Past #29: Brent Harvey - drafted w/ #47 in '95 ND - 432 games/518 goals for NM - AFL games record holder

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is very instructive that this article was posted on the AFL website today:

"
GEELONG skipper Joel Selwood has deemed Brent Harvey’s hit on him “an accident” and will head to the Tribunal on Tuesday night in a bid to have the veteran’s one-match ban overturned.
Selwood was forced from the field in Friday night’s semi-final with a cut above his eye after a bump from the North Melbourne champion.
In positive news for the Kangaroos, Selwood will be available to attend Tuesday night’s hearing, prior to the All Australian announcement, after the club confirmed on Monday it would challenge the rough conduct charge.
"No I don’t (think he should miss the preliminary final)," Selwood told Channel Nine.
“Those collisions happen throughout the night. We’ve all seen it, it was very minor.
“The contact, I was running at speed, he was running at speed, it happens, accidents happen.
“I got a phone call from (Geelong football manager) Neil Balme this morning and he said ‘Are you free tomorrow night if you’re needed?’ And I said ‘Yeah, I’m available’.
“Obviously (I’ve) got the All Australian dinner tomorrow night and he said the Tribunal would be 5 o’clock if it’s on.”
If his appeal fails, Harvey is set to miss his fourth match in five weeks after he was unsuccessful in overturning a misconduct charge in round 21.
Due to a previous bad record, an early plea would still see the 383-game veteran ruled out of Friday night’s preliminary final against the Sydney Swans.
He does not risk further punishment by challenging and would still be available for the Grand Final if his ban is upheld and the Kangaroos progress.
Selwood moved to play down his comments to the field umpire as he was forced from the ground in the second term under the blood rule.
Television microphones recorded Selwood telling the umpire: “Boomer f—-king jumped in my head.”
He responded on Monday night: “Exactly what it is, heat of the moment. You’re so emotional and you invest so much in the game and the season. And that’s what it is, it’s a final.
“I was more disappointed I was going to be off the ground from anywhere (from) probably three minutes, where you just get the tape around your head (and) get back on, or 10 minutes, where you’re getting stitched up downstairs.
“You feel that you let your side down for not being available for that period of time because you’re down to two on the bench. There’s a lot of factors where you’re spinning there and you’re so heated up.”
It comes after Harvey’s teammate Drew Petrie questioned a possible suspension, prior to the Match Review Panel finding.
“I'm not (worried), no. I look at that and I think was it malicious? No,” Petrie told Channel Nine on Sunday.
“Was it a nasty act? No. Does it happen a thousand times a game? Yes.
“It was an accidental head clash. His shoulder was in.
“For Boomer to cop a week for that, come on.”
 
How the MRP assessed some of these incidents we have mentioned.

Goodes
The match day report against Sydney’s Adam Goodes for rough conduct against Geelong’s Joel Selwood was assessed. The ball is loose following a boundary throw in and has bounced high in the air. Both players have their eyes on the ball, Selwood taps the ball forward and Goodes jumps in an attempt to contest the ball and braces for contact. Contact is made. It was the view of the panel the contact made was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken

Franklin
Contact between the Sydney Swans’ Lance Franklin and Gold Coast’s Clay Cameron from the second quarter of Sunday’s match was assessed. Cameron has the ball and is preparing to kick when Franklin comes towards him. As the Gold Coast player disposes of the ball, Franklin meets him with a bump. A free kick downfield was paid at the time for the high contact and it was the view of the panel that the high contact in the bump was below the force required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was required

Hawkins
Contact between the Geelong's Tom Hawkins and Hawthorn's Ben Stratton from the third quarter of Friday's match was assessed. After viewing all available footage and receiving a medical report from the Hawthorn Football Club, it was the view of the panel the force used was below that required for a reportable offence. No further action was taken

