View Full Version : mrp Mcveigh 1 week, NLM 2 weeks
stay true
7 Sep 2009, 15:16
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=7015
Essendon's Mark McVeigh and Nathan Lovett-Murray have been handed three-game sanctions (two-games with an early plea) from Friday night's clash with Adelaide.
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=7015
Not an ideal start for 2010 with McVeigh, NLM and Lloydy (presuming he plays on) out for the first few weeks.
How weird.
3 players suspended in round 22, 2 for striking Hodge
2 players suspened in Elim final for rough conduct/striking Vince
Not great to be potentially starting the season with 3 less players to choose from than our opposition.
How weird.
3 players suspended in round 22, 2 for striking Hodge
2 players suspened in Elim final for rough conduct/striking Vince
Not great to be potentially starting the season with 3 less players to choose from than our opposition.
Dosen't matter who you support these type of players let the team & themselves down because they have no discipline.
Absoloute Bulls**t. Didn;t see Lovett Murray's but McVeigh's was hardly worth 3 weeks.
Seems like the Bombers are getting harsher penaltys that other teams at the tribunal.
theboxmike
7 Sep 2009, 16:08
OK i can understand Lloyds might be worth a couple of weeks(Not 4) But McVeighs worth 2? The AFL is a joke
Hey guys, i saw at one point of the game (can't remember exactly), that Lovett-Murray hip n shouldered Vince. He made contact with Vince's head although there was barely any contact, so little that Vince got up and kept playing, didn't even have to go off the ground, and i thought at the time if he goes for that this game is bullshit.
If this is the reason he got 2 weeks, it is absolute crap, but consistent with buddy's and lloyds suspensions - head high contact (although low level impact). I think the rule is a load of crap and needs to be changed, this is the sort of thing that will make our game more and more non-contact.
Will be interested to see if that is the reason, does anyone else remember this incident?
^^
The one Lovett-Murray has gone for was in the second term - Vince was left lying on the ground, but it was barely in the shot that Channel 7 managed to find. I can't comment on it because I haven't seen clear vision of it.
The second incident you refer to was in the last term, IIRC - Bince had his head down and got collected by Lovett-Murray. It's hard to tell from the angle whether he got him in the head or the shoulder deflecting into the head - I'd tend to the latter interpretation. It was one of those that was a fraction of a second from being reportable, but he's probably just OK.
Seeing as Lovett-Murray had two other incidents with Vince - one where he drove through in a tackle to really drive Vince's head into the ground in the 1st term at CHF for Adelaide (rule push in the back), and a swinging shot at him that just missed only because Stanton was done for the push in the back at the same time (members wing, term 2 IIRC) - there seemed to be something going on between the two of them. Either that, or Lovett-Murray was really, really angry Bernie didn't get pinged for HTB when McPhee got him in the second term.
The McVeigh incident wasn't worth 2, and apart from his priors, would only have been 1 week.
a1118868
7 Sep 2009, 16:48
Hey guys, i saw at one point of the game (can't remember exactly), that Lovett-Murray hip n shouldered Vince. He made contact with Vince's head although there was barely any contact, so little that Vince got up and kept playing, didn't even have to go off the ground, and i thought at the time if he goes for that this game is bullshit.
If this is the reason he got 2 weeks, it is absolute crap, but consistent with buddy's and lloyds suspensions - head high contact (although low level impact). I think the rule is a load of crap and needs to be changed, this is the sort of thing that will make our game more and more non-contact.
Will be interested to see if that is the reason, does anyone else remember this incident?
Excuse my intrusion, but I thought that NLM's incident was one behind the play in the second quarter which left Vince grounded in the forward 50 and requiring assistance from the trainers. He went off at the time but came back on soon after. I didn't see the incident as I was following the ball, but the crowd booed Lovett-Murray from that point on so I assumed it was his doing.
The MRP finding states that contact was to the body, not the head, and Vince looked to be winded/nursing ribs after the incident I referred to, so I assume this is the one in question. Unfortunately, the screen at the ground never showed a replay so I'm not sure exactly what happened - and as the screen is a direct ch 7 feed, probably no-one at home did either.
There wasn't much in the glancing one to the head which occurred later in the game, but in the current climate, I'm surprised it didn't get looked at more carefully (if in fact it didn't - the MRP might have said there was insufficient force or whatever)
How the **** does McVeigh get two and Bateman got 1 last week. That is bullshit.. I'm so annoyed with that.
MattyB_76
7 Sep 2009, 18:25
How the F**k does McVeigh get two and Bateman got 1 last week. That is bullshi!t.. I'm so annoyed with that.
McVeigh due to previous record and carry over points from that charge incurred more points/weeks, but Bateman was able to accept 1 week with an early plea, and a clean record.
Exactly the same charge from the MRP tho. The incidents were assessed the same.
