Harvey Gone?

Remove this Banner Ad

BF Tiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Comedy gold that you think the AFL gives a flying **** about precedent.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

caitsith01 said:
Mostly because Harvey sniped him and other Geelong players repeatedly and the idiot umpires continually penalised Geelong for retaliating rather than doing their jobs and stopping the little sniping freak.
Click to expand...

The smallest guy in the AFL kept bumping him did he? How traumatizing that must have been for poor Selwood
 
Wtf is with people saying Fyfe got suspended so precedent set and all that?

Surely people would rather no one else get rubbed out for this bullshit than to just keep enforcing terrible decisions to get "consistency"?
The Fyfe incident was crap. Lets just keep it as a poor decision, not the yardstick to measure things by so we keep on getting these terrible decisions
 
Problem for Boomer is he clashed heads on Selwood's eyebrow, which is the easiest place to cut open without much force. Anywhere else and it's probably insufficient force, depending on what Selwood grades it as at the MRP.
 
Accidental Clash of heads so 10 weeks on the sidelines. If we intentionally punched him 5 times. It would have been insufficient force ;)
 
The worrying thing for Boomer is that he left his feet...however now that I've seen the incident from another angle I think he might get off
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Total_Juddshanks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mind you, the blood gushing from the cut on Pav's face didn't stop them saying that Judd's elbow was 'insufficient force', did it?
 
caitsith01 said:
Mostly because Harvey sniped him and other Geelong players repeatedly and the idiot umpires continually penalised Geelong for retaliating rather than doing their jobs and stopping the little sniping freak.
Click to expand...
need a tissue, princess?

what an absurd display of bitterness.
 
Insufficient force will be the call. If selwood had gone to ground it would be a different story.

as for the "but fifye, precedent" the MRP does not work on Precedent they don't operate on that at all, any notions of Fyfie deciding this are ill informed and wrong.

Fyfies Suspension does not matter!
 
Last edited:
That new angle makes it look ever softer than before.

I'm confident MRP will assess him no case to answer.
 
caitsith01 said:
Mostly because Harvey sniped him and other Geelong players repeatedly and the idiot umpires continually penalised Geelong for retaliating rather than doing their jobs and stopping the little sniping freak.
Click to expand...
Well I laughed

-and Thomas says hello

That reversed free nearly handed the game back to you
 
Thewlis Dish said:
Problem for Boomer is he clashed heads on Selwood's eyebrow, which is the easiest place to cut open without much force. Anywhere else and it's probably insufficient force, depending on what Selwood grades it as at the MRP.
Click to expand...

I thought the blood came when Selwood tackled Harvey from behind and he hit the turf?
 
Should have just punched him in the face. Apparently the AFL think that's acceptable.
 
hench said:
I thought the blood came when Selwood tackled Harvey from behind and he hit the turf?
Click to expand...
Your right, just watched them both on AFL.com. It split open again when he turned his head as Harvey bumped. Didn't really hit him high, it's just the way Selwood turned. But the ball is not in the picture, how far off was it? To me that makes hits worse. But then several players have got away with it. Steven Johnson for one. Was very silly of boomer to do it if it wasn't within shepherding distance. That's why I get pissed off when snipers get off. Your not expecting it behind play, and everything behind play should be a higher penalty same could be Said against Selwood when he pushed whoever it was when the ball was over the boundary.

Gees, did anyone else play for the cats last night? Selwood was everywhere!
 

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