Short memory buddy. If you want someone who squeals like a banshee then look no further than Boomer. Ask Ryan Crowley. Ask Liam Picken. Ask Brent Macaffer..........
-
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Harvey Gone?
- Thread starter Randomizor
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Harvey should front the tribunal in red and white colours.
ManOfClay
Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Nathan Mullenger-McHugh Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Josh Prudden Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Zaine Cordy Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2016
- Jan 27, 2012
- 20,132
- 24,363
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Memphis Grizzlies, Man United
Yes, North fans crying about players squealing need to remember it is their players who have form in that
Rubbish decision. No player should miss a game (and a prelim at that) for such an innocuous incident, especially given that Goodes' one was thrown out for "insufficient force". In the ideal world, neither of those gets suspended, but if one does it should've surely been Goodes. I'm glad he wasn't suspended for it though, of course.
The MRP/Tribunal system is pretty farcical, especially how strictly they have to use the guidelines and corresponding penalties. But in a lot of ways their hands are tied due to the ever-changing rules and flavour-of-the-month crackdowns. The protection of the head IS VERY important, but this suspension is complete nonsense.
Hopefully the Roos appeal it and Boomer gets to play, no matter how much I hate the guy. Even if they have to argue a stupid technicality, that'd be better than just copping it on the chin (PUN!). We probably wouldn't have the 2005 premiership without a technicality, so no problem with it from the Swans' point of view.
The MRP/Tribunal system is pretty farcical, especially how strictly they have to use the guidelines and corresponding penalties. But in a lot of ways their hands are tied due to the ever-changing rules and flavour-of-the-month crackdowns. The protection of the head IS VERY important, but this suspension is complete nonsense.
Hopefully the Roos appeal it and Boomer gets to play, no matter how much I hate the guy. Even if they have to argue a stupid technicality, that'd be better than just copping it on the chin (PUN!). We probably wouldn't have the 2005 premiership without a technicality, so no problem with it from the Swans' point of view.
Wonder if Geelong will assist North Melbourne or make things harder ?
Bulldocker
Club Legend
Your problem is that the MRP made this rod for their backs with the Fyfe and Hunt incidents - however stupid it is. To not penalise him would just leave a stench worse than a sewerage plant right across the AFL. At least he already had the benefit of knowing the MRP stance on head-high bumps through other player's previous misfortune this season. How fuggin stupid is he? You guys should just have to wear it as other clubs have had to. Perhaps just be happy that they saw fit to not class the hit as intentional as an off-the-ball incident is meant to be assessed! Then the players union and the coaches association should be screaming at this farcical laws of the game committee to get this rule abolished before 2015 and also to just quit watering down the hardness of our game altogether.
- Jun 22, 2014
- 11,094
- 9,563
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
VERY, ridiculously so. i agree with everything you say here
Engimal
Cancelled
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2018 Luke Davies-Uniacke and Paul Ahern Player Sponsor
Pantskyle
Minecraft
Shiny Penny
Ruby
Breaking News: Football fans boo opposition players.
Penalty was right. Very stupid thing to do. Unfortunate that it is a prelim.
llama2
Senior List
- Dec 22, 2013
- 175
- 403
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I think that the question has become far more about whether it was a stupid thing to do, rather than actually analysing the incident.
I agree that Boomer shouldn't have done it, it was a stupid act, not necessary etc.
However, any preconceptions had about Selwood, Boomer, or the incident itself should be put by the wayside, when the job at hand is determining three gradings.
I don't have any problems with Negligent conduct or High contact, in fact Boomer was probably lucky to only get Negligent conduct (probably the MRP's way of trying to smooth the incident over "Oh, yes let's not be consistent, let's think about the end result, rather than the three categories that we harp on about every week")
However, it is the impact ruling that is utterly wrong. Boomer makes glancing contact to Selwood's head, Selwood was expecting the bump, and braced for contact himself. Selwood doesn't give any sign that he's in discomfort, he just gives Boomer a spray and moves on. (Selwood's problem with Boomer that he complained to the umpire about was a separate incident that occurred about 30 seconds later) He actually seems surprised that there is blood on his face.
