Preliminary Final Sydney v North Pre Match Discussion Thread

[Swanstubbs]

Sydney should be too consistent for the Roos in preliminary final

"Swans by 28 points" I'll take that Rohan Connolly

[Mel_C]

Above ground, sit on level 4 if you can get them.

Are you a swans Member? If so, buy during the members period and they should put you in a Swans bay I think.

I am an AFL member with Swans club support so hopefully I will be put in a swans bay.

[annew]

Yes your AFL membership with swans club support counts as swans membership and will get you in swans members bay.

[The Big Cat]

I doubt it. This is the finals and I doubt they will give him weeks. He will get a wrap over the knuckles.

They can't really give him a rap over the knuckles without him being suspended. Even if it's Negligent (1 pt), Low impact (1 Pt) and High (2 Pts) - that's 125 points plus 10% gives him 137.5 plus 41 carry over gives him 171.5 less 25% for an early plea gets him back to 128.1. Which is a week. (The points could be worse for him if they calculate the 10% loading AFTER they add on the 41 carryover points) So harvey's only hope is an insufficient force ruling which when Selwood was on and off the ground trying to stop the bleeding is a bit of a stretch.

[Meg]

He should be if the MRP applies the tougher interpretation of the Laws to protect head injuries that the AFL set out at the end of 2003 (wording below).

"Rough conduct ? Head clashes in bumps ? The Tribunal Guidelines and DVD will be amended to provide for a player to be cited for Rough Conduct, where in the bumping of an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to his opponents head or neck ? even if that contact is caused by a clash of heads.Umpires will be instructed to award free kicks and report players for rough conduct where necessary. In recent years the Tribunal DVD has proposed that a clash of heads when one player elects to bump an opponent should be regarded as having been caused by circumstances outside of the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. The 2014 guidelines will reinforce to players their duty of care when they elect to bump an opponent, and that a clash of heads is an action that could reasonably be foreseen."

I meant "end of 2013" in first para above.

[Ludwig]

Having looked at the incident again, I think Harvey is in trouble. It's hard to argue insufficient force if the Selwood is bleeding and forced from the field. You would think that would at least constitute Low Impact. He also jumped into Selwood, left the ground with both feet, and it was off the ball. But who knows.

I want to add that the PA Freo game was so entertaining. One of the best games of the season. It's really enjoyable when you can relax because you don't have any skin in the game.

[Meg]

I want to add that the PA Freo game was so entertaining. One of the best games of the season. It's really enjoyable when you can relax because you don't have any skin in the game.

That is so true!

[Meg]

This article sums up the Harvey incident and what should be the MRP outcome. All these supposed "experts" saying it was "accidental" and "there was nothing in it" simply don't know what (or don't want to know) the rules say.

Tribunal expert Bruce Matthews says Brent Harvey should miss the preliminary final

[ernie koala]

Having looked at the incident again, I think Harvey is in trouble. It's hard to argue insufficient force if the Selwood is bleeding and forced from the field. You would think that would at least constitute Low Impact. He also jumped into Selwood, left the ground with both feet, and it was off the ball. But who knows.

I want to add that the PA Freo game was so entertaining. One of the best games of the season. It's really enjoyable when you can relax because you don't have any skin in the game.

Agree RE:Port v Freo game, it was fun to watch... No gritted teeth, no cussing umpires decisions, no high blood pressure.

You could tell after about 20 seconds of the 3rd quarter that Port were going to make a game of it. They suddenly looked like the Port team from last week .

Ken's magic words at halftime must of hit the right notes.


As for Boomer, if the MRP are consistent, he'll get a week......But they're not.

It'll be the usual chook raffle, and therefore could go either way.

I reckon they'll go, 'insufficient force' , and let him play.

[Kelpie_X]

He should be if the MRP applies the tougher interpretation of the Laws to protect head injuries that the AFL set out at the end of 2003 (wording below). This is the same rule that got Fyfe his first suspension this year.

Harvey elected to bump when he had other options, the bump caused a head clash that led to extensive bleeding which in turn caused the umpire to send Selwood off the field under the blood rule. Should be open & shut case. Freo fans will be rightly furious if Harvey gets off.

"Rough conduct ? Head clashes in bumps ? The Tribunal Guidelines and DVD will be amended to provide for a player to be cited for Rough Conduct, where in the bumping of an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to his opponents head or neck ? even if that contact is caused by a clash of heads.Umpires will be instructed to award free kicks and report players for rough conduct where necessary. In recent years the Tribunal DVD has proposed that a clash of heads when one player elects to bump an opponent should be regarded as having been caused by circumstances outside of the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. The 2014 guidelines will reinforce to players their duty of care when they elect to bump an opponent, and that a clash of heads is an action that could reasonably be foreseen."

And it was off the ball which makes it even worse

[DamY]

Haha I actually was yelling at the TV because of Port's poor first half. Maybe I like them more than I know!

[barry]

For years ive always wanted to bet on the 2nd week of footy because the top4 teams "always" win. This year I finally laid down some cash. D'oh.

Even so I was going for port because I think they can beat hawthorn.

We are going to thrash norf. Bunch of flogs.

[DamY]

For years ive always wanted to bet on the 2nd week of footy because the top4 teams "always" win. This year I finally laid down some cash. D'oh.

Even so I was going for port because I think they can beat hawthorn.

We are going to thrash norf. Bunch of flogs.

Was just reading an article in The Age - someone had dropped $50k on both Freo and Geelong!!!!! So you got off relatively easy!

[floppinab]

Agree RE:Port v Freo game, it was fun to watch... No gritted teeth, no cussing umpires decisions, no high blood pressure.

You could tell after about 20 seconds of the 3rd quarter that Port were going to make a game of it. They suddenly looked like the Port team from last week .

Said the same thing to my son at time. Amazing to think that a group of 21 odd blokes can just collectively flick a switch and they're away. You got to wonder where it was missing in the first half. That said Ports defensive pressure in the first half caused most of the Dockers poor shots on goal and kept them it.

I thought the umpiring was attrocious at times. In the back has become a lucky dip now, similar to the "blocking" free they pick out in the ruck contests. Couldn't believe Gray got to take that shot on goal again. He was properly on line the first time, if that happened in general play it would've been play on.

[liz]

Said the same thing to my son at time. Amazing to think that a group of 21 odd blokes can just collectively flick a switch and they're away. You got to wonder where it was missing in the first half. That said Ports defensive pressure in the first half caused most of the Dockers poor shots on goal and kept them it.

I thought the umpiring was attrocious at times. In the back has become a lucky dip now, similar to the "blocking" free they pick out in the ruck contests. Couldn't believe Gray got to take that shot on goal again. He was properly on line the first time, if that happened in general play it would've been play on.

I think you can also look at it in the sense of Freo's manic defence dropping off somewhat in the second half and thus allowing Port to flick that switch and get their game going. There were similarities with the PF we played against Freo last year. They were close to perfect with their pressure in the first half but did drop off in the second half. However a) they were a little further ahead on the scoreboard than they were against Port so had done enough and b) we were too far off our best team and were carrying too many sore players so just didn't have it in us to mount the comeback that Port were able to, though we did at least score a bit more freely in that second half.

Freo needed to put the score on the board when they had their chances. Port's own defensive pressure might be used to explain some of their misses but they will be disappointed, nonetheless, that they didn't capitalise on their first half domination.