Boomer Offered One Week Suspension - Appeal Successful

Remove this Banner Ad

Leather Poisoning said:
The grading is fine; the application isn't.

1. Impact - how is this determined? By how many weeks or minutes of play the receiver misses? It's applied inconsistently. We've seen buddy deliver identical bumps with near identical outcomes getting graded completely differently on impact.

How can anyone be suspended for attempted striking if impact is part of the equation? Yet actual contact is often regarded as insufficient force for a suspension.

2. Intent
Is it the intent to injure (eg lake, which was high) or the intent to bump (eg boomer). Boomer deliberately bumped the guy but didn't deliberately split his head open. So what's the intent refer to? Intent of action or intent of outcome?

3. Head high
If the head is to be protected T all costs then every jumper punch should incur points. It's not necessary, ever, yet it's condoned.
Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much agree with all of that. The points system sounded good in theory, but when they twist it and bend it to suit their agendas, it just makes it so inconsistent and hard to follow I reckon.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Not all but many North fans have blamed and lambasted Liam Picken and Joel Selwood after Boomer got reported. Both have then stuck by the players code and looked after Boomer. Next time Boomer gets reported who's fault will it be?

Under the rule he shouldn't be playing this week but I am glad he is playing because the rule is a freaking joke. Hopefully next time something like this happens we won't see the hypocrisy some North fans have shown of late
 
I guess the AFL have decided that the game will be less of a massacre if boomer plays? Under the rules he shouldn't be playing (Fyfe must be steaming) I don't think what he did was reportable, but he got the required result and that was Selwood off the the ground! You have to protect the player off the ball, you shouldn't expect hits like that when the ball is 10 - 20 metres away. Harvey should look at retirement, in his mind he's playing in a different era. He will offend again.
 
Obeanie1 said:
Did you think Goodes was lucky then to be let off with his bump on Selwood earlier in the season? That impact was much more forceful and Harvey is a runt compared to Goodes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he was lucky but the ball was there to be contested.

As it was in the Fyfe incident where he missed 2 weeks.

Fyfe's feet were on the ground, the ball was at arms length, head high contact, player off the ground a few times throughout the match to have the bleeding attended to, blah, blah, blah....................nevermind!
 
The faux love for Selwood from North fans is getting a little condescending, just say thanks for upholding the player code. No need for the over the top superlatives which are a bit of a kick in the teeth for Cats supporters who are still rightfully frustrated their season is over.

Regarding the response, tribunal results always tend to evoke a passionate response from neutrals, mainly because X or Y player from another team didn't get off.

I'd like to think most football fans would be comfortable with the fact his bump on Selwood was not sufficient force for a reportable offence. At the end of the day that's what North argued and cleared him on. I'm grateful as we could start suspending ten blokes a weekend for similar levels of force.

Bring on Friday!
 
Shagga is all Class said:
The Hanneberry on Hurley loose ball pretty much sums up what a cluster the AFL have made of the rules.

Hip to the head with one player having that front on protected area.

Both players ended up injured on the ground. Both probably thought they were doing the right thing under the new rules and was probably against instinctive football they grew up on.

No realistic alternative.
Click to expand...

Ball was there!
 
Winter said:
The faux love for Selwood from North fans is getting a little condescending, just say thanks for upholding the player code. No need for the over the top superlatives which are a bit of a kick in the teeth for Cats supporters who are still rightfully frustrated their season is over.

Regarding the response, tribunal results always tend to evoke a passionate response from neutrals, mainly because X or Y player from another team didn't get off.
Click to expand...

There's not really a huge problem with our season being over; we simply weren't good enough. A few of us suspected it (the minority of course), and unfortunately it came to pass. No excuses though. However, to see the salivating masses demand Selwood's head on a spike from Saturday through to Tuesday, only to mysteriously have a change of heart around 7pm last night, is far more illustrative of the 'mentality' of footy fans.

