Boomer Offered One Week Suspension - Appeal Successful

[jacko57]

Nah, every time I need four stitches in my face I think "that was negligible".

Depending on who caused the wound?

 

[Hoops]

Is the Selwood hate based on this from the HS


Selwood’s comment to the controlling field umpire along the lines of “did you see that?’’ prompted an incident referral form to be lodged immediately after the semi-final at the MCG.

The Cats skipper, angry and frustrated at being ordered off under the blood rule, also spoke briefly to the emergency umpire when he was sent to the interchange bench early in the second quarter.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n-mrp-crosshairs/story-fni5f22o-1227057744453

No mention of him going over to The emergency umpire, just that the he spoke to the EU. No claims he dobbed him in.,perhaps the EU came over to get the story.

I'm trying to piece together what happened to see where all this hate has come from.

Either way he was always going to the MRP

 

[jacko57]

Either way he was always going to the MRP

Maybe, maybe not. If Selwood's comment to the ump didn't result in an investigation, the media beat-up of the incident made it inevitable.

I've read posts from others asking why high contact on Scott Thompson, and on off the ball hit on Kayne Turner, weren't investigated. (Didn't see them clearly myself). I daresay they would have at least been investigated, had the media made them an issue, as they did with the Harvey/Selwood incident.

 

[Hoops]

Maybe, maybe not. If Selwood's comment to the ump didn't result in an investigation, the media beat-up of the incident made it inevitable.

I've read posts from others asking why high contact on Scott Thompson, and on off the ball hit on Kayne Turner, weren't investigated. (Didn't see them clearly myself). I daresay they would have at least been investigated, had the media made them an issue, as they did with the Harvey/Selwood incident.

I should of includd this from the article

An umpire must report an incident if a player makes a verbal complaint or a bleeding player is forced off the ground and that is automatically sent to the match review panel’s Monday review of incidents from that round of matches.

 

[Lach72]

I can't believe there's a chorus of people in this thread upset that Boomer got off.

You cannot be an AFL fan and want to see players get rubbed out for soft bullcrap like that.

Go look at the very first post in this thread and smarten up!

No, I expect them to enforce their own stupid ******* rules in the same way when similar instances come up.
I don't expect them to say a few weeks ago, as Mark Fraser did, that Fyfe would still get suspended for his bump which was on ball, and then have Boomer get off for an off the ball hit with the same outcome.

Both are complete bullshit charges, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they show some consistency.

The rules are s**t, the way they enforce them is worse and Mark Evans and Fraser should be sacked

 

[Swansujelly]

Did you just compare an accidental head clash with punching someone 100m from the ball?

both should've missed.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Would love to have seen all the scribes and BF posters in such an outrage over Paul Chapman being suspended for a bump and missing a PF last year

 

[Off The Couch]

Maybe, just maybe the origional decision was wrong and the force actually was below what constituted a reportable office?

How is the force measured

 

[Monkey King]

I can't believe there's a chorus of people in this thread upset that Boomer got off.

You cannot be an AFL fan and want to see players get rubbed out for soft bullcrap like that.

This 100 times over. In an age where government is increasingly wanting people to sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of national security, it scares the absolute s**t out of me that people can be so thoroughly brainwashed in such a short period of time. Next someone will try to argue how speed cameras save lives. Something like this should never have even gone in front the tribunal to begin with.

 

[Chadwiko]

No, I expect them to enforce their own stupid ******* rules in the same way when similar instances come up.
I don't expect them to say a few weeks ago, as Mark Fraser did, that Fyfe would still get suspended for his bump which was on ball, and then have Boomer get off for an off the ball hit with the same outcome.

Both are complete bullshit charges, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they show some consistency.

The rules are s**t, the way they enforce them is worse and Mark Evans and Fraser should be sacked

TBF, the Fyfe one was more severe than the Boomer one, hence the difference.

Whilst I also think it crap that Fyfe got rubbed out for his incident, that one and the Boomer one were different, as this result shows.

