Tweet
Harvey leads outcry at tribunal decision
28 August 2003 Herald Sun
By MARK STEVENS and TIM MORRISSEY
KANGAROOS star Brent Harvey yesterday joined the chorus of critics speaking out against Collingwood tagger Brodie Holland and Tuesday night's controversial tribunal decision.
While Magpies president Eddie McGuire was yesterday defiantly defending the tribunal's two-game suspension of Holland for hitting Sydney's Paul Williams behind play and his club's provocation defence, Harvey thought otherwise and didn't mince words.
"He's been doing it for a while now and he's got caught. What goes around comes around, I guess," he said yesterday.
"He was a small forward. Now he's a pretty annoying tagger."
Harvey, who supports an off-season review of tagging tactics, witnessed Holland's game plan up close in the Roos' Round 14 loss to the Magpies.
He copped a one-match suspension for striking Holland to the stomach as the head-to-head battle unfolded.
Harvey indicated he was shocked by the two-match penalty handed to Holland. But he would not elaborate because, under AFL rules, players are not allowed to comment on tribunal decisions
But this didn't stop Swans coach Paul Roos and defender Tadhg Kennelly, who yesterday lent their voices to the growing discontent over the leniency of the ban and the way Collingwood had painted Williams as the villain during Tuesday night's tribunal hearing.
Roos, as skilful verbally as he was on the field to avoid directly criticising the tribunal decision, said he was happy to let media reports, that stated Holland had got off lightly, reflect his views.
"I thought some of the media today got it pretty much spot-on," Roos said in an obvious reference to the Herald Sun's Mike Sheahan, who labelled the decision a farce and called for the AFL to appeal against it.
Kennelly was more forthright. He said was shocked by the news Holland had received only a two-game ban.
"It came out of nowhere," said Kennelly, who could face a fine from the AFL for speaking about the decision. "I suppose there's been players who got a lot, lot worse for little things they didn't do as bad.
"I think they've just got to get some consistency into it. It definitely deserved more than two weeks."
Roos and Kennelly's comments follow verbal swipes against Holland by an unnamed Swans player, who dubbed the Magpie the "new Libba", and former Swans champion Paul Kelly.
The Swans coach was critical of Collingwood defence advocate Sean Carroll's tactic to put Williams on trial as the aggressor.
In what the Swans believe was a low blow, Collingwood went on the attack after the Sydney video link was shut down, ambushing Williams and suggesting he was the reason Holland had been nabbed on the video charge.
"(Williams) went in there in good faith to present his evidence," Roos said.
"It's disappointing he didn't have a chance to at least speak up on his own behalf."
Outspoken Brisbane Brownlow medallist Jason Akermanis also had a problem with the Magpies' provocation defence.
"Let me tell you what I think about people who say things are provoked -- it's rubbish," he said.
"People jump into my back all the time. Is that being provoked?
"Does that mean I can get up and snot them and that's OK? It's got to be consistent."
AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson defended the tribunal's handling of the Holland case and dismissed the notion of an AFL-driven appeal against the penalty.
"I don't think there's any contemplation of the AFL appealing," Jackson told 3AW.
"We've got total confidence in the tribunal and the two-game penalty would stand from our viewpoint."
Harvey said he was becoming increasingly frustrated by the tactics of taggers like Holland, claiming they often had eyes for the player more than the ball.
"You get a lot of bumps and stuff and you take that," Harvey said. "But a lot of stuff that happens with taggers is not warranted.
"Pushing and stuff -- and holding -- which is most annoying. Now, obviously it's turned around (on Holland)."
Although the term "run-with" player is now fashionable, Harvey said tagging was alive and well, and as prevalent as ever.
"Every single team has one. You can sift through them and see who they are," Harvey said.
"They don't win a lot of the ball. It's just disappointing to get put up against one of those opponents where you're trying to win the ball and they're trying to negate you.
"Just the little things around the ball where they hold you and stuff . . . not really looking at the ball. Their focus is on the player.
"The forwards get caught for blocking, so if the tagger's not even looking at the ball, why shouldn't they get a free kick paid against them?"
Harvey said taggers should find it difficult to escape being penalised under the three-umpire system.
"They've got three umpires now. If they can't catch a tagger holding there's something wrong. That's why they brought in that third umpire," he said.
"I can't see why taggers can not look at the ball and hold the opponent. They (umpires) have got to bust the tagger early and they'll stop doing it for the rest of the game."
Harvey's strike on Holland seven weeks ago was not captured on video, but he was reported by boundary umpire Matthew Vitiritti.
At the tribunal, he explained his action as a "push' to get rid of the persistent tagging of Holland, who was accused of trying to milk free kicks throughout the game.
But Vitiritti told the tribunal he has seen Harvey punch Holland in the stomach while Anthony Rocca lined up a shot at goal.
Holland, who admitted to "niggling" Harvey from the start of the game, could not recall the specific incident.
The Magpie tagger restricted the dangerous Harvey to 20 disposals -- mostly in defence -- as the Roos were thumped by 76 points at Telstra Dome.
Last month, the AFL rules committee met and requested umpires pay "greater attention" to players being blocked or tagged off the ball.
The committee's decision came after Adelaide coach Gary Ayres called for more protection for his premier onballer, Andrew McLeod.
"We're aware of players who are being heavily pressured and we know players who can apply the heavy pressure," AFL umpires' director Jeff Gieschen said.