Chance Bateman, Hawthorn
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/83916/default.aspx
"The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/83916/default.aspx
Mark McVeigh, Essendon
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/84340/default.aspx
"The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has an existing bad record of two matches suspended within the last three years, increasing he penalty by 20 per cent to 270 demerit points. He also has 85.63 points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 355.63 points and a three-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 266.72 points and a two-match sanction."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/84340/default.aspx
in previous years some players have served suspensions during nab cup matches. what is the situation here? i recall shane crawford serving some of his suspension in the nab cup. will essendon players be able to or will they totally screw essendon yet again???
The Sloane Ranger
7 Sep 2009, 18:49
Absoloute Bulls**t. Didn;t see Lovett Murray's but McVeigh's was hardly worth 3 weeks.
Seems like the Bombers are getting harsher penaltys that other teams at the tribunal.
the system punishes not only the offence but also repeat offenders, McVeigh needs to play with some discipline
The Donners
7 Sep 2009, 18:59
the system punishes not only the offence but also repeat offenders, McVeigh needs to play with some discipline
I agree.
Boucks09
7 Sep 2009, 19:07
Another ****en pathetic act from McVeigh.
At least Lovett Murray did it when the game was on the line. McVeigh has been done twice this season for the same stupid act when the game is well and truly shot.
Hopefully come Round 3 2010 our youngsters are playing so well that McVeigh and NLM can't get a spot for awhile.
hateitorlovett13
7 Sep 2009, 19:14
McVeigh due to previous record and carry over points from that charge incurred more points/weeks, but Bateman was able to accept 1 week with an early plea, and a clean record.
Exactly the same charge from the MRP tho. The incidents were assessed the same.
I can see your point about the previous record and all, but you can't tell me that Bateman's round arm swing at Lloyd's head should result in a 1 match ban and these two acts 2 and 3 matches.
There are serious flaws with this system, and it is an issue that needs to be resolved. How Bateman's was assessed to be low impact will never cease to amaze me.
Pity the AFL are fundamentalist, stubborn pricks, and chances are nothing will be done.
Absoloute Bulls**t. Didn;t see Lovett Murray's but McVeigh's was hardly worth 3 weeks.
Seems like the Bombers are getting harsher penaltys that other teams at the tribunal.
you had to be at the match,t v didnt show you anything. firstly N L M, all that dick head wanted to do all night was belt someone, firstly chris nights before the ball was bounced and the rest of the night he just wanted to king hit bernie vince. same goes with mc veigh. both of them got what they deserved. the question remains were they told to go after them or did they take it onboard themselves.
The Dustbin
7 Sep 2009, 19:41
****ing great. Glad to see the end of 09.
Skeeta Olly
7 Sep 2009, 19:46
you had to be at the match,t v didnt show you anything. firstly N L M, all that dick head wanted to do all night was belt someone, firstly chris nights before the ball was bounced and the rest of the night he just wanted to king hit bernie vince. same goes with mc veigh. both of them got what they deserved. the question remains were they told to go after them or did they take it onboard themselves.
How about Vince dropping the knee? Gutless act.
CamryCows
7 Sep 2009, 20:28
After McVeigh's lovely speech in front of the camera's after round 22 2008, the media put him up as a shining light. This was disappointing for the reasons mentioned above. The game was gone and the ball 100 metres away.
Not the best role model for an emerging side with plenty of talent.
hateitorlovett13
7 Sep 2009, 20:38
After McVeigh's lovely speech in front of the camera's after round 22 2008, the media put him up as a shining light. This was disappointing for the reasons mentioned above. The game was gone and the ball 100 metres away.
Not the best role model for an emerging side with plenty of talent.
Yeah I have to agree. Spike promised a shitload last year, and really looked like he was going to fill Hirdy's position as best anyone could. I've been pretty disappointed with him, but I think a full pre season will do wonders for him. Hopefully he learns from a pretty poor year.
Another ****en pathetic act from McVeigh.
At least Lovett Murray did it when the game was on the line. McVeigh has been done twice this season for the same stupid act when the game is well and truly shot.
Hopefully come Round 3 2010 our youngsters are playing so well that McVeigh and NLM can't get a spot for awhile.
A considered and accurate post, Mcviegh will nodoubt again take a leaf out of steve fieldings book and take some long lonely strolls during the off season - and if he continues to believe the tripe regarding him being elite he will struggle tocome to terms that players will surpase him. Put him back where he started in the BP and give us some value.
How about Vince dropping the knee? Gutless act.
Knights dropped the knee not Vince.
It has been a disastrous season for McVeigh.
Continually injured, suspended twice, missed training, club imposed suspension, off season problems.
The Donners
8 Sep 2009, 06:45
It has been a disastrous season for McVeigh.
Continually injured, suspended twice, missed training, club imposed suspension, off season problems.
Touch wood he comes back ala H Shaw/A Didak.
Kaiser Powser
8 Sep 2009, 11:39
you had to be at the match,t v didnt show you anything. firstly N L M, all that dick head wanted to do all night was belt someone, firstly chris nights before the ball was bounced and the rest of the night he just wanted to king hit bernie vince. same goes with mc veigh. both of them got what they deserved. the question remains were they told to go after them or did they take it onboard themselves.
That is understandable. Chris Knights is a weasle faced scrotum.