The problem is that the MRP are focusing on the blood that came from Selwood's head, which is no indicator of force, Selwood bleeds more than a blood-boosting haemophiliac, instead of the actually force between Harvey and Selwood. Watch the real time replay of the incident, and Selwood is inconvenienced no more than a normal shepherd.
I think that Boomer has no case to answer, the force is simply too low for a charge to be laid, and I can only hope that the tribunal finds the same.
I agree that Boomer shouldn't have done it, it was a stupid act, not necessary etc.
However, any preconceptions had about Selwood, Boomer, or the incident itself should be put by the wayside, when the job at hand is determining three gradings.
I don't have any problems with Negligent conduct or High contact, in fact Boomer was probably lucky to only get Negligent conduct (probably the MRP's way of trying to smooth the incident over "Oh, yes let's not be consistent, let's think about the end result, rather than the three categories that we harp on about every week")
However, it is the impact ruling that is utterly wrong. Boomer makes glancing contact to Selwood's head, Selwood was expecting the bump, and braced for contact himself. Selwood doesn't give any sign that he's in discomfort, he just gives Boomer a spray and moves on. (Selwood's problem with Boomer that he complained to the umpire about was a separate incident that occurred about 30 seconds later) He actually seems surprised that there is blood on his face.
The problem is that the MRP are focusing on the blood that came from Selwood's head, which is no indicator of force, Selwood bleeds more than a blood-boosting haemophiliac, instead of the actually force between Harvey and Selwood. Watch the real time replay of the incident, and Selwood is inconvenienced no more than a normal shepherd.
I think that Boomer has no case to answer, the force is simply too low for a charge to be laid, and I can only hope that the tribunal finds the same.
I see where you are coming from, but the MRP has NOT enforced the "leaving the ground" clause with consistency.
I'm of the opinion that maybe Harvey got what he deserved, BUT some players have done far worse and got zilch. I think that is where most footy supporters gripe is.
HoopsAhoy
Club Legend
- Sep 3, 2012
- 1,651
- 2,699
- AFL Club
- Geelong
What have the MRP enforced consistently in recent years?
I think we are of pretty much the same view on this.
No.......I think many would be bemused by your stupidity
Take a deep breathe and take a step back from your team view, have a look at the AFL overall this season. Have a good look over the MRP cases this year and it sure makes alot of supporters scratch their dandruff.
You may see me as taking a swipe at Sydney, I'm actually taking a massive swipe at the MRP. Unfortunately the two glaring examples of the MRP going in opposite directions to the AFL Umpiring Video, are incidents involving two high profile Sydney players.
Why would they make things harder?
JoseMourinho
Not A Manager
The MRP has enforced consistently if your name is Nat Fyfe. 2 games for all his suspensions. Consistency at its finestWhat have the MRP enforced consistently in recent years?
I think we are of pretty much the same view on this.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 104,243
- 141,889
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
The first incident has been well debated and rightfully so it was not worth a suspension at all , but the 2nd suspension is cut and dry. He whacked Lewis. From slightly behind no less... Got his just desserts on that one.The MRP has enforced consistently if your name is Nat Fyfe. 2 games for all his suspensions. Consistency at its finest
They could always swap the decision to ensure a negative result for the Kangaroos
- Jun 23, 2013
- 10,736
- 12,860
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Los Angeles Clippers
Whats gonna stop this criminal monster doing another act of thuggery if he gets off? i say keep him of the field. He is becoming very Barry Hall like
I got no qualm with Selwood, love the way he goes about it.
I thought i heard him say something about a raised elbow to the umpires, anyway it is what it is and as much as it sucks we can only hope that it changes sooner rather than later.
I'm not a fan of Harvey, but to be suspended for that is a joke.
