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

[Drew23]

A few things:
Selwood talking to the umpire had nothing to do with the MRP's decision. If you seriously believe what a player says to an umpire has some bearing on the MRP's decision, you're beyond help.

In his own words:


Selwood could not go into bat for Boomer until it was sent to the tribunal. Some of you have been quick to condemn Geelong or Selwood for not sticking up for Boomer, when Thompson helped to get SJ off. As you may recall, Thompson did so when the MRP's finding was appealed at the tribunal, not before. Selwood couldn't influence the MRP's decision by providing testimony. Why some of you seem to think he could, or the fact that he hasn't is an example of hypocrisy, is quite baffling.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-09-15/selwood-backs-boomer-after-hit

Selwood will try to get Harvey off, just as Thompson did for SJ.

Generally, players do come in to bat for each other in these instances. It is rare that, rather than helping each other out, players use the tribunal as a platform to attempt to get others punished, though I'm sure there was a recent incident when that was the case... Can't remember who that possibly could've been, though.

Fair enough mate, I don't think he meant to dob boomer in so he got rubbed out rather was questioning why he didn't get a free when he was taken out off the ball and venting that he got hit. I'm not a fan of the way selwood shrugs, ducks, exaggerates contact and continually gets free kicks nor am I a fan of the way lt does it which is far less subtle. In this instance he didn't go to ground or fling his head back which is probably why he didn't get the free kick.

The issue most of us north fans have is that if he didn't bring it up to the umpire, the media circus most likely would have missed it and none of this would have ever happened.

However he has done the right thing and shown he is a decent bloke by trying to get boomer off the charge.

 

[Black Diamond]

What he said really isn't that bad. If he did advise the AFL on head high contact rules then he would have a better grip on them than most. He probably knows a fair bit about the game too, or at least as much as anyone else who watches 3 of 4 games each week.

 

[Event Horizon]

What he said really isn't that bad.

He crossed into the area he shouldn't have commented on IMO.

 

[Jimms]

should be de-registered IMO

 

[Quivorir]

Yet another woe is me post. Boomer hit him in the head. Its a shit rule, but its a rule. He gets a week. You all cry for constancy and this has been the thing they have been most consistent about all year.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Yet another woe is me post. Boomer hit him in the head. Its a shit rule, but its a rule. He gets a week. You all cry for constancy and this has been the thing they have been most consistent about all year.

Not really there have been numerous instances that bumps haven't been looked at, even Selwood said this last night, i.e. Goodes and Franklin incidents, particularly goodes, because one, he left the ground, two, he bumped using the elbow not an accident head clash and three, there was more force in Goodes incident and four Selwood went to ground after being hit whilst barely flinching when boomer did. MRP don't have logic, because they have no idea. Larkins should stay out of it, too many idiots have voiced their opinions on this already, its a farce that it has to dragged out so long.

 

[Only Forwards]

I don't think he's getting off.

I can't see it either. Unless we take it to court and show up the entire MRP system for the inconsistent farce that it is.

Boomer being suspended gives us another coach. Boomer in the box is a valuable commodity. Sure Boomer on the field is worth more to us, but IMHO when Boomer is in the box Brad is more fluid and flexible.

If he is out, we still have 22 shinboners run out on Friday night. 22 Blokes that get the chance to stand up and carry the club forward, 22 blokes who can emulate what Boomer has done for the club for the past decade.

 

[Kanga1996]

he is gone... just going to have to live with it

I have to agree... us against them now... just more motivation for the boys on Friday night. not that they need it.

 

[Lockjaw]

The low level of force along with Selwood's testimony should see him get off I reckon.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Shit, there's a lot of hysterical and hypocritical posts in this thread.

Boomer did the wrong thing according to the rules. The only chance he'll have is if we can argue it was insufficient force, which is going to be difficult due to the cut on Selwood's eye. Selwood's testimony might help but then it might be taken with a grain of salt like Drew's was in the Lake case.

