Remove this Banner Ad

MRP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beetlebum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Mudd said:
Tas wasn't happy when I called his number in his sig inquiring about turf for my front yard at 2am in the morning :confused:
Click to expand...
Says it's not his business anyway, so I guess he's happy to destroy their good will.
 
slicedndiced said:
Oh wow.

Send me a PM too please Tas
Click to expand...

Are you going to have a cry as well if I do? :p

I didn't see the need to drag bait an opposition supporter and hide behind the skirt of a forum board rule to be aired publicly. It someone doesn't want me to respond to a comment, don't quote or tag me into it.

I like Fremantle and I like Crowley, just think it is hilarious people can't let go over such a trivial incident, especially when you hear Crowley speak of such great respect for Harvey. I think you guys are way too insular. Don't be afraid to have open conversations with other supporters. ;)
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Tas said:
just think it is hilarious people can't let go over such a trivial incident, especially when you hear Crowley speak of such great respect for Harvey.
Click to expand...

Lying to a tribunal is hardly trivial and defaming a person of unblemished character is beneath contempt. The "great respect" shown by Crowley to that rodent who wronged him so grievously is a measure of the moral character of the man and makes Harvey's actions worse, not better.
 
Love the guys on 360: "We don't want players suspended for that"

That little campaigner whacks a bloke in a way that if it hits the sweet spot can perforate an ear drum
Because it doesn't he gets off
But that's alright Fyfe gets 2 for an accident
And Tas be mindful of where you are
 
Tas said:
Then why didn't he appeal it further? There was a higher level of appeal and failing that a court of appeal if he felt he had his reputation unfairly tarnished.
Click to expand...
Rest assured, if there were games missed due to suspension on the line, it would've gone further. Drawing the circus out all week for a few dollars just distracts Crowley and the club from focusing on preparation for the next game. It's really not that hard to work out.
Tas said:
Are you going to have a cry as well if I do? :p

I didn't see the need to drag bait an opposition supporter and hide behind the skirt of a forum board rule to be aired publicly. It someone doesn't want me to respond to a comment, don't quote or tag me into it.

I like Fremantle and I like Crowley, just think it is hilarious people can't let go over such a trivial incident, especially when you hear Crowley speak of such great respect for Harvey. I think you guys are way too insular. Don't be afraid to have open conversations with other supporters. ;)
Click to expand...
Funny.. That appears to be exactly what you're doing.

You don't hear of too many cases where the prosecution is made with no evidence other than the he said - she said rubbish Harvey spouted off to his Norf mates on the tribunal.
 
Crippa said:
Lying to a tribunal is hardly trivial and defaming a person of unblemished character is beneath contempt. The "great respect" shown by Crowley to that rodent who wronged him so grievously is a measure of the moral character of the man and makes Harvey's actions worse, not better.
Click to expand...

Do you guys also hate Ablett for calling Crowley "a joke" on twitter for man-handling Judd? I think that slandered his reputation more than Harvey just giving an account of what happened during a footy game.

Crowley may well not have intended to pinch Harvey, perhaps it was vigorous grabbing of the jumper behind play, which given how tight they are worn these days could lead to pinching of the player.

Harvey can not possibly know what intent Crowley had or what tactics he was employing, only Crowley can know that. All he could give was an account of what he had experienced and in the great scheme of things, pinching is a very mild annoying offense, I bet most of you preaching forgot Ballantyne was fined for the same thing a few years ago. Is Ballantyne's character sullied?
 
Tas said:
Do you guys also hate Ablett for calling Crowley "a joke" on twitter for man-handling Judd? I think that slandered his reputation more than Harvey just giving an account of what happened during a footy game.

Crowley may well not have intended to pinch Harvey, perhaps it was vigorous grabbing of the jumper behind play, which given how tight they are worn these days could lead to pinching of the player.

Harvey can not possibly know what intent Crowley had or what tactics he was employing, only Crowley can know that. All he could give was an account of what he had experienced and in the great scheme of things, pinching is a very mild annoying offense, I bet most of you preaching forgot Ballantyne was fined for the same thing a few years ago. Is Ballantyne's character sullied?
Click to expand...


The point here is more that Boomer blatantly lied and knew he was lying a the time.
 
Tas said:
All he could give was an account of what he had experienced...
Click to expand...
Yeah, because what he experienced was being pinched 300 times. Harvey didn't tell about the 301st, because that was actually an alien anal probe delivered behind the grassy knoll at half time.

Nobody is interested in what you're selling, but do come back when Richmond beat you.
 
Tas said:
Do you guys also hate Ablett for calling Crowley "a joke" on twitter for man-handling Judd? I think that slandered his reputation more than Harvey just giving an account of what happened during a footy game.
Click to expand...

No. Boohoomer is a whinging sook. Ablett is not.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

basashi said:
The point here is more that Boomer blatantly lied and knew he was lying a the time.
Click to expand...

Only Harvey and Crowley would know if they had lied, and I doubt either of them did.

That is the problem, it is out of character for either of them to lie and I think the legal counsel going down that line was a very poor choice. It forced the Tribunal to make a decision which they basically said one of them was lying, even if they had felt there wasn't enough evidence, the path the legal counsel took required to make a decision one was lying, which I don't think was the case and forcing the Tribunal's hand to do so was not going to work out well for Crowley.