Merrett
The match day report laid against the Brisbane Lions’ Daniel Merrett for striking Melbourne’s Cam Pedersen was assessed. Melbourne’s Dom Tyson had the ball and kicked towards his teammate Pedersen. As Pedersen was preparing to mark, Merrett, who had his eyes on the ball, reached up to spoil with his left arm. Merrett made contact with the ball with his left arm in his spoiling action and also made high contact to Pedersen at the same time. It was the view of the panel that Merrett’s action was a legitimate attempt to spoil and the high contact made was deemed to be accidental as part of the spoiling motion. No further action was taken.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Boomer being suspended gives us another coach. Boomer in the box is a valuable commodity. Sure Boomer on the field is worth more to us, but IMHO when Boomer is in the box Brad is more fluid and flexible.
After Rd 5 2013 -
Matches with Harvey - 21 wins 16 losses 57%
Matches without Harvey - 4 wins 0 losses 100%

;)
 
So Joel Bowden on the AFL website basically stated that the reason he was sited was because there was blood.

No blood = insufficient force.

Something not right about that. It should be the action not the outcome surely.
 
The "eyes on the ball" factor cops a mention in a few of Mr Blondes MRP assessments above. This is another area where Boomer is looking shaky. The play had moved on.

50/50 at best for Boomer to get through this one.
 
no question that if Selwood didn't bleed, this would be a non issue.
Pretty much.

He is getting a week because he bumped Selwood, hit his eyebrow with his head and the bloke beld. The force of the impact was about as minimal as you can get, much less than the force Goodes applied to Selwood (which left him dazed) or Buddy applied to the Suns player, both high contact, yet they didn't bleed.

It is a pathetic rationale for suspending a player. The system has ventured so far up its own ring that it simply does not make any sense. It was brought in to remove bias and provide clarity to each an every case based on simple formulae, but they cannot be applied to all cases and the MRP and AFL clearly show significant bias towards certain players.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What I find most unpalatable is that we have a Tribunal / MRP system the AFL want us believe is as fair and just, yet they've not-so-subtly removed the key plank of any reputable justice system which holds any decision makers accountable....Precedent.

They do everything possible to create the air of an actual court; set up a panel, schedule hearings, listen to evidence, even employ a former County Court Judge to preside.

But all those bells and whistles count for nought if the decisions they make are not allowed to be referenced in subsequent cases.

Supporters and media alike squawk every 2nd week about the injustice dealt to some after the inexplicable lenience given to others, yet no one has ever really barrelled the AFL about their exclusion of precedence. It defies belief.

The fact is that despite the fancy facade, the AFL have ensured they can play puppeteer to the likes of Buddy, Judd, Ablett, Goodes etc as they see fit. Allowing precedence would cut puppet strings so don't expect a change to the Kangaroo Court anytime soon.
 
So Joel Bowden on the AFL website basically stated that the reason he was sited was because there was blood.

No blood = insufficient force.

Something not right about that. It should be the action not the outcome surely.
Pretty much what was said on On the Couch (I think). They're punishing the outcome rather than the action, Which is the completely ass backwards way of doing it.

A way over the top example would be a big forward taking a massive speccy on an opponent (which is legal every day of the week) but the momentum from the knee on the shoulders catapulting the defender into a goal post and knocking him out. They then suspend the forward for endangering the defender even though the action was legitimate.

As I said, extreme example but it's punishing the outcome rather than the act.

To those saying that the fact it's on the AFL website is a good sign for boomer. No, No it's not. The AFL articles are run by independent journos and the Tribunal is meant to be completely separate from the AFL hierarchy to prevent bias (not saying it is completely but its meant to be).

If he gets off tonight it won't be because there was an article on the AFL website.
 
Confirmed that Harvey's charge was rated low impact because Selwood bled and had to leave the ground.

This is interesting as Ian Findlay essentially has said it is not the case. We have a difference of opinion - in fact the complete opposite! Which I think works in our favour. They may well now take into account Selwood's predisposition to bleed as mitigating evidence and allow him to give evidence to this effect. That ordinarily it would have been insufficient force. Reading between the lines they may have just given Boomer the way out, Selwood testifies and the tribunal agrees...... I am now a little more hopeful.

