Past #29: Brent Harvey - drafted w/ #47 in '95 ND - 432 games/518 goals for NM - AFL games record holder

[royals1922]

How does robbo have a job. He is clueless issue are issue. He just doesn't get close.

Pictures of editors with goats

 

[Ocha905]

I posted this earlier (before the hearing), but I was extremely confident Harvey was going to be free to play.

This talk by media types going on about 'the rule is clear' had mislead the public away from what the point of contention was - that the force was insufficient to warrant a report.

People comment on how stupid Mark Robinson is (and he is), but Gerard Whateley's comments on the tribunal are so misinformed time and time again. He just doesn't understand how a judicial process works. People then listen to him because he's generally across most things in the game and then the outrage grows when the tribunal ultimately disagrees with him.

The final thing I want to clear up that's been annoying me all week is the talk about how Harvey's actions were selfish and unnecessary and against the team rules. This is just plain wrong. Astute football people will tell you that Harvey was checking Selwood to stop him being able to run into a dangerous and open space to receive the ball from his team mate. What would have been selfish was if Harvey let Selwood run unimpeded.

There's footage of a St Kilda training session when Ross Lyon was in charge and they were doing an open play drill, and one of the players let another just run through without checking him and thus slowing him down. Lyon cracked it and yelled '******* CHECK HIM!!' and then laid a block on himself. It is a team rule for every team in the league - don't let people run free and unimpeded.

Anyway, just needed to get those couple of things off my chest. Great result for football.

This issue was useful in sorting out the members of the media who can think logically and those that are hysterical over nothing or just want to stir s*** up. Gary Lyon, Wayne Carey and, surprise surprise, Gerald Healy take a bow.

The others can go and stick their quasi 'rule interpretations' someplace where I don't have to see or hear from it again.

 

[ozzyoslo]

Pretty simple equation. One flattened and dazed him, the other had no impact whatsoever. He ended up being sent off the ground when he was 100m off the ball and we had possession. So that impact the team by him going off is bullshit!

Watch the video Boomer bounces off him , incidental head collision. Where as Fyfe case he puts Richecelli ?? (spelling) on his backside.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Serious lolz at Robbo suggesting Boomer's bump was worse than Fyfe's.

Rischitelli went flat on his arse, whilst Selwood barely moved ffs.

Plus.....

Fyfe's issue at the time was that Rischitelli had the ball in hand and Fyfe chose to bump rather than tackle. Selwood wasn't in possession of the pill so tackling was never an option.

Yep, Selwood hardly flinched at all.

 

[tazaa]

This issue was useful in sorting out the members of the media who can think logically and those that are hysterical over nothing or just want to stir s*** up. Gary Lyon, Wayne Carey and, surprise surprise, Gerald Healy take a bow.

The others can go and stick their quasi 'rule interpretations' someplace where I don't have to see or hear from it again.

Credit to Say that again too. Summed it up perfectly on talking footy.
I could be wrong but past and present players saw through the supposed binding rules as a joke and it's the journos who are coming across as sooks. Darcy's point was they got a lawyer in to implement the gradings of negligent, reckless, intention etc yet precedent doesn't even fuking count. The law of common sense is what's needed.
Good call on Gerard Healy too he was spot on last night.

 

[tazaa]

BTW Freo have a beauty in Fyfe.
You'd Build a team around him.
He looks like he has a brain on him too and comes across as a switched on individual.

 

[Marstermind]

I think JR thought Boomer should go... http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...scapes-reprimand/story-fni5f08l-1227060722195 #soznotsoz

The day I take any notice of Jon Ralph's "opinion" is around about the time I'd like my face slammed into a block of concrete. To say he is THE worst footy "expert" going around is significant in such a big field. The moment I knew that Jon Ralph thought Boomer should get rubbed out was the moment I thought he may get off. He probably felt that he "broke" the story and was disappointed that in the end nothing happened.

 

[Marstermind]

Plus.....

Fyfe's issue at the time was that Rischitelli had the ball in hand and Fyfe chose to bump rather than tackle. Selwood wasn't in possession of the pill so tackling was never an option.

Yep, Selwood hardly flinched at all.

The Fyfe one happened in Round 2 and literally for 5 months we heard these blokes whinge, correctly, how wrong it was. Now this happens and journos want the tribunal to be wrong again? " All we want is consistency" they cry. They'd prefer the tribunal to be consistently wrong then? These guys probably think Melbourne are a great side - they've been one of the most consistent sides for the past 5 years.

 

[Event Horizon]

It's annoying listening or reading rubbish such as "why have a rule on the first place"? Insinuating that tribunal ignored the rule in making their judgement. But they simply found it not forceful enough, which is what we were saying all along.

 

[giantroo]

It's annoying listening or reading rubbish such as "why have a rule on the first place"? Insinuating that tribunal ignored the rule in making their judgement. But they simply found it not forceful enough, which is what we were saying all along.

Half of them wouldnt have even sat through the hearing and are judging based on the end result.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I cannot believe he got off - hats off to Slick Willy Houghton

 

[LETSGOKANGAS]

The Fyfe bump had more force.

But when you drop Boomers bump down to black and white facts, he broke the rule.

Off the ball
Left the ground
Head high contact
Had other options

Boomer could have easily checked Selwoods run by intervening with his person rather than tucking the elbow in, leaping and electing to bump.

The rule is there to protect players heads. Thats fine, but reason must be taking into consideration just like it was last night.