They should have instead sought to explain the pinching as something other than intentional, if it happened and not something he intended to do, if it happened. Could have easily shown some evidence that grabbing a jumper can often result in skin being caught and seem like he is pinching someone. That would have given the Tribunal room to dismiss the MRP finding without having to question the credibility of either player.

Harvey was called as a witness by the Fremantle legal team and they deliberately made it out that he was fabricating the truth, in my opinion it is just a terrible way to approach a Tribunal hearing and resulted in the result going the way it did.
 
gaskin said:
No. Boohoomer is a whinging sook. Ablett is not.
Click to expand...
Lach72 said:
Love the guys on 360: "We don't want players suspended for that"
Click to expand...

News for the kn0bs on 360. A charge doesn't necessarily mean a suspension. Reckless, low impact, high striking would have got him just a reprimand if he'd plead guilty. That's just a reprimand.

I reckon that action deserved a reprimand. But he gets off without any charge whatsoever.

Though knowing Harvey's form I'd be surprised if he didn't already have carry-over points hanging over his head, and it would have resulted in a suspension.
 
Tas said:
Only Harvey and Crowley would know if they had lied, and I doubt either of them did.

That is the problem, it is out of character for either of them to lie and I think the legal counsel going down that line was a very poor choice. It forced the Tribunal to make a decision which they basically said one of them was lying, even if they had felt there wasn't enough evidence, the path the legal counsel took required to make a decision one was lying, which I don't think was the case and forcing the Tribunal's hand to do so was not going to work out well for Crowley.

They should have instead sought to explain the pinching as something other than intentional, if it happened and not something he intended to do, if it happened. Could have easily shown some evidence that grabbing a jumper can often result in skin being caught and seem like he is pinching someone. That would have given the Tribunal room to dismiss the MRP finding without having to question the credibility of either player.

Harvey was called as a witness by the Fremantle legal team and they deliberately made it out that he was fabricating the truth, in my opinion it is just a terrible way to approach a Tribunal hearing and resulted in the result going the way it did.
Click to expand...
We can arrange some tissues for you too if you can't stop crying.

Boomer lied to the tribunal to try and get himself off the 6 week suspension too, but don't let the facts get in the way of your whining.
 
As for Pinchgate... wasn't Harvey carrying a dodgy rib at the time or something?

Any chance Harvey made up a story, when he felt a bit of a pinch from a grabbed jumper, as he'd have struggled to convince the umps that Crowley was deliberately targeting an injury by doing the usual stuff he'd do as a tagger? Touch and feel. Bumping. Wrapping an arm around. Elbows/forearms. All would be pretty uncomfortable for a guy carrying a rib injury, and all are standard tagger's tools of the trade.

That was always my suspicion. Harvey's "about 300 times" outburst at the tribunal seemed more like frustration than a real statement of fact. I'm sure it was nothing like the number he declared, but he blew up like usual. But there's every chance that his frustration and indignation was compounded by knowing he'd made sh*t up, and was being called out on it.

Only Harvey and Crowley really know what happened. But people take the verdict as proof that Crowley actually did it, despite the fact that it was genuine he said-Boomer said. And there's just as much reason to doubt Harvey's story as Crowley's. Why would he bother defending the charge if he was systematically pinching Harvey?
 
Nickos66 said:
Ablett also received a good few tissues complimentary from freo Supporters for his issue. But at least he didn't outright lie in a courtroom. Hardly shinboner spirit, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

...and Ablett had the nads to tweet a photo of the tissue pile that resulted. He also, in an interview, acknowledged that Crowley played the game within the rules but got inside his head.

Boohoomer on the other hands just sooked after he was soundly beaten by Crowley. There was a complete lack of evidence from the cameras that were on them all day, from the umps that were following them around, from the clubs doctors who couldn't find these mysterious welts (terrible doctors at Norths, hey) and from all the other players around them.

FACT: Nobody saw a single one of these 300 alleged pinches that caused welts that mysteriously disappeared before anybody buy Sooky Boy could see them.

Apply Occam's Razor to this.

Harvey lied and his mates on the panel went along with a clear lie. Isn't it time you stopped being so defensive about this and moved on? Crowly, the aggrieved one, has moved on.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

strobe00 said:
News for the kn0bs on 360. A charge doesn't necessarily mean a suspension. Reckless, low impact, high striking would have got him just a reprimand if he'd plead guilty. That's just a reprimand.

I reckon that action deserved a reprimand. But he gets off without any charge whatsoever.

Though knowing Harvey's form I'd be surprised if he didn't already have carry-over points hanging over his head, and it would have resulted in a suspension.
Click to expand...

INTENTIONAL
 
Convicting on hearsay without any empirical evidence our job;the MRP should operate with procedural fairness.
 
Last edited:
strobe00 said:
Looked intentional to me too. But how many players besides Fyfe (and his bullsh*t kicking charge last season) have gotten done for intentional striking?

Just doesn't seem to happen.
Click to expand...
what happened to ballantyne? He got suspended for striking this season, was that carry over pts? Yarrans seemed much worse.
 
Jimbos1 said:
what happened to ballantyne? He got suspended for striking this season, was that carry over pts? Yarrans seemed much worse.
Click to expand...
He got done for 2 minor incidents which were each worth a reprimand at best and the MRP calculated that 0+0=1.
 
Reginald Perrin said:
He got done for 2 minor incidents which were each worth a reprimand at best and the MRP calculated that 0+0=1.
Click to expand...

The points for each charge get added together and that fell within the range of a 1 match ban. I do think it was crap since neither of the incidents deserved a reprimand.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom