Boomer Offered One Week Suspension - Appeal Successful

[Andrew Mc]

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

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was just saying that Fyfe's and his couldn't be directly compared as Harvey had loading. It was only a minor incident, and only got a week because of his previous dirty play.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

Boomers loading meant he had a "free swing" at the tribunal. He was going to cop a week regardless. Its not as if challenging was a gutsy move while the Fyfe camp wimped out....

 

[romeoh]

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.

Exactly -think we are in agreement. People might want to understand its a contact sport and a lot goes on.
Exactly the same with Selwood's initial gripe to the umps that everyone heard-I imagine that goes on the whole game-players complaining to umps about what another player has done. Nothing new there.

 

[simba_]

can't believe he got off... thug jumped into another bump.. didn't he just get suspended for something stupid? I just couldn't believe he did something dumb again so soon, all I think of is thug

I couldn't believe the media went on about how "Selwood bleeds easily" too. pretending boomer didn't jump into him. :\

 

[Donkey Chop]

As a North supporter I have really enjoyed listening to the radio today and having a laugh at all the sooking that Boomer got off.
You just know he'll be BOG too.

Happy days

 

[Monkey King]

Boomers loading meant he had a "free swing" at the tribunal. He was going to cop a week regardless. Its not as if challenging was a gutsy move while the Fyfe camp wimped out....

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

So what? If Fyfe had have had a clean slate, he would have only got one game if I'm not mistaken. He copped 225 points for the offense and would have received a 25% reduction from that, but he had 50 points carried over, hence the 25% reduction brought it to 206.25 points and a two match suspension.

Sorry guys, but my post is spot on. The Freo poster was calling for the rules to be enforced the same way ... and they were. Fyfe got two matches for an incident that was clearly a step up from Boomers, who got one match. Both had points carried over which without them, would have reduced Fyfe to one match and Boomer to none with an early plea. The biggest difference in the result was that one player took it to the tribunal, while the other accepted the MRP decision. Given Fyfe and Freo never even tested the water, I struggle to see on what grounds any Freo poster has making this accusation.

And at the biggest point of all ... is that both MRP decisions were total bullshit. Neither player should have missed a match for what they did.

 

[Bell Ringer]

Actually everyone else right. And terribly sad you are so slow (to put it politely) you can't see it.

Back to your little world of make believe.

Is Boomer playing this wkend?

Mustn't have been guilty of your fanciful "charge" then.

 

[Monkey King]

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.

You must have been perplexed when Hodge wasn't even cited after breaking Murphy's jaw then? Or when someone isn't suspended every time a player leaves the field to have his head bandaged. IMO this is a pretty clear cut case of nowhere near sufficient force to warrant a suspension and I am truly astounded that some people think this is a foggy sort of ruling.

 

[AM]

Is Boomer playing this wkend?

Mustn't have been guilty of your fanciful "charge" then.

What is a fact is the incident occurred off the ball. Not as you have cluelessly and exclusively continued to say that it was not off the ball.

As for him playing this weekend you can thank Selwood and Doc Chris Bradshaw for that.

Now go and play with your plasticine.

 

[Bell Ringer]

What is a fact is the incident occurred off the ball. Not as you have cluelessly and exclusively continued to say that it was not off the ball.

As for him playing this weekend you can thank Selwood and Doc Chris Bradshaw for that.

Now go and play with your plasticine.

Cool, so he is playing. Not suspended and all that. No charge or nothing.

I'm not thanking Selwood or some quack for a ******* thing, either - common sense got Boomer off, not your precious cap'n.

 

[Off The Couch]

You must have been perplexed when Hodge wasn't even cited after breaking Murphy's jaw then? Or when someone isn't suspended every time a player leaves the field to have his head bandaged. IMO this is a pretty clear cut case of nowhere near sufficient force to warrant a suspension and I am truly astounded that some people think this is a foggy sort of ruling.

I actually thought he was gone tbh, as I did with fyfe, hannebury, goodes, ablett and franklin and I'm sure numerous others I have missed - I have no problem in admitting that the rule confuses me and that's why I question the "but" when deciding to go down the path of interpreting insufficient force. What's next, rough shouldn't have been suspended because it's not his fault that mcglynn is too short. I get accidents are going to happen but at least call it that rather than this insufficient force bullshit especially when it's something like a jumper punch or a player deliberately kicking someone - the intent is there

 

[AM]

I actually thought he was gone tbh, as I did with fyfe, hannebury, goodes, ablett and franklin and I'm sure numerous others I have missed - I have no problem in admitting that the rule confuses me and that's why I question the "but" when deciding to go down the path of interpreting insufficient force. What's next, rough shouldn't have been suspended because it's not his fault that mcglynn is too short. I get accidents are going to happen but at least call it that rather than this insufficient force bullshit especially when it's something like a jumper punch or a player deliberately kicking someone - the intent is there

Insufficient force is all they had. Boomer's intent was the player not the ball. The contact was off the ball. And he was off the ground at the point of contact.

