Harvey Gone?

Remove this Banner Ad

Elected to bump.

Head clash.

Drew blood.

Absolutely, based on Fyfe, has to go, but the AFL will not want to see him go for this during finals and will deem insufficient force, despite the fact Selwood was bleeding all night and had to go off again.

Fyfe was done as medium impact, so Harvey should get low impact.

High, low and negligent sees him gonesky.

Can't see how the AFL can argue out of this one, but will love the reaction if he gets rubbed out as he should on precedent.
 
If the MRP had any consistency, he'd be gone.

But they don't, so it could be 0 weeks or 100. Who really ****ing knows?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gone based on precedent. Will suck for Harvey and North because they were targeting Selwood IMHO, and that probably wasn't needed with the way they were playing in the first 3.5 quarters, yet now they'll lose Harvey because of it.
 
Well this is where the AFL can eat their decisions, its a no win situation.

I absolutely hate Boomer, but if he goes for that AFL MRP needs a massive overhaul. That said he has to go, there's no way around it unless they choose to make a way around it.
 
Cobbler said:
Well this is where the AFL can eat their decisions, its a no win situation.

I absolutely hate Boomer, but if he goes for that AFL MRP needs a massive overhaul. That said he has to go, there's no way around it unless they choose to make a way around it.
Click to expand...

I agree. And there is virtually no wiggle-room to contest the ban. You either "accidentally clashed" heads or you didn't.
 
If MRP are stupid enough to give him a game, North will appeal and win.
 
Elected to bump and drew blood forcing Selwood off the ground. Under the current system he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DrummoSolo said:
The outcry for Fyfe getting rubbed out for two weeks for that bump is the exact reason why they'll hide under the "insufficient force" defence in letting Boomer off. Going to be an absolute mess either way.
Click to expand...

If Fyfe was deemed low impact I could almost live with it, but Fyfe was done as medium impact and part of the reason given was because it drew blood.

There was obviously an outcry from Freo supporters and one reason was because of the fact it drew blood because that shouldn't define force.

Harvey has 40% loading and prob some carry over points.

He is dead man walking.
 
Randomizor said:
Exactly the same as Fyfe's. Probably will get the "finals discount" but don't see how they could call it insufficient force...
Click to expand...
Not quite the same..... bump was not in play. Selwood could not have reasonably expected contact. At least Fyfe collected a player that had the ball.
IMO, the news should be worse for Boohoomer. If he plays again this season, then we know this MRP is a trainwreck and blatantly biased. There is no wriggle room here and the footy world should be disgusted if he gets off.
Remember also that Gil made that statement a couple of weeks ago that the Fyfe decision was correct and that no change in policy for this sort of contact had been made.
 
Just because of his past record, think he might be in trouble.
 
Would much prefer he play next week to make the PF a real contest, as no doubt would the AFL, but there is just no human, conceivable, logical way he can avoid a suspension based on precedent. It's a dumb rule, but seriously, what an utter utter farce if he doesn't get weeks. He'd need it either not to be high contact or be classed as low impact, and the blood pissing out of Selwoods eyebrow all night makes both of those impossible.

It was almost touching seeing Carey's unashamed partisanship after the game and stubborn refusal to recognize the above reality, he basically just binned the ch7 blazer and said everything he could think of to try and get him off.
 
Bulldocker said:
Not quite the same..... bump was not in play. Selwood could not have reasonably expected contact. At least Fyfe collected a player that had the ball.
IMO, the news should be worse for Boohoomer. If he plays again this season, then we know this MRP is a trainwreck and blatantly biased. There is no wriggle room here and the footy world should be disgusted if he gets off.
Remember also that Gil made that statement a couple of weeks ago that the Fyfe decision was correct and that no change in policy for this sort of contact had been made.
Click to expand...

Going off (yet another) Fyfe decision a couple of weeks ago, isn't any hit off the ball classed as "intentional"?
 
SodaPop said:
Everyone cried with Fyfes bump and now we want to hang someone else for something similar. The MRP don't use precedents so there's hope for Boomer.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but as recently as a few weeks ago the MRP came out and said they'd ping Fyfe again for the same incident.

There is no plausible reason for Harvey to get off. Insufficient force would result in further outcry.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Harvey Gone?

Similar threads

Chadwiko
Patrick Dangerfield 'dangerous tackle' - gone or safe?
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
295
Views
8K
myblueroan
myblueroan
gocats88
Games Gone
Replies
9
Views
2K
Rob
Rob

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top