 

[bailz66]

Nah, every time I need four stitches in my face I think "that was negligible".

You could walk into a sharp stick and bleed on the eyebrow pretty easily

How is the force measured

Force = mass * acceleration.

They could potentially put speed cameras up and establish how fast players heads are moving just prior to the collision then after each incident weigh each players head/body to establish the actual force.
In reality the video footage has to be what they use to establish Force. They need to judge this on the actual force and not necessarily on the result of it. If Selwood didn't bleed then there is no conversation. If Selwood had his face caved in then its 8 weeks for high contact. In reality the video evidence showed very low force with the resulting bleeding meaning that it was graded as low instead.

The MRP couldn't have know that information without speaking to Selwoods medical team or to Selwood himself which is why it went to the tribunal. What worries me is that if Harvey had of just got a reprimand without the carry over points from the game then he wouldnt have challenged leaving him with Carry over points for an incident that should have been graded as below the force required.
North argued very well at the Tribunal and Gleeson did a horrible job of prosecution so in the end the decision was in favour of Harvey.
A few polls have been kicking around, about 50% agree and 50% disagree meaning that there is a whole heap of conversation between the two groups regarding should he/shouldn’t he. This would have been the first suspension for a player where the impact had not knocked the victim to the ground.

 

[kelman]

How is the force measured

Player testimony, vision and injury sustained.

Swellwood's head didn't move, he didn't wince, he said he didn't feel it and they confirmed he splits easily.

Insufficient force, case dismissed.

 

[Monkey King]

No, I expect them to enforce their own stupid ******* rules in the same way when similar instances come up.

The thing is, they pretty much did. Fyfe's was a bit worse, so he got two games. Boomer's not quite as bad, so he got one game. Difference is that one party accepted their suspension, while the other went to the tribunal. Perhaps Fyfe and club shouldn't have accepted the MRP offer.

 

[Monkey King]

You could walk into a sharp stick and bleed on the eyebrow pretty easily

My mate had his eyebrow split by his 5yo son. An errant elbow in horsing around. Doesn't take much force. Idiocy what some posters are suggesting.

 

[romeoh]

Selwood is a marvel.

Perhaps those baying for Harvey blood should watch what happened after the half tiime siren.

Wright is running the ball out of the backline. Siren sounds with Wright a good 10-12m away from Selwood and Wright starts to slow down to a stop.

Selwood ends up laying a shoulder bump up the middle of Wright's sternum which I doubt Wright was expecting.

Possible head clash and subsequent scuffle.

About as much in that as the Harvey one.

Give it a spell. Selwood has been consistently, regularly, frequently bumped off the ball year in, year out, illegally, for as long as I can remember. There is every chance that Wright had bumped Selwood earlier in the game, and you just happened to miss that. Its the game. Toughen up and try for some perspective.

 

[romeoh]

Actually part of the discussion at the tribunal was why he did it, and it seemed to be accepted by the chairman and panel that it was a reasonable action under team rules to stop Selwood getting the 1-2 that Harvey expected at the time he committed to block his run, and that Selwood had planned when he gave the ball to Duncan. Gleeson looked like a dill telling Harvey what he thought he should have done in that play instead, especially when Harvey answered and explained patiently what was happening.

Selwood's evidence was perfect for North's defence. Good karma for Scott Thompson to save Stevie J at the risk of his own safety (pretty brave to tell your forthcoming opponents that you have cracked ribs and are are susceptible to any hits on that area, just to help an opponent escape a charge).

Well then the tribunal got that bit wrong-clearly off the ball and unfair. Swallow was about to lay a high tackle on him off the ball as well. But so what.
Who cares-he shouldn't have been cited, am happy he got off, but keep your common sense.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Give it a spell. Selwood has been consistently, regularly, frequently bumped off the ball year in, year out, illegally, for as long as I can remember. There is every chance that Wright had bumped Selwood earlier in the game, and you just happened to miss that. Its the game. Toughen up and try for some perspective.

Not sure what perspective you are on about.