As for all the hate and vitriol Selwood has received here, it is pathetic. We have very short memories. Boomer did exactly the same thing to Crowley. How many here were calling Boomer a dog, a snitch and a shit bloke. In fact it could be argued that Boomer is a shit bloke for all his off the ball whacks he has dished out and the whingeing he's done to the umpires.

 

[Lavy_Panther]

Yet another woe is me post. Boomer hit him in the head. Its a shit rule, but its a rule. He gets a week. You all cry for constancy and this has been the thing they have been most consistent about all year.

If I hear one more person/analyst/commentator say something like 'that's the rule' like it's relevant then I will spew up.

It has NOTHING to do with the rule that you are talking about, instead the actual rule that's relevant is that the force needs to be at such a level that it warrants a suspension.

No one is arguing that bumping someone in the head is against the rules. The point of contention is that this does not constitute the force needed to constitute a report.

 

[GFrost]

The low level of force along with Selwood's testimony should see him get off I reckon.

I couldn't see how the MRP could get around charging Harvey, because his hit caused stitches. The MRP can't take into account the idea that Selwood's eyebrow is "sensitive"
But that's where the tribunal may....
If Selwood talks like he did last night, about how both players were at speed, he bleeds easily etc, that may assist in the force argument. The hit did not knock him to the ground (like Goodes "insufficient force" knock did ) and so that may also assist (like the Hawks player not milking helped Hawkins last week).

It'll be interesting. Knocking off the Swans without Harvey would be the ultimate

 

[Horace]

I will admit it. I'm a one eyed cat fan and I was pissed we got beat by your mob the other night. But I cannot stand all the crap your supporters are putting on Selwood for being a cheat. He is not a cheat, he plays within the rules but had perfected a manoeuvre that if tackled high might just WIN him a free kick.

I would go as far as to say that if players continue to tackle him on the higher portin of his arms they are the ones who have a deficiency in there technique. One way to beat it is to go lower with the tackle! Only problem with that is Selwood always goes lower and harder than most on the field.

You would struggle to find a harder ball player in the comp at the minute and indeed since he started playing at the top level. Give him a break, he's no cheater! In regard to the Harvey decision, yeah I though he might have an issue when I first saw it. But after seeing the replay I was confidant he would be ok as it was only a head clash. Happens multiple times each game, nothing to see here. Selwood is a mans man and never takes a backward step. He's said he will go into bat for Harvey at the tribunal and I'm sure Harvey will play as he should.

As one of your astute posters said above, if he played for your mob you would love him just as I do. I just can't stand all the crap that get put on him. It's about time some of you showed him some respect. And to the posters who are saying they will forgive him if he stands up for Harvey tomorrow night you need to have a look in the mirror because your easily sold out.

Good luck for the weekend, love to see you get over the Swans, who in my book are the real bloody cheats being able to pay more for players than most clubs. Hardly a level playing field with sanctioned cheating from the AFL.

Kind regards!

Good post. I'm with you on Selwood and would certainly love him if we had him at North. I think he subscribes to the theory of "alls well in love and war" on the field, but off it will do his bit to try to make sure decisions like this don't ruin the game.

 

[scottywiper]

Boomer will be sweet.

 

[Lavy_Panther]

I'm confident Brent will be exonerated.

 

[buttsauce]

Selwood needs to go in and say he got opened up on that eye recently and it was a weak spot and say that boomer barely touched it.

Thats the only way he's getting off.

 

[buttsauce]

What annoys me is this blatant double standards for Judd, Ablett, Goodes/ Buddy.

 

[Roos Addick]

Selwood needs to go in and say he got opened up on that eye recently and it was a weak spot and say that boomer barely touched it.

Thats the only way he's getting off.

Yeah.

SEN just said that we can ask Selwood to give evidence but the Tribunal chairman decides if he is allowed to or not. So basically he can screw us and not allow Joel to give evidence.

Got a bad feeling about this now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[buttsauce]

Yeah.

SEN just said that we can ask Selwood to give evidence but the Tribunal chairman decides if he is allowed to or not. So basically he can screw us and not allow Joel to give evidence.

