Harvey Gone?

Remove this Banner Ad

garlic munchers said:
Pretty sure most warriors don't/wouldn't squeal to an umpire like he has done.

Pretty unedifying really!
Click to expand...
haha he is a flawed warrior-too many people have hit him in the head, off the ball, illegally too many times. Barely a squeal in any case. Get over it-he is tough.
 
giantroo said:
Click to expand...

Is that all it was? Then again it is to be expected given the utter s**t coming from the NM board right now.

Frothing at the mouth over yet another Harvey undisciplined indiscretion. Some even melting over Selwood because he 'dobbed' in Harvey, when Harvey was the one who picked him off behind play. Btw whilst on the topic of dobbing, remember it wasn't that long ago that Harvey snitched on Crowley.KARMA!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

masai said:
I'm definitely no Boomer lover ( good player, dishes it out but poor in receiving ), but he is paying the price for the MRP chook lotto.

We all look back on that incident where the chap from Dowerin gave a fully fledged elbow, but their was insufficient force !!!!. Use you elbow = your gone.

We are a cynical bunch, it is feels like an exotic fauna species is now fully protected, but Kangas are definitely not.
Click to expand...
He actually got off lightly being offered one week.

"Customarily the panel deems players who have jumped to deliver a high bump guilty of reckless conduct. Had it done so in this instance Harvey would have been banned for two matches, even after a 25 per cent discount for a guilty plea."

From: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-suspension-20140915-3fqsf.html#ixzz3DMN3Cilg
 
Last edited:
TennisPlayerAndy said:
79678_765474ac10acf24ebbb192edcb08422c.jpg


Just before Harvey's 'collision'.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to draw attention to the Norf player eye gouging? ;)
 
Roos Addick said:
Lmao! Are you being serious?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Hey I'm just reporting what was said. He got "negligent" when usually the MRP would deem it "reckless" because his feet left the ground to jump into the bump. So yes according to MRP chooklotto he got off lightly.
 
Yeah, stupid rule hopefully the appeal will do the job......if not lets get on with it. Played most the year without a full strength team and done alright.
As for Selwood, champion player didnt like that he brought it up with the umps, but that is the way the game is played these days.
 
HoopsAhoy said:
Hey I'm just reporting what was said. He got "negligent" when usually the MRP would deem it "reckless" because his feet left the ground to jump into the bump. So yes according to MRP chooklotto he got off lightly.
Click to expand...
Sorry that's crap. That applies to jumping and hitting guys the head with shoulders and elbows. Harvey hardly jumps, and his shoulders go nowhere near Selwood's head. Was incidental (very slight) head clash.

There is another angle that shows contact from Swallow on Selwood just as the incident happens too. I believe that we will argue the force from that push contributed to the impact making it impossible for Harvey to avoid it (the head clash)

We have been preparing for this exact grading and we will win at the tribunal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't think he should go for that but, in the context of how similar incidents have been ruled during the season, he kinda has to. Hopefully they address the stupid accidental head-clash ruling that leads to suspensions like this. The North supporters having a go at Selwood for mentioning it to the umpire when he was bleeding must actually never watch Harvey play - the guy is a champion but he chats and complains to the umpires more than most.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bleeeeeeeeep said:
Yeah, stupid rule hopefully the appeal will do the job......if not lets get on with it. Played most the year without a full strength team and done alright.
As for Selwood, champion player didnt like that he brought it up with the umps, but that is the way the game is played these days.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Selwood I don't think he was complaining about the incident that Harvey has been reported for.

15 seconds later they tangle again as North clear it from the back line and I think something happened in the clash. When I initially heard the media were talking about an incident I thought it was that one anyway. Selwood played on after the head clash but left the ground complying after the second one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JoseMourinho said:
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Geelong Cats Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points).

Ignore the last two paragraphs. Only for striking cases.
Click to expand...
I find this pretty bemusing. It's off the ball and he leaves the ground. In other scenarios (ie striking) off the ball alone is enough to consider an incident intentional. This stinks to me of a case of they know they have to punish him due to the rules and precedent but dont want him out for the GF. As such the points are being manipulated to fit the time frame they want
 
KissKiss said:
I find this pretty bemusing. It's off the ball and he leaves the ground. In other scenarios (ie striking) off the ball alone is enough to consider an incident intentional. This stinks to me of a case of they know they have to punish him due to the rules and precedent but dont want him out for the GF. As such the points are being manipulated to fit the time frame they want
Click to expand...
You think he intentionally headbutt him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
KissKiss said:
He intentionally went to bump him and a head clash occurred. Under the current rules I don't understand how it is ruled negligent.
Click to expand...
Intentional bumps happen 200 times a game. Incidental/accidental head clashes do not.

I don't get your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Roos Addick said:
To be fair to Selwood I don't think he was complaining about the incident that Harvey has been reported for.

15 seconds later they tangle again as North clear it from the back line and I think something happened in the clash. When I initially heard the media were talking about an incident I thought it was that one anyway. Selwood played on after the head clash but left the ground complying after the second one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There was absolutely nothing in that one. Selwood fell over and that was about it, they barely touched each other. Im really annoyed that our game has come to this, yes it looks biased but if one of any other team's players got sidelined for this then i can assure you that they would feel just like we do (eg. Freo supporters). Yes harvy was an idiot and shouldn't have done it, but he gave him a cut...didnt knock him off his feet and the force was about the size of a baby pulling your arm... We are known to have one of the toughest games on earth yet stuff like this gets a player sidelined. Absolute bull
 
Roos Addick said:
Intentional bumps happen 200 times a game. Incidental/accidental head clashes do not.

I don't get your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I guess I view how they interpret intent different to you. I base it off the statements throughout the year that all off the ball incidents should/will be classed as intentional
 
Roos Addick said:
Intentional bumps happen 200 times a game. Incidental/accidental head clashes do not.

I don't get your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Its also more me being dissatisfied with how the MRP system is adjudicated. I believe it needs to be overhauled especially in terms of things like intent
 
KissKiss said:
Its also more me being dissatisfied with how the MRP system is adjudicated. I believe it needs to be overhauled especially in terms of things like intent
Click to expand...
That I agree with. For 120 years a accidental head clash was just that, accidental. Now it's sniping LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Roos Addick said:
That I agree with. For 120 years a accidental head clash was just that, accidental. Now it's sniping LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm ok with the game being cleaned up and some things that were acceptable 120 years ago being moved out of the game. I don't see the need for some of the dirty crap (striking etc) to happen today, but I do think they go too far on the current rules on bumping. But it comes down to I dont understand the ruling of intent in this case. It doesnt really fit how they have assessed other incidents this year
 
Where's the debate about Harvey being a dog?

I just want to see North fans change their tune from 3 incidents in 380+ games to 4 incidents in 380+ games, without them realising really it's 4 incidents in his past 50 games.
 
They should use the defence the Swans used to get Barry Hall off for his sucker punch on Maguire for the 2005 Prelim, say he hit him in play even though he's 100 metres off the ball. But something tells me the Swans have extra leverage for these things...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gocats88
Games Gone
Replies
9
Views
1K
Rob
Rob

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top