There was head high contact, but the force was insufficient. If there was no blood would have been play on without all the hoohaa.

 

[spongebucket]

The Fyfe one happened in Round 2 and literally for 5 months we heard these blokes whinge, correctly, how wrong it was. Now this happens and journos want the tribunal to be wrong again? " All we want is consistency" they cry. They'd prefer the tribunal to be consistently wrong then? These guys probably think Melbourne are a great side - they've been one of the most consistent sides for the past 5 years.

Most journos have no idea on what they are saying most of the time, talk for the sake of it, they compete with each other to make to most noise whether they know what they are talking about or not, in saying that I guess they have a job to do otherwise they would be sacked. I just wish they would think before opening their mouths.

 

[Phillyroo]

The Fyfe bump had more force.

But when you drop Boomers bump down to black and white facts, he broke the rule.

Off the ball
Left the ground
Head high contact
Had other options

Boomer could have easily checked Selwoods run by intervening with his person rather than tucking the elbow in, leaping and electing to bump.

The rule is there to protect players heads. Thats fine, but reason must be taking into consideration just like it was last night.

There was head high contact, but the force was insufficient. If there was no blood would have been play on without all the hoohaa.

Can you please refer me to the rule or sub section of the rule that mentions leaving the ground. Also could you refer me to a bump where a players feet dont leave the ground.... because it DOESNT HAPPEN!!!!!

 

[LT Smash]

Plus.....

Fyfe's issue at the time was that Rischitelli had the ball in hand and Fyfe chose to bump rather than tackle. Selwood wasn't in possession of the pill so tackling was never an option.

Yes this was the point where the AFL Counsel lost the case - he suggested to Boomer that he had an option to tackle - he could have tackled Duncan who had the ball. Harvey flat batted that straight back saying another player had Duncan covered and under team rules Boomer had to check Selwood.

 

[LT Smash]

Most journos have no idea on what they are saying most of the time, talk for the sake of it, they compete with each other to make to most noise whether they know what they are talking about or not, in saying that I guess they have a job to do otherwise they would be sacked. I just wish they would think before opening their mouths.

Lazy journos like consistency because it means they can serve up the same slop each week without leaving the front bar.

 

[Mr Reliable]

Half of them wouldnt have even sat through the hearing and are judging based on the end result.

You're right, GR. Following the evidence (on BF) last night was extremely important to gaining an understanding of how the case was decided.

Most of these flogs wouldn't be concerned with the evidence. All they know is rule, head, bump, blood, MRP, box ticking.

Thank God there's a tribunal.

 

[giantroo]

You're right, GR. Following the evidence (on BF) last night was extremely important to gaining an understanding of how the case was decided.

Most of these flogs wouldn't be concerned with the evidence. All they know is rule, head, bump, blood, MRP, box ticking.

Thank God there's a tribunal.

Another thing i keep hearing is that it wasn't in play. It sure was if people bother to watch the play. Barry Hall's incident got judged in play while being 60 metres away from the ball.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Can't wait for Fat Pricks reaction. It will be the usual sober measured commentary "this decision will be the death of Australian football and life as we know it"

 

[jacko57]

The day I take any notice of Jon Ralph's "opinion" is around about the time I'd like my face slammed into a block of concrete. To say he is THE worst footy "expert" going around is significant in such a big field. The moment I knew that Jon Ralph thought Boomer should get rubbed out was the moment I thought he may get off. He probably felt that he "broke" the story and was disappointed that in the end nothing happened.

He is the print media's answer to GoGriff.

 

[Boner Spirit]

Ralphy is on SEN crying into his Bonox as we speak haha

 

[Saintly31]

Risk free footy?
Not my bloody team!

What Boomer did was unnecessary, it added no value as a block (as people claim) as ball was gone and was quite late.

At the same time it was ridiculous he was was reported/suspended off such little contact, but knowing the MRP ridiculous is usually what happens.

I am all for our guys going in 100% and if they get done then so be it, like JZs recent suspensions. Absolutely take risks if going for the footy, but Boomers was nothing like that.

Regardless, justice has been served and Boomer gets to play in the prelim like he should be.

 

[Topkent]

Anyone who isn't happy about this is a sook

Nothing in it and if there is anyone else who would be happy for one of there best 3 players to miss a prelim for this should go watch another sport

 

[Mr. Blonde]

The Fyfe bump had more force.

But when you drop Boomers bump down to black and white facts, he broke the rule.

Off the ball
Left the ground
Head high contact
Had other options

Boomer could have easily checked Selwoods run by intervening with his person rather than tucking the elbow in, leaping and electing to bump.

The rule is there to protect players heads. Thats fine, but reason must be taking into consideration just like it was last night.

There was head high contact, but the force was insufficient. If there was no blood would have been play on without all the hoohaa.

You are incorrect on a few statements.

Firstly, he didn't "leap" off the ground. In fact his feet were possibly planted when contact was made.
Secondly, it was in play and not off the ball.
Thirdly, he didn't break the rules as you suggest because the force wasn't sufficient enough to warrant a suspension.

Yes, the rule is there to protect players heads, but when we are talking about such low force in an accidental head clash then the rule is null and void in this situation.

 

[sbdan]

What Boomer did was unnecessary, it added no value as a block (as people claim) as ball was gone and was quite late.

THat's not true. These little niggles are a constant part of the tagger's game, particularly effective when coming from someone who is not the target's direct opponent. Just a little reminder to Sellwood that he is in the gun and the whole team is watching him. A gentle mind fk to put him off his game.