Seriously... Tongue in cheep comments...
My 2 points are
If Harvey hadn't lined Selwood up the coach would have Dragged him to the bench.. He has always played hard and I believe that the penalty is very hard given the accidental contact of heads..
My call it was a sheppard greater than 5m away = free kick, missed by the umpire at the time.. Play on!
The other point is Difference was 6 points... Lets say Selwood is off the ground for 3 minutes. It is possible that this incident cost the cats the game... Geelong could have kicked a goal and a behind during this time.... Well only if he was on the ground, hypothetically....
Appeal and let off and has to retire after the game.. We don't want them to have any excuses!
Rod_
I can't say I like or dislike Harvey, but I've been super-impressed by some of his form this year, given his age. He's still a very important part of their team and I would be happy to not see him out there on Friday...
No sympathy. Regardless how it stacked up on the MRP scorecard, it was reckless and stupid. If a Swans player with hefty carryover points did that I'd feel the same way.
BTW, there are a few:
Ted Richards 93.75
Jeremy Laidler 70.31
Jarrad McVeigh 45
Better to have this precedent than being the ones not being careful and setting the precedent. I dare say all players will be very careful in the weekend games...
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
I think thats wrong. Shame he's not playing over such a minor indiscretion.
He ate more cheese, than time allowed
Get real some of you people. He was lucky to get one week. It wasn't negligent it was at least reckless and given its distance from the ball it was probably intentional. He jumped off the ground trying to hit Selwood with everything he had. Selwood had to leave the ground several times to get the blood flow stopped.
The rule says that clashes of heads are only OK if the offending player is contesting the ball and Harvey was ten metres from the ball and looking in the other direction.
If that incident is not the PEFECT example of what the rule was designed for then I don't know what is. The carry over points are his problem, otherwise he would have escaped with a reprimand.
Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.
If the tribunal go by the rule book his sanction should stand. But who knows, given their history of inconsistencies.
It was a clumsy act, but no malice. Very tough to miss a prelim for that.
I hope he plays. No conspiracy theories, no excuses.
If we play well, it won't make an iota of difference.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT
Boomer has been whacked around his whole career. He must take at least a dozen cheap shots a game. He had no choice but to toughen up, especially at his size. I give him a lot a credit for how he's managed his career, albeit he's crossed the line more than a few times. As for ability, he's one of the most creative and skillful players of the past 2 decades. Boomer is a more skillful version of Benny McGlynn, and we all love Benny.
I would have preferred that he played, but believe the penalty was correct.
It shouldn't matter whether it's a H&A game or a final. The rules and penalties should be the same. Let's see whether they are.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Bookmarks