Harmes Cops a Week

[Tony Tea 2,806]

I can't see any non-smoking gun that would exonerate Harmes, and it looks more guilty than Hunter, so take the week and move on.

[Bystander 899]

13 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Recon Maysie should chauffeur Harmsey, just in case reinforcements are needed. 

Melksham can jump in as backup driver.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,120]

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

You could always run at a player with the ball and yell “boo”.

Intentional, not nice language, medium impact: 4 weeks. 

[daisycutter 29,343]

7 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Intentional, not nice language, medium impact outrage: 4 weeks. 

fixed it for ya

new afl updated classifcation 

[spirit of norm smith 15,276]

Right. At the time I said “oh Harmesy. So stupid “.  Yes one week is right.  
 

Degoey 3 weeks at a minimum. Off his feet.  Player had disposed of the footy. Careless. Head high. High impact. Ok 4 weeks really. 

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

41 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Right. At the time I said “oh Harmesy. So stupid “.  Yes one week is right.  
 

Degoey 3 weeks at a minimum. Off his feet.  Player had disposed of the footy. Careless. Head high. High impact. Ok 4 weeks really. 

I agree with you. One week is reasonable for Harmes. For me that's fairly cut-and-dry (unlike the Hunter decision which was ridiculous imo).

DeGoey has to be 3 weeks minumum. He basically ran past the ball, lined his opponent up and concussed him. The lack of West Coast reaction at the time pretty much shows where that Club is at. Re DeGoey, I like Craig McCrae and the way me backs his players but to come out like he did and say: “It’s split seconds, isn’t it?” “Do I go in and tackle, do I bump, or smother? These happen so many times in a game." Yes, there are situations like that but that isn't what happened with DeGoey.  

[Redleg 40,230]

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Intentional, not nice language, medium impact: 4 weeks. 

What if you apologise and attend Tribunal in a Carlton jumper?

[daisycutter 29,343]

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Right. At the time I said “oh Harmesy. So stupid “.  Yes one week is right.  
 

Degoey 3 weeks at a minimum. Off his feet.  Player had disposed of the footy. Careless. Head high. High impact. Ok 4 weeks really. 

hardly off his feet, just because at the time of impact neither foot was grounded doesn't mean he jumped. his feet were only a few inches off the ground which is quite normal when moving.

regardless of his feet he's gorn big time. hit high, concussed player, game over, 3 or even more weeks.   not even ex-filth player christian can spin him out of this one

[spirit of norm smith 15,276]

As I said … Degoey 3 weeks at a minimum. Off his feet.  Player had disposed of the footy. Careless. Head high. High impact.

@daisycutter hardly off his feet, just because at the time of impact neither foot was grounded doesn't mean he jumped.

I didn’t say he jumped.  I said he was off his feet. Some may also state that to be off your feet , DEGOEY must have jumped into the bumping motion. Either way he’s lost his Brownlow chance and will get 3-4 weeks off 

[sue 9,019]

23 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

.....Either way he’s lost his Brownlow chance and will get 3-4 weeks off 

I wonder how being rubbed out affects the umpire's Brownlow votes when a player does return. They must be tempted to award votes to other players, figuring a vote for X is a wasted vote.  So that might increase the chances of that player's teamates winning. I wonder if there is any historical evidence for that, eg a sudden drop off of votes for X followed by a rise for a teamate after X returns.

[monoccular 17,340]

Maybe de Gooey thought the WCE guy was just a Sheila in a New York nightclub - fair game?

[layzie 33,037]

Feet leave the ground and you pay the penalty. That's the way it is. 

[John Crow Batty 8,788]

Since the JVR incident we have lost a player every week due to suspension where before and for a couple of seasons we rarely had a player suspended. Coincidence? 

Edited June 5, 2023 by John Crow Batty

[roy11 3,696]

1 hour ago, layzie said:

Feet leave the ground and you pay the penalty. That's the way it is. 

Kozzie got 2 weeks and people said that wasn't enough, didn't even hurt Smith. This should be 4 weeks.

