Boomer Offered One Week Suspension - Appeal Successful

[thecatattack]

Did Selwood squeal like a little stuck pig. Yes
Did Selwood cry like a little cabbage patch doll. Yes

Remember when Boomer cried to the umps about being pinched?

 

[Thats Wright]

The bloody Lindsay Thomas curse strikes again.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I hope North challenge it, they have nothing to lose as it can only be one match regardless, he'll just lose the early plea drop in points. It would be a shame for Boomer to miss out. We need the stars playing, not sitting on the sidelines.

 

[Wooljay]

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.

Haha, I'm the dill?

If he's resorting to hitting Selwood miles off the ball to keep him from the contest, and he gets him high and has carryover points from being a dirty player, then he deserves to go. Have a good look at the vision, and whether or not the impact seems severe it's the intent and the action which does him in.

And his own shite record.

 

[dmc333]

I'd consider lifting his ban after an apologetic vlog.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Cleared

Cleared

Hmmm... and the MRP preaches consistency aye.

 

[clogged]

Was always going to be suspended and I blame all the supporters who always cry foul over the softest of incidents. Now the game suits all the Mum's wanting their child wrapped in bubble wrap.

Are you talking about Nathan Buckley?

 

[SM]

Cleared

Cleared

Hmmm... and the MRP preaches consistency aye.

1) Buddy doesn't leave the ground
2) Goodes is going for the ball

Neither of those scenarios apply to Boomer.

 

[Whiskers]

Are you talking about Nathan Buckley?

Yes, I actually blame him.
I'm serious. He was the one who initially wanted this type of thing suspendable.

 

[BornPort]

Such a dumb, selfish player.

 

[The Swans Blog]

The buddy one was shoulder on shoulder and his head cocked back.
The Goodes one he was already in the motion of jumping into the air.

Looking back through the video, who the * knows what's going to happen at the tribunal. All you can say is that Harvey had intent to do something, whatever it was, and he left the ground to do it.

 

[SuperSub17]

2) Goodes is going for the ball

That's interesting, seeing as the ball was nowhere near him. Usually when the ball is above you you put your arms up.

 

[clogged]

Yes, I actually blame him.
I'm serious. He was the one who initially wanted this type of thing suspendable.

I agree. I thought it was pretty weak for a coach to sook about what Thomas did.

I don't like Thomas, but that stuff is part of the game. It's a contact sport. The fact Buckley spent most of his career avoiding it shouldn't influence the AFL.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

1) Buddy doesn't leave the ground
2) Goodes is going for the ball

Neither of those scenarios apply to Boomer.

Both bumps, but anyway not trying to single Sydney out, there's no consistency.

 

[SM]

That's interesting, seeing as the ball was nowhere near him. Usually when the ball is above you you put your arms up.

That's interesting since it happened right in front of me (inb4 adelaide supporter) and my recollection is that the ball was in the air above them, but go for it.

 

[SuperSub17]

Yes, I actually blame him.
I'm serious. He was the one who initially wanted this type of thing suspendable.

Yeah, nah. When Thomas hit Reid last year everyone was up in arms about it, wondering how he got off.

 

[Freoforever86]

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.

Blame the MRP for the Fyfe ban earlier this year. That doesn't happen then this never happens too

 

[Punts]

North have come out already and said they will appeal , hell get off

 

[MinerBoy]

Well there you go.

Surprised in that finals leniency is usually added this time of the year..........and because I don't agree with it.

However, to the letter of the law they've been applying (i.e. Fyfe) I guess there was always the distinct possibility.

Will obviously and correctly appeal. NFI how that'll work out though.

 

[choppy]

Getting in early, aren't we? What happens when he's cleared and you still lose?

Harvey playing or not will have no bearing on North kicking Sydneys arse.

Within 1 hour of the final siren their is a two minute video up on the AFL website complete with primary school level graphics calling him guilty and the next day you have the AFL Football Operations Manager implying he is guilty.

Watch the video and tell me the only thing that decides who is guilty and who is not.

Insufficient Contact. Ha Ha

 

[THRILLHO]

Bad luck, Boomer.

I guess the lesson is, next time, jumper punch.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Blame the MRP for the Fyfe ban earlier this year. That doesn't happen then this never happens too

Both suspensions were stupid.

 

[GOAUS!]

Blame the rules, not Selwood. The rule must be changed.

 

[Whiskers]

Did Selwood squeal like a little stuck pig. Yes
Did Selwood cry like a little cabbage patch doll. Yes

I don't like the suspension but boy oh boy wowee are you a hypocrite.
Karma seems to have bitten Harvey, and I like him.
Stop making your fan base look a bunch of fools.

 

[SM]

Harvey playing or not will have no bearing on North kicking Sydneys arse.

Within 1 hour of the final siren their is a two minute video up on the AFL website complete with primary school level graphics calling him guilty and the next day you have the AFL Football Operations Manager implying he is guilty.

Watch the video and tell me the only thing that decides who is guilty and who is not.

Insufficient Contact. Ha Ha

Is that sentence implying that regardless of him playing you WILL beat Sydney?

Given that level of logic I can't help but disregard everything else you say.