Bevan and Neitz both off (Merged)

[ItsAllGoodes]

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=289257

As expected Bevans report was thrown out by the match review committee

But so to was Neitz's charge on Goodes

[nomae]

Originally posted by ItsAllGoodes
As expected Bevans report was thrown out by the match review committee
common sense


But so to was Neitz's charge on Goodes
what a joke. goodes was dominating so neitz decided to take him out. shoulda got one week.

[Sanecow]

No real surprise there. Neitz played the role of the hockey goon but there are so many knees in the back in marking contests, it seemed unlikely that he would get any time off for it.

[floppinab]

Would've liked to have seen Neitz get some points but probably not a match.

[liz]

Originally posted by Sanecow
No real surprise there. Neitz played the role of the hockey goon but there are so many knees in the back in marking contests, it seemed unlikely that he would get any time off for it.

Agreed. It is perfectly legal to do a lot of damage in a marking contest. Although Neitz was nowhere near marking the ball, he could reasonable argue that was misjudgement rather than a deliberate act to hurt Goodes. I'd be annoyed if a Swan got suspended for something like that.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by liz
...I'd be annoyed if a Swan got suspended for something like that.
Fair enough. But it looked pretty ordinary at the time & could be considered "reckless".

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Agent 86
Fair enough. But it looked pretty ordinary at the time & could be considered "reckless". For me, the telling factor was that he never had his arms in a position to mark the ball. I almost got the feeling he knew that he wouldn't mark and said "What the hell, I can always claim I misjudged the marking contest." I thought possibly a reprimand was in order. You know, the Claytons penalty.

[Glenn]

He was never going to be in position to mark the ball, should have been deemed deliberate.
Not suprised with the decision you come to expect it.

[Q...]

Can I just say that I'm very disappointed that the match review panel have convinced themselves that Neitz was going for the ball.

I was thinking that we might see him get the largest penalty of the year following his cowardly, deliberate attempt to give Goodes a long term injury.

[Q...]

Originally posted by Agent 86
Fair enough. But it looked pretty ordinary at the time & could be considered "reckless".

I still saw it as "deliberate".

And I'd be more than happy to see a Swan get suspended for an extended period of time for stooping to such a low. I don't want players in my team that believe that taking someone out illegally is an acceptable thing to do in an attempt to win a game.

[elroy67]

Originally posted by Q...
I still saw it as "deliberate".



I was at the other end of the ground and was naturally 'outraged' at the time. Seeing the replay, I dont think it was the best marking attempt I've ever seen, but the free kick was an appropriate penalty.

[wheels27]

Yeah, he tried to take Goodes out of the game deliberately, but given that opportunity most key forwards would have done similar (hopefully not quite as crudely) I for one love to see key forwards hurling themselves full tilt at contests, sometimes (rarely) they arrive late and give away a free, so be it. Better to give away a free going hard and make the bloke earn a mark, then give away a goal by protecting the oppositions interests.

[is2SWaNz]

No suprises there, that Bevan's report was thrown out.

Neitz? hmm..i saw it as deliberate. It was said that Neitz always had his eyes fixed on the ball, and it was 'legitimate'... =.='''

[Doctor]

Common perception on Fox Footy last night seemed to be that Neitz could consider himself pretty lucky. I'd have to agree

[graystar]

It was a pretty blatant attempt at injury. With all the injuries to the spines of people this year I was expecting a different outcome.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by graystar
It was a pretty blatant attempt at injury. With all the injuries to the spines of people this year I was expecting a different outcome. Neil Daniher said
It was Adam Goodes who impeded David Neitz,and David should have gotten a free kick I dont think Neil had his jam jars on.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by swantastic
Neil Daniher said I dont think Neil had his jam jars on. Toungue in Cheek, anyone??

[ugg]

DH-S didn't agree with the decision (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,%255E5000280,00.html)

[swantastic]

Originally posted by ugg
DH-S didn't agree with the decision (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,%255E5000280,00.html) Thats the first time i have ever herd Humphrey Bear say any thing that made sense.

[Nico]

I missed Tuesday night on WLF but the times I have seen DHS he has been pretty much spot on. I think his observations are fair.