In the overall scheme of things – with Jobe Watson’s stunning admission about the banned substance AOD-9604, and the confession’s potential consequences – there truly are significantly more important issues in AFL at the moment.
But that doesn’t mean other more ‘trivial’ matters should be totally overlooked.
In this instance the one which caught my eye was the “he pinched me – no I didn’t” case which ultimately saw Docker Ryan Crowley fined $1200 at the Tribunal for allegedly, pinching North’s Brent Harvey “about 300 times” during their clash last weekend in Perth.
Seriously – Crowley accused of pinching? Harvey chastised for dobbing? Are we back in primary school?
I know how it works for taggers. I watched what happened to Jason Akermanis for many seasons. I get it. And taggers will do whatever they can to negate their high profile, often star opponent – whatever they can, within the rules.
If they go outside the rules, they have to wear the free kick or the consequences of their actions.
There has been a few schools of thought about this case though. One is that it’s part of the game, it should stay on the field. Harvey should have left it there and kept his mouth shut.
Another is: Really? Pinching? What have we come to? Good on Brent Harvey for standing up and effectively saying: “this is crap and we don’t need this in our game.”
Then some suggestion Harvey is whinging because he had a bad game and Crowley got the best of him, and dobbing can tarnish his amazing career.
After all, isn’t all this stuff – getting into the head of your opponent – part of the game?
Another line of thinking is that after 352 games, it had to be pretty severe ‘pinching’ for Harvey to feel Crowley – who denied the allegations at the Tribunal – crossed the line and he needed to say something.
Well, niggling and tagging are part of the game, and have been from a long, long time, but where do we draw the line?
Clearly it seems the Tribunal has drawn it here with their $1200 fine. But should they have said, grow up both of you, get out of here and play footy?
It’s an intriguing case and I think if the Essendon/Watson story wasn’t as big as it is right now, then this story might have resulted in a lot more discussion and debate in the footy world.
It’s clearly different to pulling someone’s jumper. It’s clearly different to sledging and trying to get into someone’s head.
But where does it sit in terms of rough conduct, or jumper punching or other forms of illegal play?
Obviously it’s not in the same realm as those? Is it?
Well the way I feel is that it’s not too far behind.
I understand coaches and players want to do whatever they can to put the brakes on the opposition’s star players. And that’s fine, providing it’s within the rules.
If you can’t do it within the rules – bad luck, tip your hat and say well done.
I, like many, pay to watch the great players do what they do. They entertain, and even if they are not playing for my team, you have to marvel at some of the things they do.
Of course I want my team to shut them down, but within the rules.
Pinching – what have we come to? If that’s allowed, then do we allow the pinchee to take a swing at the pincher when he’s been attacked?
I applaud anyone who stands up and ‘dobs’ someone in for using such behaviour.
If it’s allowed in the game, then how long before that talented 11-year-old goes home after a game with marks up and down his body from his opponents pinching attack?
Get ridding of such acts is not going soft, it’s actually being firm.
Simoc
Guest
The powder puff Harvey is over the hill and like his team got well beaten. He'll be remembered as resorting to squealing like the loser that he and coach Scott have become known for this season. Nobody saw, no evidence, just convicted on the evidence of a complete loser.
Gordon smith
Guest
That is the same rationale that resulted in people believing in adults over child victims - one was more believable - I am glad you are not a magistrate.
Franko
Guest
I'd invite you to watch Kane Cornes shut down Dan Hannebery of Sydney last week, great stuff that plenty of people would pay to watch. There is a difference between tagging and scragging.
Bretto
Guest
Harvey did in fact react, by listing his jumper and pointing to where Crowley had pinched him. So let's test the options - 1. A 350 game champion like Harvey makes up that he'd been pinched because he was beaten by Crowley. 2. Crowley untruthfully denies pinching simply because he knows it's a dog act and would add to his already dog reputation. Doesn't take a genius to work out the likely scenario.
Evidently
Guest
I watched two great players Crowley and Harvey go at it during a match of football. It was obvious to all that Crowley won this battle. This contest was closely watched by thousands, umpires and commentators, yet nobody saw not even one pinch. Harvey claims there was about 300. Harvey never flinched or reacted like a person does when they are pinched. It does not matter how tough you are, if you are pinched your whole body has an immediate reflex reaction to this short sharp pain and nobody witnessed this during the game. Yet Harvey says it happened 300 times and we are told by the MRP that his word was enough to fine Crowley. The true headlines should have simply read "Crowly found guilty by Kangaroo Court".
Johnny Howard
Guest
The rationale of the MRP was that "the balance of probabilities fell in Harvey's favour". How they decide that without any evidence is beyond me.
