MRP

[Reginald Perrin]

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.

You're right, they didn't.

Boomer did worse to Crowley with his little chop to the throat and didn't even get pinged for a free kick.

 

[Jimbos1]

He got done for 2 minor incidents which were each worth a reprimand at best and the MRP calculated that 0+0=1.

ahh i see, but still his strike to rhyce shaw was to the body. He got a reprimand. Harvey and yarran didnt even get a reprimand for a strike to the face/neck.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-04-22/the-verdict-round-five-with-joel-bowden 5:15

interesting/frustrating to look at

 

[Jimbos1]

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.

Yarran and harveys strike were worse, to the face/neck. Not even a reprimand. Absolute rubbish.

 

[strobe00]

Boomer did worse to Crowley with his little chop to the throat and didn't even get pinged for a free kick.

He's a karate master is Boomer... understands the power of the 'open hand'.

power = being a dirty tw@t while avoiding suspension

 

[scon]

300 plus karate throat chops and has got away with every single one of them.

 

[yoong]

Boomer seem to like to strike out with his open palm technique a lot.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Boomer seem to like to strike out with his open palm technique a lot.

Hasn't been able to make a fist since a horrendous masturbation accident he suffered after being appointed Captain.

 

[slicedndiced]

FFs you blokes.

It's like we never had a dirty bastard play for us.

 

[Kram]

If you are talking about Solly he probably done Ling a favour he has a face that could only be helped with some elbow panel-beating.

 

[Kram]

FFs you blokes.

It's like we never had a dirty bastard play for us.

This reminds me of Blackadder 4..

Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...
General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!

 

[Dockernut]

FFs you blokes.

It's like we never had a dirty bastard play for us.

That's different.

 

[scon]

I have thought that Boohooomer looks as though he's studied palm-heel punching under Josh Carr.

 

[salim malik]

FFs you blokes.

It's like we never had a dirty bastard play for us.

Ah yes but we have never had a LYING dirty bastard play for us

 

[clogged]

North have been full of liars for ages. Unfortunately, this was pre-Google, so I can't check the finer details of my memory, but there was a game in the 90s where one of the North players (can't remember which one) was cited for biting a Freo player. His defence was that he wasn't biting his arm but the hairs of his arm accidentally while he was grimacing (or something to that effect). And he got off.

 

[Tonga Bob]

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.

Keen to know... do you honestly believe, hand on heart etc, that Crowley vigorously grabbed Harvey's jumper behind play about 300 times during the course of a 100 minute (120 with stoppages) footy match?

I don't get caught up in these sort of things too often, but this one has unfortunately gotten stuck in my craw. The real villain here is the MRP who first cited Crowley then found him guilty of a series of offences without actually having any evidence of those offences occuring. Harvey's claims (particularly the volumes he gave) are improbable yet not impossible, but once cited he did point the finger which goes against the whole 'what happens on the field stauys on the field' mantra that many of us grew up with (maybe he should have a chat with Liam Picken when North play the Bulldogs next - I'm sure they'll be close). However without any evidence there should be no case, yet the Tribunal made a subjective call which in the eyes of many discredited the whole process and perpetuates the whole 'we wuz robbed' mentality that we as Freo fans can be afflicted with at times.

In summary: Brent Harvey is a good player who in my eyes was caught out in this instance and made a bad call under 'judicial' pressure; the MRP and the AFL Tribunal are a bag of dicks who revealed their bias through a series of events which, in any court of law, would be thrown out like last week's newspaper.

Bag. Of. Dicks.

 

[Nickos66]

North have been full of liars for ages. Unfortunately, this was pre-Google, so I can't check the finer details of my memory, but there was a game in the 90s where one of the North players (can't remember which one) was cited for biting a Freo player. His defence was that he wasn't biting his arm but the hairs of his arm accidentally while he was grimacing (or something to that effect). And he got off.

But did he do it 300 times?

 

[Tas]

Keen to know... do you honestly believe, hand on heart etc, that Crowley vigorously grabbed Harvey's jumper behind play about 300 times during the course of a 100 minute (120 with stoppages) footy match?

No. But I don't think the number is the critical part of the charge the MRP put against Crowley. I think he just came up with a number because he was being pressed about the incident(s) happening at all or not and being accused of being a liar that they happened at all.

I don't get caught up in these sort of things too often, but this one has unfortunately gotten stuck in my craw. The real villain here is the MRP who first cited Crowley then found him guilty of a series of offences without actually having any evidence of those offences occuring. Harvey's claims (particularly the volumes he gave) are improbable yet not impossible, but once cited he did point the finger which goes against the whole 'what happens on the field stauys on the field' mantra that many of us grew up with (maybe he should have a chat with Liam Picken when North play the Bulldogs next - I'm sure they'll be close). However without any evidence there should be no case, yet the Tribunal made a subjective call which in the eyes of many discredited the whole process and perpetuates the whole 'we wuz robbed' mentality that we as Freo fans can be afflicted with at times.

I think the main fault lies with the umpires, without getting carried away like they did with McCaffer post Richmond, an umpire can usually defuse tension between a tagger and his prey, it is part of the reason why we went from one umpire to three. I also don't think Crowley should have got a fine and didn't need the MRP decision to escalate the matter.

Is annoying a player worthy of a fine? I don't think so, the vast majority of taggers employ tactics which annoy their target to the point they respond, if the target responds it can put them off their game, lose their focus and concentration. Picken does probably more off the ball stuff than Crowley does so I am not sure why they focused on Crowley.