Got a bad feeling about this now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, there needs to be something extra for them to accept his eveidence, not just go in and talk down the force, So therefore he needs to say underlying injury like a recent split eyerbrow ala scott thompson and his ribs

 

[Contra Mundum]

I know I have called Selwood a Whiny Bitch on this thread (and others) but credit where credit is due - he is doing everything he can to help Boomer. Kudos to Chicken Wing as well for his tweet. Even the Duck called it "disgraceful"

Sad to say I cannot see him getting off - all the settings are on minimum now

 

[Roos Addick]

Shit, there's a lot of hysterical and hypocritical posts in this thread.

Boomer did the wrong thing according to the rules. The only chance he'll have is if we can argue it was insufficient force, which is going to be difficult due to the cut on Selwood's eye. Selwood's testimony might help but then it might be taken with a grain of salt like Drew's was in the Lake case.

As for all the hate and vitriol Selwood has received here, it is pathetic. We have very short memories. Boomer did exactly the same thing to Crowley. How many here were calling Boomer a dog, a snitch and a shit bloke. In fact it could be argued that Boomer is a shit bloke for all his off the ball whacks he has dished out and the whingeing he's done to the umpires.

Agree with the 2nd part about Selwood. Yeah he pointed it out to the ump as I think he thought he copped an elbow, it was in the heat of battle and he has left in on the field.

Can't agree with your first point though. The cut on Selwood's eye has nothing to do with the amount of force used. That part of the body is very easy to split open. This is not about blood, it is about force.

Hawkins punch = insufficient force
Goodes bump = insufficient force
Buddy's bump = insufficient force
Ablett's elbow = insufficient force
Merret's elbow = insufficient force
Dawson's "spoil" = insufficient force

Boomer's actions were in no way malicious and the force to the head was very minimal. Did he hit him with an elbow or shoulder to the head? Did he go for scans? Did he have a concussion test?

Him being sited for this while others aren't is an absolute joke and to miss out on a prelim for it shows the competition up for what it is. FARCE!

 

[realhawk]

Boomers suspension has nothing to do with bumping Selwood and everything to do with who your opponents are. The Swans and the AFL are one and the same club. If you were playing any other side he would have got off, any thing to make things easier for the Swans.

 

[Winter]

Not a big fan of Larkins, seems to get injury prognosis' incorrect on a very regular basis.

 

[DV2000]

Shit, there's a lot of hysterical and hypocritical posts in this thread.

Boomer did the wrong thing according to the rules. The only chance he'll have is if we can argue it was insufficient force, which is going to be difficult due to the cut on Selwood's eye. Selwood's testimony might help but then it might be taken with a grain of salt like Drew's was in the Lake case.

As for all the hate and vitriol Selwood has received here, it is pathetic. We have very short memories. Boomer did exactly the same thing to Crowley. How many here were calling Boomer a dog, a snitch and a shit bloke. In fact it could be argued that Boomer is a shit bloke for all his off the ball whacks he has dished out and the whingeing he's done to the umpires.

Mate, you seem to be the only one on this board that acutally has a functioning brain

 

[buttsauce]

Agree with the 2nd part about Selwood. Yeah he pointed it out to the ump as I think he thought he copped an elbow, it was in the heat of battle and he has left in on the field.

Can't agree with your first point though. The cut on Selwood's eye has nothing to do with the amount of force used. That part of the body is very easy to split open. This is not about blood, it is about force.

Hawkins punch = insufficient force
Goodes bump = insufficient force
Buddy's bump = insufficient force
Ablett's elbow = insufficient force
Merret's elbow = insufficient force
Dawson's "spoil" = insufficient force

Boomer's actions were in no way malicious and the force to the head was very minimal. Did he hit him with an elbow or shoulder to the head? Did he go for scans? Did he have a concussion test?

Him being sited for this while others aren't is an absolute joke and to miss out on a prelim for it shows the competition up for what it is. FARCE!

They were deemed ligitamate spoiling attmept