Great players get bumped, blocked and held all the time (mainly at stoppages). They also dish it out as Selwood did at half time. Buggar all in either of them except one was made into a saga. Did not think Boomer would get off given all the waffle, even with Selwood's generous evidence.

 

[Off The Couch]

Player testimony, vision and injury sustained.

Swellwood's head didn't move, he didn't wince, he said he didn't feel it and they confirmed he splits easily.

Insufficient force, case dismissed.

It's a pretty ad-hoc system we have going then when a suspension is dependent on whether a player winces, is a bleeder, has a hard head or any other multitude of conditions going on
Does the rule even say that 'consideration should be taken into account if the following occurs......................"
Come a long way from when Cyril copped a suspension for 'attempted' striking
I suppose the question everyone is also asking is whether North would of contested this if it hadn't been a final and would Selwood have given testimony had they been playing each other again the following week ala Malescki in 2012 when Buddy laid the bump and got rubbed out for the qualifying final.

I don't have a problem with Harvey playing - it is what is. Just seems that insufficient force justifies a player not getting a suspension is a dangerous track to be going down for the MRP.

 

[D-N-R]

It's a pretty ad-hoc system we have going then when a suspension is dependent on whether a player winces, is a bleeder, has a hard head or any other multitude of conditions going on
Does the rule even say that 'consideration should be taken into account if the following occurs......................"
Come a long way from when Cyril copped a suspension for 'attempted' striking
I suppose the question everyone is also asking is whether North would of contested this if it hadn't been a final and would Selwood have given testimony had they been playing each other again the following week ala Malescki in 2012 when Buddy laid the bump and got rubbed out for the qualifying final.

I don't have a problem with Harvey playing - it is what is. Just seems that insufficient force justifies a player not getting a suspension is a dangerous track to be going down for the MRP.

Surely this is exactly what the MRP should be doing? Should we ban all players who make high contact regardless of force?

How else should the MRP determine force? What could they use which is less arbitrary? If we aren't going to use vision of the incident, or medical reports, what can we use to determine how long a player should be suspended for?

 

[Off The Couch]

Surely this is exactly what the MRP should be doing? Should we ban all players who make high contact regardless of force?

How else should the MRP determine force? What could they use which is less arbitrary? If we aren't going to use vision of the incident, or medical reports, what can we use to determine how long a player should be suspended for?

How long have we heard 'the head is 'sacrosanct' - but then we get asked to throw in a couple of 'buts' - it just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying there is an easy answer but the way it stands at the moment It's confusing and frustrating - not just to supporters but more importantly the players
As it stands at the moment they say it's okay for Harvey to 'leave the ground' to lay his bump on selwood and make him leave the ground because Joel is a bleeder (boy, doesn't that open a whole new can of worms down the track) but it's not okay for say Jordan Lewis who never bleeds, that it's okay for Hawkins to throw a 'jumper' punch (like it makes it less of a punch) on Ben Stratton because Ben obviously has a tough jaw but it's not okay the following week when he does it to say a Priddis because he has a glass jaw and is out of the game for weeks. The whole thing is just ridiculous.

Maybe the solution is a fine, then a reprimand and then suspension should similar hits occur
Like I said, I don't know what the solution is - but as it stands there is just far too much grey area and that's just not good for the game

 

[AM]

Actually part of the discussion at the tribunal was why he did it, and it seemed to be accepted by the chairman and panel that it was a reasonable action under team rules to stop Selwood getting the 1-2 that Harvey expected at the time he committed to block his run, and that Selwood had planned when he gave the ball to Duncan. Gleeson looked like a dill telling Harvey what he thought he should have done in that play instead, especially when Harvey answered and explained patiently what was happening.

Selwood's evidence was perfect for North's defence. Good karma for Scott Thompson to save Stevie J at the risk of his own safety (pretty brave to tell your forthcoming opponents that you have cracked ribs and are are susceptible to any hits on that area, just to help an opponent escape a charge).