Scott Thompson annoyed the shit out Barry Hall to the point he reacted and put a sleeper hold on Thompson, Thompson wasn't find for pushing Hall over which prevented him doing up his boot and the AFL turned a blind eye to forceful contact to the head from Hall, players can resolve minor issues themselves.

As I have also said, I think the problem was the tactic the Fremantle legal counsel employed, they sought to discredit Harvey, both in the lead up to the appeal of the MRP decision and more vigorously during the appeal. I am not sure what credible lawyer would think that is a great strategy to avoid losing a case and calling pretty much calling the only witness a liar doomed any kind of chance Fremantle had of winning the appeal.

In summary: Brent Harvey is a good player who in my eyes was caught out in this instance and made a bad call under 'judicial' pressure; the MRP and the AFL Tribunal are a bag of dicks who revealed their bias through a series of events which, in any court of law, would be thrown out like last week's newspaper.

Bag. Of. Dicks.

I expect Fremantle supporters to be on Crowley's side and expect North supporters to be on Harvey's side and I have no problem with that. I don't think it should have been worthy of a fine, even if he did harass him to that extent. I was actually very critical of Harvey about this and other incidents with taggers because he has become a lot more grumpier in his old age and I don't think he has handled these incidents well.

If someone is doing something annoying to you on the footy field and you react and get off your game then you have lost the battle and have reinforced to that player that what they are doing works and it will just empower them to keep doing it and I don't think any club would care copping a $900 fine every week if it meant keeping a dangerous player off their game.

I think the way he played this year was what he should of done last year and against anyone who annoys him, just keep running and keep mobile, off the ball incidents stick out like dogs balls when you on the move. But he doesn't always do that when playing annoying taggers, he let Duckwood getting under his skin, got off his game, and gave him a bitch slap he was lucky to avoid getting suspended for.

So I am still critical of him because I know he has the speed, agility and endurance to run any effective tagger off their feet but at times still gets sucked in. I believe in protecting players, but not protecting players to that extent.

I just think all parties could have diffused the situation. Umpires getting involved, MRP not being dicks, Crowley saying what he was doing if not pinching when Boomer reacted off the ball several times, Harvey not getting sucked in to tagger tactics, Fremantle legal team not playing the liar card. Nobody really gave the Tribunal an out to throw the case out.

Ultimately, MRP should not escalate minor incidents like these.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

God I'm getting sick of people who feel the need to try and convince people that the views they hold are the only valid ones, particularly opposition supporters who want to clog up our board with their ramblings.

Tas, you've had your say, move on.

 

[strobe00]

North have been full of liars for ages. Unfortunately, this was pre-Google, so I can't check the finer details of my memory, but there was a game in the 90s where one of the North players (can't remember which one) was cited for biting a Freo player. His defence was that he wasn't biting his arm but the hairs of his arm accidentally while he was grimacing (or something to that effect). And he got off.

Did North have an ex-North player on the tribunal panel back then as well?

Would explain a lot.

 

[strobe00]

North have been full of liars for ages. Unfortunately, this was pre-Google, so I can't check the finer details of my memory, but there was a game in the 90s where one of the North players (can't remember which one) was cited for biting a Freo player. His defence was that he wasn't biting his arm but the hairs of his arm accidentally while he was grimacing (or something to that effect). And he got off.

I can't bring myself to like this post, as it feels like I'd be "liking" the incident. Good call though. F*cking stupid (corrupt) if true.

 

[Tonga Bob]

Did North have an ex-North player on the tribunal panel back then as well?

Would explain a lot.

Wayne Schimmelbusch was on it for a while.

 

[strobe00]

I was actually very critical of Harvey about this and other incidents with taggers because he has become a lot more grumpier in his old age and I don't think he has handled these incidents well.

This is true at least. I often think of him as a stumpy, nasty old blue heeler.

 

[strobe00]

Wayne Schimmelbusch was on it for a while.

Well, sounds like he's thinking about jumping back off if this is any indication... was written by Barrett though, so who knows.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/footys-bad-break

"Two of the three tribunal members that night, Wayne Schimmelbusch and Wayne Henwood, have since been considering their role in the AFL system.
They both refused to comment about this matter when contacted last week, but it is known they feel badly let down by public comments made by AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou in support of Viney before his appeal was heard.
It is also know they were left bemused by the decision of the AFL Appeals Board to overturn their decision."

 

[Tas]

Well, sounds like he's thinking about jumping back off if this is any indication... was written by Barrett though, so who knows.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/footys-bad-break

"Two of the three tribunal members that night, Wayne Schimmelbusch and Wayne Henwood, have since been considering their role in the AFL system.
They both refused to comment about this matter when contacted last week, but it is known they feel badly let down by public comments made by AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou in support of Viney before his appeal was heard.
It is also know they were left bemused by the decision of the AFL Appeals Board to overturn their decision."

North fans in general do not really like Schimmer on the Tribunal, in general our fans believe he has been Dr Kevorkian when it comes to our appeal cases, probably not wanting to look biased he usually votes against us and was there for the horrific Ziebell appeal which adjudicated that he has an option other than going for the football.

He wouldn't be the most popular bloke if he bumped into supporters on the street. He has always had a chip on his shoulder since he was sacked for being a shithouse coach.

 

[strobe00]

Well, I can see things getting ugly between the afl and the tribunal if someone gets injured in a hannebery/cooney/hocking type collision at some point later in the season.

North fans might get their wish some time this season if it ends up as a public sh!t fight.