Harvey Gone?

Remove this Banner Ad

Spitta09 said:
Fyfe's was:
1. 3 times the force
2. A completely wrong decision even though the afl are trying to justify it by spouting their crap

Lets not forget the AFL lovechilds goodes and franklin escaping for much more severe bumps.

The talk of 'consistency' is rubbish.. there is none and will never be. He 'should' not miss a game for something that would not even come under scrutiny in a game of netball.
Click to expand...
Pt 1::rolleyes:(are you a physicist?) Pt 2::eek:(or paranoic?) And Franklin? maybe.....but Goodes? Are you talking about the Selwood tap while genuinely going for the ball, not 5m off it? :confused: Don't be angry at the AFL, be angry at Boomer for f**king up again.....
 
Xtreme said:
They set the precedent over the course of the season, Harvey's bad record ensures he should get at least a 1 game suspension.... maybe more.

Players will gradually have to start playing in their shells so as to not get suspended in future.
Click to expand...
No they don't set the precedent. If they set the precedent goodes and franklin would be sidelined too. There is no precedent its a chook lotto
 
Last edited:
Spitta09 said:
This type of incident happens 10 times in a match. On that basis we should be suspending 10 players a game. The only reason this has come under so much scrutiny is because harvey was recently reported and your courageous leader dobbed him in to the umpires because the poor baby got a cut eye. If he is sidelined for this it will be even more farcical than the fyfe decision.
Click to expand...
If Harvey goes it should be because of his own actions and how the MRP rules in the light of the evidence and precedents this year since their stand on "the head is sacrosanct".

Nice attempt to blame the victim. Why not blame Selwood for inconveniently bleeding as well.

Suck it up princess and stop getting your panties in a bunch.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Just looking at the comparison video from the AFL site, surely the MRP has to take into account the fact that Selwood was the only incident where the person getting bumped wasn't completely defenseless?

Puts his arms out front, and can see Harvey coming before the bump, seems like a standard bump used to impede a player, which I thought was legit?
 
Should go simply for the fact he left the ground and drew blood.

The MRP *usually* only dishes out punishments if there is obvious damage dealt (which is a flawed system anyway). Previous records etc. might see him miss 2, down to 1 with an early plea

As a fan of the game, I don't like it as he left the ground and it was front on - the head hight thing is irrelevant, but a player bleeding from the head isn't a good look.
 
The more I think about it;
- Unnecessarily bumps opponent illegally and well off the ball.
- Leaves the ground.
- Causes head high contact.
- Opposition player needs to leave the ground to receive treatment before returning.

This sort of crap shouldn't be in the game. There's no reason why a player off the ball should have to face the prospect of an opposition player hurtling in and causing a head high hit leading to him having to leave the field.

Like the Hawkins one, why should a bloke playing FOOTBALL have to accept that an opposition player can whack him in the face off the ball?

AFL, how about we look to force cheap shots out of the game rather than genuine accidents.
 
This whole thing changes from week to week. It all depends what mood the MRP are in and whether he's an approved person or not. It's never about what you do, it's all about who you are, who you play for, who you do it to, what team they play for, and who you are playing against this week. Once they have worked that out, they then have to come up with bullshit phrases such as insufficient force, etc.

Harvey hit Selwood, and North are playing Sydney this week. Two of AFL's favourites, so I fear for Harvey.
 
Spitta09 said:
This type of incident happens 10 times in a match. On that basis we should be suspending 10 players a game. The only reason this has come under so much scrutiny is because harvey was recently reported and your courageous leader dobbed him in to the umpires because the poor baby got a cut eye. If he is sidelined for this it will be even more farcical than the fyfe decision.
Click to expand...
Actually the reason this is being looked at, is because Harvey did a silly thing. Simple.
I hope he gets off and play next week ( and i think he will) but you seeking reasons elsewhere is flawed thinking.
 
Jesus, I know it's a passionate time of the year but I don't understand how North fans could accuse Selwood of 'squealing' to the umpires after Boomer's 'he pinched me' rant last year.

I don't think he should be gone, but precedent says he will go.

It was stupid from someone who should know better.
 
Spitta09 said:
This type of incident happens 10 times in a match. On that basis we should be suspending 10 players a game. The only reason this has come under so much scrutiny is because harvey was recently reported and your courageous leader dobbed him in to the umpires because the poor baby got a cut eye. If he is sidelined for this it will be even more farcical than the fyfe decision.
Click to expand...
Once again, Boomer Harvey is at the back of the line when it comes to players who take a hit and stay silent. Remember when Rockliff sledged him?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kangas_11 said:
Just looking at the comparison video from the AFL site, surely the MRP has to take into account the fact that Selwood was the only incident where the person getting bumped wasn't completely defenseless?

Puts his arms out front, and can see Harvey coming before the bump, seems like a standard bump used to impede a player, which I thought was legit?
Click to expand...

Bumping a player is legit, however if there is incidental head contact then the bumping player is going to be looked at. The fact he bled is going to be an issue (see Fyfe earlier this year).

For mine, he's gone, but who the hell knows.

Should get a week for being stupid. No need for it and has just come back from a 3 week break.
 
We're all aware that Harvey had no intention to clash heads with Selwood, right? Under the MRP guidelines, he'll probably go, but if you think Harvey's intention was to headbutt Selwood in a bump, you should probably deactivate your BigFooty account.
 
TBoyleSuperstar said:
Bumping a player is legit, however if there is incidental head contact then the bumping player is going to be looked at. The fact he bled is going to be an issue (see Fyfe earlier this year).

For mine, he's gone, but who the hell knows.

Should get a week for being stupid. No need for it and has just come back from a 3 week break.
Click to expand...

if he should get a week for being stupid, then hawkins should have got a week for being stupid. me and my mates bump into each other with more force, when having a kick at the oval....its a contact sport for ****s sake.....if this gets done, make it touch footy.
 
Engimal said:
We're all aware that Harvey had no intention to clash heads with Selwood, right? Under the MRP guidelines, he'll probably go, but if you think Harvey's intention was to headbutt Selwood in a bump, you should probably deactivate your BigFooty account.
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone thinks he deliberately head-butted him.

This will be one of those interesting cases. If he gets off, then it shows things are different in the finals, especially as the MRP actually confirmed that the Fyfe call was correct and would be charged in the same way if it happened now (noted by MRP a few weeks ago in their weekly wrap up). If he gets done, then it's probably an injustice as was Fyfe's especially when you look at other hits that have got off.
 
Unity-28 said:
if he should get a week for being stupid, then hawkins should have got a week for being stupid. me and my mates bump into each other with more force, when having a kick at the oval....its a contact sport for ****s sake.....if this gets done, make it touch footy.
Click to expand...

Just saying that if, after 3 weeks out and saying you want to make up for your actions you go and and bump a player off the ball, jumping off the ground to do it and causinghead contact and a cut eye (not his intention I accept), then yes you do deserve to get done for stupidity.
 
How to behave in these situations:

Case 1: Harvey re: Crowley pinching
Fox Sports said:
Harvey twice told umpires during the game about the pinching and repeated the accusation to an AFL investigator on Monday, before giving evidence to the tribunal.

Crowley's advocate Seamus Rafferty put it to Harvey that the reason there was no footage of any pinching was that it didn't happen even once.

"You're right. It didn't happen once. It happened about 300 times,'' Harvey replied.
Click to expand...
Sauce

Case 2: Selwood re: Harvey bump
Herald Sun said:
Selwood would not discuss the incident after the game. Asked what forced him off under the blood rule, he said: “I’ve got no idea and I won’t speak about it.’’
Click to expand...
Sauce
 

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