. Pic: Getty Images
But the explanation changed markedly in a second statement released by the AFL at 5pm on Monday with all references to Fyfe attempting to make contact with the ball with his foot removed.
“Fyfe is approaching the contest from behind the pair of players on the ground and seeks to slow his pace towards the contest,” the altered statement said.
“As he reaches the players on the ground, Carlisle is rolling towards the Fremantle player and contact is made with his knee to Carlisle’s head. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Fyfe’s action was not careless and was not unreasonable in the circumstances.”
Asked to explain the discrepancies in the two statements, AFL senior communications adviser Jay Allen said Keane had sent out a draft version of events that had not been approved by match review officer Michael Christian.
“The AFL media statement is the Match Review Officer’s official explanation of all incidents assessed,” Allen said.
“A tweet published prior to this was an error. It has since been removed and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.”
Fyfe is the outright $3.50 favourite to claim a second Brownlow Medal after eight rounds of action.
Third favourite, Hawthorn ball magnet Tom Mitchell ($4.50), was considered fortunate to escape suspension after an off-the-ball incident involving North Melbourne ruckman Todd Goldstein in Round 5.
Yes, very different ways to describe “not guilty”. I can see why they changed it — very much moving away from “if you choose to xxxx and damage occurs, you’re gone” approach.
Imagine reading the equivalent Hurley v Hannebery (?) explanations. Blame the victim!
Brownlow contenders have their own rules though …
Just shows what we all know.
Decide outcome first based on what suits AFL.
Then find reasons later.
Take out the bits we don’t need …
So the AFL announces a few weeks ago there won’t be any changes to rules until after the season. Since this time they have:
-let Clarko determine that the blocking rules should be amended
-announced that and I paraphrase - we are going to bring in live trading and change the format of the draft but we have no idea how we will set up the rules or how it will work. No doubt we will stuff up a good thing but hey the NFL do it so it must be awesome and we need to do it.
Roseanne gets taken off the air for her ape comments. Meanwhile, our Eddie still prominent in the media after his Goodes comments, will probably be spruiking the indigenous round…
All these blocking issues would be gone if you allowed guys to bump properly again.
Most of the issues in the AFL rules are of their own making, ridiculous to think you can manage the game with 44 players all running around without much containment.
Two they need to fix are the incorrect disposal and defenders spoiling a forward both their run at it and player coming in whilst they are being blocked. Start paying frees for guys who let it go when they are tackled and the game would open up big time. I ■■■■■■■ hate guys who do that, makes ■■■■ player look ok and brings great players down to their level.
And then they get a free because the tackling player doesn’t know he’s dropped it.
Sliding rule should only apply to guys who do slide into someone’s legs, not penalise guys who are already down getting the ball.
And free kicks in the ruck should be obvious, not silly ones where a bad bounce means one guy can’t get to the ball.
I know it was brought up by sheedy again on the weekend, but going to 16 a side at the top level is worth a look.
A bad week for the Bears to be three players down in the first half for that particular idea.
I’d rather they radically reduce the number of interchanges. Just so it becomes physically impossible to have everybody on the ball all day.
I guess ‘that’s sport’ though, kinda?
But if you had 16 + 6 bench could be worth a look.
That’s if you’re trying to find space on the field. Probably more likely to recruit super athletes and end up with more injuries…