Gleeson hasn't had a good year as the AFLs mouthpiece it must be said.

Thought the tribunal chairman was more than helpful to Boomer in his summing-up. Just why he mentioned the SJ case when precedent isn't a matter to be considered was puzzling.

And when he said to the jury "It must be forceful contact, mere contact is not sufficient" the matter was all done and dusted for mine. Why it took the jury the time it did (albeit only 7 or so minutes) to return with the verdict after Jones gave it to them on a plate amazed me.

Think Boomer owes Joel more than a beer btw.

 

[D-N-R]

How long have we heard 'the head is 'sacrosanct' - but then we get asked to throw in a couple of 'buts' - it just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying there is an easy answer but the way it stands at the moment It's confusing and frustrating - not just to supporters but more importantly the players
As it stands at the moment they say it's okay for Harvey to 'leave the ground' to lay his bump on selwood and make him leave the ground because Joel is a bleeder (boy, doesn't that open a whole new can of worms down the track) but it's not okay for say Jordan Lewis who never bleeds, that it's okay for Hawkins to throw a 'jumper' punch (like it makes it less of a punch) on Ben Stratton because Ben obviously has a tough jaw but it's not okay the following week when he does it to say a Priddis because he has a glass jaw and is out of the game for weeks. The whole thing is just ridiculous.

Maybe the solution is a fine, then a reprimand and then suspension should similar hits occur
Like I said, I don't know what the solution is - but as it stands there is just far too much grey area and that's just not good for the game

The system isn't perfect, but I have yet to hear an alternative that would replace it or cause less confusion.

The problem seems to be people putting the Fyfe incident and the Harvey incident into the same category and expecting the same outcome, when it is patently obvious that the force in the two incidents was different. Fyfe and Ritischelli were reeling after their head clash - this was obviously a harder hit than Harvey on Selwood in which neither player seemed affected by the head clash at all. To say that 'the head is sacrosanct' and to punish these two incidents exactly the same would be an injustice. In regards to Harvey jumping, this point is moot if the force is too low for a report to be laid.

To punish two players equally for a hit to the jaw - regardless of the effect of that hit - would be an injustice. To give Hawkins's 'jumper punch' the same punishment as Vickery's one which concussed Cox would cause even more outrage. How do we separate the two incidents? By the result, based on the vision and medical reports. A one-size-fits-all punishment is unfair. Hawkins's punch was quite firm and probably straddled the line between sufficient and insufficient force, but all justice systems have grey areas.

This decision is a good result, because it has opened a can of worms. Now we start to see what the minimum force is required, and that grey area has just become a little smaller.

 

[Andrew Mc]

The thing is, they pretty much did. Fyfe's was a bit worse, so he got two games. Boomer's not quite as bad, so he got one game. Difference is that one party accepted their suspension, while the other went to the tribunal. Perhaps Fyfe and club shouldn't have accepted the MRP offer.

Only because of his loading. For a clean player, it would have been a warning off the bat.

 

[bailz66]

Only because of his loading. For a clean player, it would have been a warning off the bat.

He was found not guilty so no points.

Lets look at it this way.

If he had no carry over/loading.
He gets 125 down to 83 and takes the reprimand (No challange so cops the points)
2 weeks later he has an incident with low grading. He now has 10% increase + carry over points meaning he misses a week and cops 2 for challanging.

If he challanged the first incident and got off then he would be up for a reprimand the second time. If he challanged the first he risks a week

 

[Tas]

No, I expect them to enforce their own stupid ******* rules in the same way when similar instances come up.
I don't expect them to say a few weeks ago, as Mark Fraser did, that Fyfe would still get suspended for his bump which was on ball, and then have Boomer get off for an off the ball hit with the same outcome.

Both are complete bullshit charges, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they show some consistency.

The rules are s**t, the way they enforce them is worse and Mark Evans and Fraser should be sacked

You should be upset at the vast majority of coaches, probably your own coach as well, for wanting accidental head contact to be worthy of suspension if there is 'sufficient force'.