Harvey gets a week

[jono2707]

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...

[ShockOfHair]

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

[CureTheSane]

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...

[Industrial Fan]

I think thats wrong. Shame he's not playing over such a minor indiscretion.

[The Big Cat]

I think thats wrong. Shame he's not playing over such a minor indiscretion.

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.

[ernie koala]

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.

[sprite]

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.

+1

[Ludwig]

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.

[erica]

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.

[Xie Shan]

Understand the penalty, though I can't help but think how lucky Hall was in 2005 that his incident was able to be classed as 'in play'. Both Harvey's and Hall's acts were incredibly stupid, but through sheer good fortune one managed to escape suspension by virtue of the grading system, but the other looks likely to be rubbed out.

[liz]

Understand the penalty, though I can't help but think how lucky Hall was in 2005 that his incident was able to be classed as 'in play'. Both Harvey's and Hall's acts were incredibly stupid, but through sheer good fortune one managed to escape suspension by virtue of the grading system, but the other looks likely to be rubbed out.

To be fair, if Harvey's recent record wasn't so ordinary, he would only get a reprimand at worst. Hall's record up to his 2005 indiscretion was still reasonable. It was pre-Staker. I still think Hall was slightly fortunate that he got to play.

Notwithstanding that, I remain of the view that the force of the head clash (and the bump that caused it) was insufficient to warrant a suspension. I don't think the drawing of blood is that big a deal. I can draw blood with a slight, unconscious scrape of my finger nail. Selwood wasn't shaken up by the contact, let alone needing to leave the ground to be assessed for concussion.

[ShockOfHair]

Titus O'Reilly tweet:

North Melbourne will challenge the Brent Harvy decision of the Tribunal. "We've got as much chance as we do against Sydney."

[Ampersand]

Agree with those saying that Harvey should be allowed to play. I would be beyond furious if a Swans player was banned for something so minor.

If a bump requires a concussion test then by all means ban the player for an extended period. You'll find players will naturally eliminate the tactic from their game given the risk.

Meanwhile, Zac Dawson is free to essentially punch players in the back of the head week after week under the guise of spoiling. The MRP system is rotten.

[tasmania60]

Dont forget 96 people ,2 weeks!

[CureTheSane]

I can draw blood with a slight, unconscious scrape of my finger nail.

So can Tony Libratore