[Deebymistake 772]

1 hour ago, John Crow Batty said:

Since the JVR incident we have lost a player every week due to suspension where before and for a couple of seasons we rarely had a player suspended. Coincidence? 

I have been thinking exactly the same thing.  The AFL is painfully corrupt.  I don't trust our suspensions are a coincidence.  

[Jaded No More 67,824]

1 hour ago, John Crow Batty said:

Since the JVR incident we have lost a player every week due to suspension where before and for a couple of seasons we rarely had a player suspended. Coincidence? 

Harmes deserved his week. Sparrow was borderline, but many other players have copped a week for similar tackles (unless they play for Carlton).

The Hunter suspension was a downright joke. 

[daisycutter 29,343]

2 hours ago, layzie said:

Feet leave the ground and you pay the penalty. That's the way it is. 

the feet leaving the ground is just as stupid as the eyes on the ball myth

watch someone running in slomo and most of the time it's no feet on the ground

now, significantly elevating yourself and actually jumping is diiferent and can be dangerous especially in a bump.

my point is leaving the ground is not the same as jumping yet people don't seem to see the difference

[YearOfTheDees 3,263]

Take it we have excepted the one week. Would never have got off anyway " We are not Carlton" not off field anyway. 

[layzie 33,037]

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the feet leaving the ground is just as stupid as the eyes on the ball myth

watch someone running in slomo and most of the time it's no feet on the ground

now, significantly elevating yourself and actually jumping is diiferent and can be dangerous especially in a bump.

my point is leaving the ground is not the same as jumping yet people don't seem to see the difference

Your point is a good one DC but this is how it's being adjudicated. If you elect to bump you are liable and if your feet leave the ground you lose control, may not be right but it gives the MRO an easy decision. 

[daisycutter 29,343]

48 minutes ago, layzie said:

Your point is a good one DC but this is how it's being adjudicated. If you elect to bump you are liable and if your feet leave the ground you lose control, may not be right but it gives the MRO an easy decision. 

i can agree with you layzie but i think it just layzie (pi 😂) that commentators make up these silly definitions to define much more complicated and nuanced situations.  regarding the "feet off the ground" judgement i could equally proffer the argument that if the front foot is planted it could increase the impact as it acts as an anchor to leverage higher force.

the implication of feet off the ground i think is supposed to imply more chance of hitting the head but this would only be true depending on whether the legs are straight or bent and the angle at which you make contact.  the issue though is simple. you either hit the head or you don't (regardless of where your feet are)

anyway, if the mro have an agenda they will use any argument to justify any decision they can

the shoulder bump is dead (even if it still lives in the instincts of many), thanks byron 😂

Edited June 5, 2023 by daisycutter

[Willmoy1947 3,971]

I think we should just sit back and see what transpires. It could actually be quite a circus and there are seventeen Clubs that will be onlooking interested parties. 

[Willmoy1947 3,971]

And of course do we have a united Media? Will we hear from Brian?  The first inkling of unrest will come from the old blokes who have their say on Monday night. That will set the mood..

Poor players poor umpires poor coaches, rules rules rules....

[layzie 33,037]

51 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i can agree with you layzie but i think it just layzie (pi 😂) that commentators make up these silly definitions to define much more complicated and nuanced situations.  regarding the "feet off the ground" judgement i could equally proffer the argument that if the front foot is planted it could increase the impact as it acts as an anchor to leverage higher force.

the implication of feet off the ground i think is supposed to imply more chance of hitting the head but this would only be true depending on whether the legs are straight or bent and the angle at which you make contact.  the issue though is simple. you either hit the head or you don't (regardless of where your feet are)

anyway, if the mro have an agenda they will use any argument to justify any decision they can

the shoulder bump is dead (even if it still lives in the instincts of many), thanks byron 😂

Yeah I don't like how they have over-simplified this part of bumping. You can brace yourself for contact in a totally defensive way and still have that that little jump off the ground when absorbing the contact. It's not right.

And don't get me started on the commentators spreading confusion about it.