Gordon smith
Guest
On what basis did they judge the credibility of each player. This is a legal process not a personality contest or a "who is a good bloke" contest. Did the MRP give a rationale for their decision? Should Wayne Schimulbush be considered a impartial judge. The MRP judged on the credibility of the players. How did they judge - Harvey has a worse tribunal record than Crowley. Where they influenced by lining in VIC and knowing Harvey more. In the end they have effectively said "harevy is an angel" and "Crowley is a dirty mug" based on what? a gut feeling. Give me a break - this is a disgrace and leaves a very dangerous precedent.
Bill Larkin
Guest
For goodness sake, Crowley can find $1200 behind his couch. The MRP judged the credibility of each player, and found Crowley lacking. A fair call, and I don't support the Roos.
Gordon Smith
Guest
I agree - this was a deplorable decision - to charge a 150 game player for something he vehemently denied and has no previous charge. On what basis was one persons word accepted over another despite no evidence when there are cameras on every aspect of the game. Brad Scott reaction today demonstrates the difference between a professional coach (Ross Lyon) and an amateur. The MRP should give a detailed defence of their judgment - something better than "probably".
Ollie
Guest
Smithy - You are spot on. The biggest issue here is the behaviour of, and subsequent precedent set by, the MRP. I can't believe no one else is making a bigger issue out of this. With no evidence whatsoever, one player's word is accepted over another????!!!! The issue really is not whether pinching occurred (although it is rather abhorrent if it did), but how the MRP can arbitrarily judge one person more credible than the next. What are they? Psychic? Playing God? It really shows the MRP to be a bunch of cowboys, doing whatever they feel like in the moment... a total joke. This is an important issue, no doubt.
Smithy
Guest
Terribly disappointing Cowley. You're overlooking the dangerous precedent the MRP have set here: in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, they've made the judgement that the words of one player are more credible than the other. Think carefully about that. In doing so they've not only deemed one of them guilty, they've also deemed him a liar. This is seriously unprecedented, and something that would be thrown out of any court of law. And this is what makes this an important issue.
johno
Guest
Hmm - so you think full backs don't do anything untoward in their treatment of the forward, blocking their runs, holding, bumping, pinning their arms (Glassy is an expert in this one). As a full forward you are expected to engage in man to man contests for the ball, generally have two or three guys. Anyone check out the picture of Leaping Leo's match winning mark in the GF against West Coast. Nobody shed a tear for the forward being scragged in that contest - Sampi
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
There;s a world of difference, and it might pay to watch footy sometime. If your team's defenders only block or scrag the oppostion forward then it might explain why you can't tell the difference. Chris Yarran, Heath Shaw, Lachie Henderson, Darren Glass, Harry O'Brien are some pretty good defenders going round and I'd be happy to watch them play.Which one of them scrags and blocks every time? each one can run, carry, mark and kick. Taggers don't and can't. Meanwhile, Ryan Crowley, Jordan Lewis, Liam Picken, even back to Steven Baker, Libba, and Shane Heard are players that should never had made it in the AFL if it had better umpiring.
Gezza
Guest
Not the only bit of pinching handed out to North this season I reckon they should concentrate on playing four quarter football!
vocans
Guest
Good points. Pinching is beyond the pale to me. I also think a lot of bumping goes on which is also a form of bullying, and not to be confused with the 'meetings' between players at starts of games and quarters etc. - "g'day, you're playing on me and this is what I am". Bullying provokes and someone made the point that a swing in return would be understandable but not legal.
johno
Guest
That law also rules out most of what every defender in the comp does.
GodOfWar
Guest
Tagging and anything that Ryan Crowley does in a game is generally against the laws of the game. The law 15.4.5 states: Prohibited contact and payment of free kick when a player (e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play; This rules out a significant amount of contact that a tagger can do most of the time. If the umpire would pay a free kick or 2 when it is excessive it would absolutely stop the tagger doing it. But nope. Ridiculous & frustrating to watch and again...most of the time against the rules.
Australian Rules
Guest
I'm pretty sure that's the point Michael was making Ian.
anon
Guest
I really dont see how there could have been any fine given there was no video evidence of it happening.
johno
Guest
Whats the difference between a mid field tagger and a full back? Full backs block forwards run at the ball, scrag, hold, bump, pull, punch ...... tagger is just another name for a defender. Without taggers mid fielders would be unaccountable - a protected species if you like, unlike their team mates in the forward line who have to put up with constant attention and tactics of defenders. Not sure who from Norths was accountable for Barlow or Fyfe on the weekend but they didn't do a very good job.