Plus we all know Selwood will get booed every bit as much the next time we play North.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Partridge said:
There's not really a huge problem with our season being over; we simply weren't good enough. A few of us suspected it (the minority of course), and unfortunately it came to pass. No excuses though. However, to see the salivating masses demand Selwood's head on a spike from Saturday through to Tuesday, only to mysteriously have a change of heart around 7pm last night, is far more illustrative of the 'mentality' of footy fans.

Plus we all know Selwood will get booed every bit as much the next time we play North.
Click to expand...

Crying to the umpires doesn't endear oneself to opposition fans. Going in to bat for Boomer on Tuesday simply negates the fact that he tipped him in on Friday
 
Last edited:
Swansujelly said:
in the end, it's the Barry Hall decision all over again, so play on, see you Friday night.
Click to expand...
no no no... barry hall punched a bloke 40 metres behind play and deserved to miss the grand final, harvey blocked selwood in an action that is part of our game and should never have been given a week.

The correct decision for the game was to let harvey off, hall was let off due to the afl's love affair with sydney.
 
ScoobySnacks said:
Crying to the umpires does endear oneself to opposition fans. Going in to bat for Boomer on Tuesday simply negates the fact that he tipped him in on Friday
Click to expand...
Yeah nah keep on hating Joel as usual nothing he could do to stop the irrational hating that is on bigfooty.

I really worry about some of the mentality of some posters on bigfooty that posts irrational and vile posts about players they have never meet.
 
Bulldog1954 said:
Not all but many North fans have blamed and lambasted Liam Picken and Joel Selwood after Boomer got reported. Both have then stuck by the players code and looked after Boomer. Next time Boomer gets reported who's fault will it be?

Under the rule he shouldn't be playing this week but I am glad he is playing because the rule is a freaking joke. Hopefully next time something like this happens we won't see the hypocrisy some North fans have shown of late
Click to expand...
I stand by my posted comments that Boomer would not have been reported in the last game vs the Dogs if the umpires had simply paid a free for the blatant infringements by Picken throughout the game. Yes, he over-reacted and was undisciplined when he finally got sick of Picken mauling him. But if the umps let the ball players play football, problem solved.
 
We can argue force and intent all day long, but the rules are supposed to be the rules. Changing it because it's prelim week and the media spotlight is on is pathetic. Do the Dockers now get to appeal Fyfe's suspension so he can be eligible for the Brownlow?

Also, don't understand the hate for Selwood...he's a champion. Wish we could swap ours for theirs.
 
Last edited:
JackOutback said:
We can argue force and intent all day long, but the rules are supposed to be the rules. Changing it because it's prelim week and the media spotlight is on is pathetic. Do the Dockers now get to appeal Fyfe's suspension so he can be eligible for the Brownlow?

Also, don't understand the hate for Selwood...he's a champion. Wish we could swap our for theirs.
Click to expand...
Maybe, just maybe the origional decision was wrong and the force actually was below what constituted a reportable office?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PerthBoy86
Why isn't Hawthorn considered one of the 'big 4' despite it's recent success?
Replies
24
Views
1K
CrazyJoeFevola
CrazyJoeFevola
mouncey2franklin
  • Poll
Peter Wright contact with Harry Cunningham: Pleads Guilty and Receives 4 Week Suspension
33 34 35 36 37
Replies
909
Views
19K
OnTheRocks
OnTheRocks
Chief
News Round 10 2024 - AFL Milestones, Teams, Fixture, Injuries, Suspensions - Sir Doug Nicholls Indigenous Round
Replies
4
Views
216
Chief
Chief
Bob Neil
  • Poll
Determinants of Success in AFL Footy
Replies
7
Views
801
Milanista28
Milanista28
nut
Most successful Long term deal?
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
Caligo
Caligo
Chief
News Rnd 17 - Curnow 100; Tuohy passes Jim Stynes; Riewoldt needs one goal - Milestones, suspensions, key stats
Replies
8
Views
495
windyhill
windyhill
JD888
One club players who originated interstate
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
DeathlyAccurate
D

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top