The way the rule is worded makes it incumbent on the initiator to avoid head high contact. I'm sure they will modify that over the off season but that's what the MRP had to deal with.

The MRP have made some howlers over time but I thought they were close to the money on this one. After all, it was the carryover points that got Boomer the week, not the incident itself.

 

[jacko57]

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.

How many weeks did his son get?

 

[jacko57]

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

EFA.

 

[jacko57]

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.

Objection, m'lud! Speculation.

 

[bailz66]

How many weeks did his son get?

Has to be rated intentional 3 points
High Contact 2 Points
Low Impact 1 Point

Level 3 Offence
225 points
If he has a good record he can get it down to 1 week with a guilty plea. If he argues the contact because well it was a 5 year old how hard can he hit thats below the force required

 

[Pres]

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!

Could not agree more. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Proud SJW]

Losing interest in the AFL is a little like losing interest in your religion.
It doesn't happen easily. But over time, you begin to realise just how you're being manipulated.

I'm not sure I'll be following next year. I want to. I really do. I love this game.
I'm just not sure I can anymore. It's not even about how North Melbourne fans can even "pretend" fairness anymore. Or anyone else.
There is nothing fair about this sport, now.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So what? If Fyfe had have had a clean slate, he would have only got one game if I'm not mistaken. He copped 225 points for the offense and would have received a 25% reduction from that, but he had 50 points carried over, hence the 25% reduction brought it to 206.25 points and a two match suspension.

Sorry guys, but my post is spot on. The Freo poster was calling for the rules to be enforced the same way ... and they were. Fyfe got two matches for an incident that was clearly a step up from Boomers, who got one match. Both had points carried over which without them, would have reduced Fyfe to one match and Boomer to none with an early plea. The biggest difference in the result was that one player took it to the tribunal, while the other accepted the MRP decision. Given Fyfe and Freo never even tested the water, I struggle to see on what grounds any Freo poster has making this accusation.

And at the biggest point of all ... is that both MRP decisions were total bullshit. Neither player should have missed a match for what they did.

Not disagreeing with your post, just pointing out Harvey had nothing to lose by contesting where Fyfe did. So its not the same thing.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Insufficient force is all they had. Boomer's intent was the player not the ball. The contact was off the ball. And he was off the ground at the point of contact.

The way the rule is worded makes it incumbent on the initiator to avoid head high contact. I'm sure they will modify that over the off season but that's what the MRP had to deal with.

The MRP have made some howlers over time but I thought they were close to the money on this one. After all, it was the carryover points that got Boomer the week, not the incident itself.

Common sense. Just because somebody bleeds doesnt mean there was forceful contact. Especially when its Selwood who bleeds every other week.

 

[Vindicater]

Watch Goodes, Franklin, Thompson, Boomer, Hodge or Lake do it this week and get off.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Watch Goodes, Franklin, Thompson, Boomer, Hodge or Lake do it this week and get off.

Well, you'd have to hope so considering the opposition to the original decision this week. Although I will expect that BF will treat any such infringement by a Swan to be the most thuggish incident of all time. Still hoping it's Goodes on Harvey.

 

[jacko57]

Well, you'd have to hope so considering the opposition to the original decision this week. Although I will expect that BF will treat any such infringement by a Swan to be the most thuggish incident of all time. Still hoping it's Goodes on Harvey.

I must be odd then. I'm hoping to see a fierce contest where neither side cops any serious injury, and neither side has a player in danger of suspension for the GF (or round 1 2015).

 

[Lach72]

So what? If Fyfe had have had a clean slate, he would have only got one game if I'm not mistaken. He copped 225 points for the offense and would have received a 25% reduction from that, but he had 50 points carried over, hence the 25% reduction brought it to 206.25 points and a two match suspension.

Sorry guys, but my post is spot on. The Freo poster was calling for the rules to be enforced the same way ... and they were. Fyfe got two matches for an incident that was clearly a step up from Boomers, who got one match. Both had points carried over which without them, would have reduced Fyfe to one match and Boomer to none with an early plea. The biggest difference in the result was that one player took it to the tribunal, while the other accepted the MRP decision. Given Fyfe and Freo never even tested the water, I struggle to see on what grounds any Freo poster has making this accusation.

And at the biggest point of all ... is that both MRP decisions were total bullshit. Neither player should have missed a match for what they did.

Step up my arse.
Rischitelli fell over, shook his head went off and came back on.

 

[Sugar2Sideshow]

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.

Imo, there is nothing wrong with players giving each other a bit of a bump if their paths cross on the way back to the room. But the farcical thing is, had wright had his eyebrow split open by a headclash in that instance, selwood would be fighting a rough conduct charge. Which we both know would be complete and utter bullshit