"But veteran tribunal member and player advocate Iain Findlay told radio station SEN on Tuesday morning that Selwood's bloody predisposition would not help the North Melbourne speedster.
"No, that's irrelevant, the fact that there is scar tissue, and it's not an issue of whether a player has blood or not. The issue is with the new guidelines you are not allowed to make contact with the head. The head is sacrosanct. The fact that you jump and then make contact – it is irrelevant whether there is blood or not."


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/brent-harvey-mrp-decision-provokes-support-and-outrage-but-may-not-help-him-escape-ban-20140916-3ft56.html#ixzz3DRgG59c1
 
I'm not convinced the situation Selwood approached the umpire for and what Harvey was reported for are the same thing.

Selwood said (allegedly) “Boomer f—-king jumped in my head". This wasn't in reference to the bump, it was in reference to a little later when Selwood was on the ground and Boomer jumped over him and barely avoided clipping Selwood in the head with his boot (but close enough that Selwood would have 'felt' the presence of said boot). I may be wrong but thats how I saw it on the night and this was the moment the 7 commentary first identified.

What it means I don't know but I don't think Selwood dobbed Harvey in for the 'bump'.
 
I'm not convinced the situation Selwood approached the umpire for and what Harvey was reported for are the same thing.

Selwood said (allegedly) “Boomer f—-king jumped in my head". This wasn't in reference to the bump, it was in reference to a little later when Selwood was on the ground and Boomer jumped over him and barely avoided clipping Selwood in the head with his boot (but close enough that Selwood would have 'felt' the presence of said boot). I may be wrong but thats how I saw it on the night and this was the moment the 7 commentary first identified.

What it means I don't know but I don't think Selwood dobbed Harvey in for the 'bump'.
Yeah I said this earlier and I agree 100%.

Selwood said nothing after the incident that Boomer has been reported for. He ran off and played on. About 8 seconds later they tangled and then he complained about that incident.
 
I thought he complained to the umpire as soon as he was sent off with the blood rule, which matches up with his claims it was heat of the moment frustration.

I think if we're trying to claim the bump and head clash didn't cause the cut we're probably clutching at straws a bit. Maybe we might say it caused a cut to re-open but I doubt that will make much difference.
 
So Joel Bowden on the AFL website basically stated that the reason he was sited was because there was blood.

No blood = insufficient force.

Something not right about that. It should be the action not the outcome surely.


So if Hawkins had've split Stratton's lip...?

FMD.
 
So if Hawkins had've split Stratton's lip...?

FMD.

Yep.

And Selwood would have the hairline skin tenacity of Ric Flair. If I stared at him hard enough I could make him bleed.
 
No, he's got it wrong and you're a clown.

Boomer did not do the 'wrong thing'. Even in the context of this absolutely s**t rule. He put on a block and there was incidental contact that drew blood due to it being Selwood whose eyebrows are stuffed.

Selwood was upset at the time (game context) as he has explained.

So many idiots saying Boomer did the wrong thing. He didn't. Not by any objective measure.


No, i'm not wrong. Boomer jumped off the ground and bumped Selwood. In the process off bumping him there was a head clash that resulted in Selwood receiving a cut over his eye. Now since Boomer initiated contact he is responsible for his actions.

As I said earlier, our only chance is to say the was insignificant force. IMO this will be difficult as the force was rated low and Selwood needed stitches.

Lets not forget, If Boomer didn't have such a poor record due to sniping opposition players, then he would have received a reprimand and would be playing this week.
 
Lets not forget, If Boomer didn't have such a poor record due to sniping opposition players, then he would have received a reprimand and would be playing this week.
And this is what shits me.

He's really paying the penalty for throwing that scumbag Picken off him. And yes, he should have been more disciplined, etc etc. (By the way, calling that 'sniping' is plain stupid.)

The whole incident would not have happened if one of three umpires had spotted Picken holding Boomer around the torso, 20 metres off the ball, to prevent him getting involved in play.

The umps love protecting 'ball players' like Selwood, Gazza, etc For some reason, Boomer doesn't fit into their definition of 'ball players'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top