Bernie Vince however was in the wars. Lovett-Murray's bump on him was fair and a ripper, I can't believe some blouses on here are saying that it should have been looked at. FFS this is getting ridiculous.
Pevers-Legend
8 Sep 2009, 13:12
It has been a disastrous season for McVeigh.
Continually injured, suspended twice, missed training, club imposed suspension, off season problems.
And nearly all are his own doing.
He has been a massive disappointment. At least Welsh played a few good games and tried, I can't say the same for McVeigh.
He deserves the schite piled on him. Pufffs his chest and says this isn't good enough at the end of 2008, and then does exaclty that in 2009.
Make or break for him next year.
Boucks09
8 Sep 2009, 15:15
We are taking both cases to the tribunal tonight.
Skeeta Olly
8 Sep 2009, 20:12
NLM - 2 weeks
McVeigh - 1 week
Mr Mosquito
8 Sep 2009, 20:20
McVeigh argued successfuly that his contact was indeed on the body and not head high and was given 1 week with 77 carry over points.
NLM's will serve the original two matches given
Skeeta Olly
8 Sep 2009, 20:24
NLM was reduced from 3-2. Remember it was 3 weeks, but 2 with an early plea.
Mr Mosquito
8 Sep 2009, 20:27
yes true, i guess either way he is serving two week.
BomberAce7
8 Sep 2009, 20:31
Neither are a loss imo. They both will never change.
so i take it NLM reduced his carryover points
Skeeta Olly
8 Sep 2009, 20:47
Seems so.
Neither are a loss imo. They both will never change.
Although he can't stop getting reported we need a few NLM types, not necessarily position or playing ability wise but in his attack on the ball, on the man and for just having a fair dinkum crack!
Darealrath
8 Sep 2009, 20:57
Very good news about McVeigh.
essendon2008
8 Sep 2009, 21:25
Neither are a loss imo. They both will never change.
Noted
deathevocation
8 Sep 2009, 22:35
Although he can't stop getting reported we need a few NLM types, not necessarily position or playing ability wise but in his attack on the ball, on the man and for just having a fair dinkum crack!
NLM has a crack and doesn't take shit on the field. Good attributes IMO.
ilovegussy
8 Sep 2009, 23:24
This probably sounds really dumb but what are carry over points?
DonsRule
8 Sep 2009, 23:50
This probably sounds really dumb but what are carry over points?
Points that go towards your next report.
100 points = 1 weeks suspention.
if you have 50 carry over points, then the 50 points to towards your next hearing.
Although he can't stop getting reported we need a few NLM types, not necessarily position or playing ability wise but in his attack on the ball, on the man and for just having a fair dinkum crack!
NLM constantly shirks at contests. If you watch the way he 'attacks' the ball throughout a game you will see at least two-three times when an opposition player is actually desperate and wins hard ball against him.
What I can't understand with NLM is he went to the MRP with a three week report, they down graded it to a two week report but since he didn't take the early plea he got the two weeks.
So the result from last night was either
1) two weeks if he was succesful
2) three weeks if he wasn't.
If he didn't go he would of got two weeks anyway so there would be NO POINT risking the three.
I'm sure i'm wrong and I don't have the full information, can someone please explain what really happened?
Pevers-Legend
9 Sep 2009, 12:03
NLM constantly shirks at contests. If you watch the way he 'attacks' the ball throughout a game you will see at least two-three times when an opposition player is actually desperate and wins hard ball against him.
What I can't understand with NLM is he went to the MRP with a three week report, they down graded it to a two week report but since he didn't take the early plea he got the two weeks.
So the result from last night was either
1) two weeks if he was succesful
2) three weeks if he wasn't.
If he didn't go he would of got two weeks anyway so there would be NO POINT risking the three.
I'm sure i'm wrong and I don't have the full information, can someone please explain what really happened?
I assume carry over points are the big issue. Not sure if getting it downgraded from 3 to weeks (before accepting the ban) also helps with future possible suspensions.
bacon buster
9 Sep 2009, 13:39
he saved around 50-60 carry over points?
anyhoo, i can't believe mcveigh got suspended. sure, it was stupid, but there was no head contact at all. can't believe the adelaide supporters are whinging about it to be honest?
mcveigh is an idiot for doing it though. he'd want to have a huge preseason and come out firing next year.
and yeah, knights drops the knee and gets nothing
kelvin_sheedy
10 Sep 2009, 21:54
I just saw the McVeigh footage.
It's an absolute **** joke that he can do for that.
Why the **** did we not contest it? We should take that shit straight to court and highlight the farce that it is.
Luke Hodge got two guys suspended for exactly what McVeigh did.
I can't believe we bend over and accept everything.
I just saw the McVeigh footage.
It's an absolute **** joke that he can do for that.
Why the **** did we not contest it? We should take that shit straight to court and highlight the farce that it is.
Luke Hodge got two guys suspended for exactly what McVeigh did.
I can't believe we bend over and accept everything.
Agree.
soft.
bacon buster
11 Sep 2009, 13:37
soft? more than soft. incorrect decision more like it.
as mcveigh said on the footy show last night, he didn't know he could be suspended for an open hand to the chest.