28 August 2003 Herald Sun
By MARK STEVENS and TIM MORRISSEY
KANGAROOS star Brent Harvey yesterday joined the chorus of critics speaking out against Collingwood tagger Brodie Holland and Tuesday night's controversial tribunal decision.
While Magpies president Eddie McGuire was yesterday defiantly defending the tribunal's two-game suspension of Holland for hitting Sydney's Paul Williams behind play and his club's provocation defence, Harvey thought otherwise and didn't mince words.
"He's been doing it for a while now and he's got caught. What goes around comes around, I guess," he said yesterday.
"He was a small forward. Now he's a pretty annoying tagger."
Harvey, who supports an off-season review of tagging tactics, witnessed Holland's game plan up close in the Roos' Round 14 loss to the Magpies.
He copped a one-match suspension for striking Holland to the stomach as the head-to-head battle unfolded.
Harvey indicated he was shocked by the two-match penalty handed to Holland. But he would not elaborate because, under AFL rules, players are not allowed to comment on tribunal decisions
But this didn't stop Swans coach Paul Roos and defender Tadhg Kennelly, who yesterday lent their voices to the growing discontent over the leniency of the ban and the way Collingwood had painted Williams as the villain during Tuesday night's tribunal hearing.
Roos, as skilful verbally as he was on the field to avoid directly criticising the tribunal decision, said he was happy to let media reports, that stated Holland had got off lightly, reflect his views.
"I thought some of the media today got it pretty much spot-on," Roos said in an obvious reference to the Herald Sun's Mike Sheahan, who labelled the decision a farce and called for the AFL to appeal against it.
Kennelly was more forthright. He said was shocked by the news Holland had received only a two-game ban.
"It came out of nowhere," said Kennelly, who could face a fine from the AFL for speaking about the decision. "I suppose there's been players who got a lot, lot worse for little things they didn't do as bad.
"I think they've just got to get some consistency into it. It definitely deserved more than two weeks."
Roos and Kennelly's comments follow verbal swipes against Holland by an unnamed Swans player, who dubbed the Magpie the "new Libba", and former Swans champion Paul Kelly.
The Swans coach was critical of Collingwood defence advocate Sean Carroll's tactic to put Williams on trial as the aggressor.
In what the Swans believe was a low blow, Collingwood went on the attack after the Sydney video link was shut down, ambushing Williams and suggesting he was the reason Holland had been nabbed on the video charge.
"(Williams) went in there in good faith to present his evidence," Roos said.
"It's disappointing he didn't have a chance to at least speak up on his own behalf."
Outspoken Brisbane Brownlow medallist Jason Akermanis also had a problem with the Magpies' provocation defence.
"Let me tell you what I think about people who say things are provoked -- it's rubbish," he said.
"People jump into my back all the time. Is that being provoked?
"Does that mean I can get up and snot them and that's OK? It's got to be consistent."
AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson defended the tribunal's handling of the Holland case and dismissed the notion of an AFL-driven appeal against the penalty.
"I don't think there's any contemplation of the AFL appealing," Jackson told 3AW.
"We've got total confidence in the tribunal and the two-game penalty would stand from our viewpoint."
Harvey said he was becoming increasingly frustrated by the tactics of taggers like Holland, claiming they often had eyes for the player more than the ball.
"You get a lot of bumps and stuff and you take that," Harvey said. "But a lot of stuff that happens with taggers is not warranted.
"Pushing and stuff -- and holding -- which is most annoying. Now, obviously it's turned around (on Holland)."
Although the term "run-with" player is now fashionable, Harvey said tagging was alive and well, and as prevalent as ever.
"Every single team has one. You can sift through them and see who they are," Harvey said.
"They don't win a lot of the ball. It's just disappointing to get put up against one of those opponents where you're trying to win the ball and they're trying to negate you.
"Just the little things around the ball where they hold you and stuff . . . not really looking at the ball. Their focus is on the player.
"The forwards get caught for blocking, so if the tagger's not even looking at the ball, why shouldn't they get a free kick paid against them?"
Harvey said taggers should find it difficult to escape being penalised under the three-umpire system.
"They've got three umpires now. If they can't catch a tagger holding there's something wrong. That's why they brought in that third umpire," he said.
"I can't see why taggers can not look at the ball and hold the opponent. They (umpires) have got to bust the tagger early and they'll stop doing it for the rest of the game."
Harvey's strike on Holland seven weeks ago was not captured on video, but he was reported by boundary umpire Matthew Vitiritti.
At the tribunal, he explained his action as a "push' to get rid of the persistent tagging of Holland, who was accused of trying to milk free kicks throughout the game.
But Vitiritti told the tribunal he has seen Harvey punch Holland in the stomach while Anthony Rocca lined up a shot at goal.
Holland, who admitted to "niggling" Harvey from the start of the game, could not recall the specific incident.
The Magpie tagger restricted the dangerous Harvey to 20 disposals -- mostly in defence -- as the Roos were thumped by 76 points at Telstra Dome.
Last month, the AFL rules committee met and requested umpires pay "greater attention" to players being blocked or tagged off the ball.
The committee's decision came after Adelaide coach Gary Ayres called for more protection for his premier onballer, Andrew McLeod.
"We're aware of players who are being heavily pressured and we know players who can apply the heavy pressure," AFL umpires' director Jeff Gieschen said.
Comment