Boomer Offered One Week Suspension - Appeal Successful

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Good one, Boomer. Incredibly selfish and undisciplined to let your team down like that, particularly given you're not just a senior player of the club but the second most senior player in the entire ******* league.
 

Brent Harvey, North Melbourne, has been charged with a Level One Engaging in Rough Conduct Offence (125 demerit points, one-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Joel Selwood, Geelong Cats, during the second quarter of the Second Semi Final match between North Melbourne Melbourne and the Geelong Cats, played at the MCG on Friday September 12, 2014.

In summary, due to his previous poor record, his one-match sanction must remain at one match, even with an early plea.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-09-15/mrp-full-statement-semifinals

Moral of the story is not to line up unsuspecting people and clean them up off the ball in order to try and impose yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my haste to post I forgot to source it, thanks to subsequent peeps.

For the record I want him to play, so we'll see how it goes.

Also.. Bonz. One week back on the podcast and my predictions of injuries/suspensions continues to be 100%. ;)
 
Wonder if the appeal will work.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Boomer is such a tool of a bloke but Nth should appeal that. Insufficient force. Typical Selwood behaviour to highlight the clash. Can't miss a prelim for that.
 
ROFLMAO

Playing Sydney.

Gotta enhance the next TV rights deal.

Nothing more to be said.

Getting in early, aren't we? What happens when he's cleared and you still lose?
 
Boomer is such a tool of a bloke but Nth should appeal that. Insufficient force. Typical Selwood behaviour to highlight the clash. Can't miss a prelim for that.

Left the ground, head high contact, surely intent and sufficient force to make Selwood leave the ground would be hard to over turn?
 
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-09-15/mrp-full-statement-semifinals

Moral of the story is not to line up unsuspecting people and clean them up on the ball in order to try and impose yourself.

Don't be a dill. He was blocking Selwood from running onto the next play - and as he was facing Selwood, not the ball, he hadn't realised that the guy with the ball had turned the other way.

Stupid rule, which we can all thank Nathan Buckley for. Complete accidents shouldn't cost anyone games.

But, as the rule is there, I can't see any way he gets out of it unless it was insufficient force for the charge to be laid. Selwood wasn't knocked over and had no concussion or any ill-effects, except he was hit on a spot where even minimal contact caused bleeding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wonder if the appeal will work.
Probably not. It's clear he's gone out of his way to try to knock over Selwood. They'd be better off taking the week and hoping they can beat the Swans.

Very weak, whinge during the game by Selwood didn't help.
Who's your avatar?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top