North Melbourne great Wayne Carey has delivered a verbal shirtfront to the AFL’s match review panel, labelling Brent Harvey’s one-week ban a disgrace.
The Kangaroos will challenge a one-match suspension to Harvey in an attempt to free their champion midfielder to play in Friday night’s preliminary final against Sydney.
Harvey was issued with the one-game rough conduct ban by the panel on Monday for making high contact to Geelong captain Joel Selwood in last Friday night’s MCG semi-final.
Selwood was forced from the ground under the blood rule after the contact with Harvey opened up a cut over his right eye.
Harvey’s previous poor record and resultant carry-over points meant he was unable to have the sanction cut to a reprimand with an early guilty plea.
Carey went into bat for his former teammate.
“It is an absolute disgrace that we can rub a player out for a preliminary final for that,” he said on the Seven Network’s Talking Footy.
“A terrible decision. He’s got rubbed out because there was a bit of blood on Joel Selwood, that’s the only reason.”
Carey, who played alongside Harvey in North’s 1999 premiership side, went on to compare the verdict to heavy hits by Daniel Merrett and Tom Hawkins that went unpunished.
“The MRP has to have a good hard look at itself,” he said.
Kangaroos coach Brad Scott said he was “flabbergasted” when Drew Petrie was charged for making unnecessary and unreasonable contact to Brian Lake’s face during the pair’s scrap in round 16.
Scott, cognisant of a potential rebuke from league headquarters, was more tight-lipped when discussing Harvey’s charge on Monday.
“I suspect that too,” Scott told Fox Footy, when asked if the club’s argument on Tuesday night would be that Harvey’s blow was of insufficient force to warrant a charge.
“But I let the baker bake the bread there.
“We’ve got people charged with the responsibility of making our case and putting a defence forward.
“I’m not part of that … I don’t get too caught up in the MRP or tribunal.”
Harvey only returned to action last week after serving a separate three-game ban for misconduct.
The 383-game veteran will now miss the Kangaroos’ first preliminary final in seven years unless he is able to have the charge overturned at the tribunal.
The Kangaroos will then have an option to appeal the tribunal’s verdict, Luke Darcy saying they shouldn’t stop there.
“The system is wrong, it’s out of control,” Darcy said, sitting alongside Carey on Monday.
“That happens in basketball 15 times a game, when you try and shepherd someone and block them off the ball.
“Accidental contact … I hate things ending up in court, but I’d explore that if I was Boomer Harvey.”
Meanwhile, the match-day report of Fremantle’s Zac Dawson for striking Port Adelaide’s Robbie Gray in the other semi-final was dismissed.
The panel ruled that the Dockers defender was making a legitimate attempt to spoil the ball.
Jeffrey
Guest
Looked very similar to the incident at the start of the year where the bloke got 2 weeks..ohh but he aint wearing purple so its all good. W*nkers
asd
Guest
good he got off accidental clash of heads he didnt even knock selwood off his feet
E-Meter
Guest
Sydney are going to smash them. Go Swans.
Momentbymoment
Guest
Im sure there is a conspiracy somewhere in all of this ... maybe the AFL plan is to fill North with confidence, thereby causing them to be over confident and allow the dastardly Swans to beat them. Yes, that must be it.
Natalie SwansFan
Guest
Well, there you go.....another bloke gets off coming into a prelim. It's a little Barry Hall like......maybe they will lay off the Swannies, the supposed kings of getting off scot free at the tribunal.
Andrew
Guest
This! I was completely flabbergasted by that incident. Harvey claimed Crowley pinched him hundreds of times yet there was not one shred of evidence from the dozens of cameras at the ground! A stager and a sniper. little else needs to be said.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Rischitelli didn't go off for concussion, he went to have his wound tended to.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
For a fan of a team about to play in a prelim Powerbot, you seem very angry.
bryan
Guest
If 2 weeks to Fyfe is fair,it should be 2 weeks to Harvey. But Harvey plays for a Melbourne club,so that's OK!
Powerbot
Guest
Spot on DJW! Zac Dawson is a coward and it's a certainty that he had every intention of laying a clenched fist into Grey's head. The pathetic reply from the "pro" Dalgety speaks volumes about which club he follows and to reverse the finger and point at Grey is very sad on his part.
Stuart
Guest
All this crap about being a bleeder makes me laugh. If you have never taken a head butt to an eye brow, don't comment. Everyone who cops a head to the eye brow with any force is going to bleed and need stitches. The little idiot is so much shorter than Selwood, it would be impossible for him to inflict this damage unless he intended to do some damage and guess what, he succeeded. Give him the week.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
No worries, good point. I'm hoping the MRP inconsistency will see this one torpedoed.
arthur rightus
Guest
Staggers me how anyone can suggest this contact was "accidental". He was a good 5-10 metres off the ball, ran straight at Selwood, then jumped off both feet to make the contact. Idiotic play from anyone let alone someone coming off a 3 game suspension
9 Monkeys
Roar Rookie
I accept the impact in the Fyfe bump was higher but Fyfe collected the ball carrier, whereas Harvey bumped a bloke 5 or so meters off the ball. For mine these matters cancel each other out making the Harvey hit comparable to the Fyfe hit and accordingly Harvey is lucky he only a got a week (but I've given up hoping for consistency from the MRP). All that said, I don't like the rule at all. Unless there is genuine malice, e.g the old-fashion cheap shirt-front on a player out of the contest not expecting contact, I would expect there to be a free kick for high contact in instances like these and no report or suspension.
Gordon smith
Guest
Harvey lost my respect of the Crowley incident - how his word was taken over Crawley still confounds me - his actions demonstrate that he believes he has special entitlement - he might be experienced but he is certainly not mature.
Peter Baudinette
Roar Guru
Pope, Buddy chose to bump. Goodes turned side on to lessen the impact a he was in mid air when he realised he couldn't get near the ball. Yes he chose to turn sideways. No arguments though with you about all players choosing to bump. Regardless of the MRP outcome, the decision to bump is what puts you in the spotlight. Is it not? I mean if they didn't bump, the chances of them being cited are reduced aren't they? Once at the MRP is where the system starts to unravel because you have acts like Conca getting minimal suspensions or acts like Merrett slipping through. I'm only arguing that the choice to bump is what puts you up.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Goodes and Franklin also chose to bump. Hawkins chose to punch. The MRP chose to do nothing.
Peter Baudinette
Roar Guru
Andrew, Questions: Did Fyfe choose to bump? Did Harvey choose to bump? If they didn't bump, what do you think is the alternative outcome? How do you think the MRP reacts to the bump? People are probably drawing comparisons because it is pretty clear both guys chose to bump and that decision is what has put them in front of the MRP.
andrew
Guest
can we please stop comparing it to the fyfe incident. the force of the fyfe - ristchitelli clash was such that both players physically shaken, went down in clear pain. one left the field with concussion, the other came back on shortly after. straight after this clash, both players were spriting after a loose ball on the southern stand wing. they are clearly distinguishable on this important basis alone.
Timmy
Guest
The point about hrs carryover points is definitely an important one to consider. It must be remembered that had Harvey not been slugged with a loading for a bad record and carryover points then he would have escaped with a reprimand. I believe it will be difficult for the roos to get him off as they have to prove that the mrp was wrong in calling it: High (which it must be given selwood was bleeding above the eye) Low impact (maybe an argument for insufficient force but unlikely in my eyes) Negligent (the fact he accidentally caused contact to the head is fairly clearly a case of negligence) I It's a disappointing situation but it is one that Harvey could easily have avoided and he only has himself to blame