Harvey Gone?

Remove this Banner Ad

If Boomer goes North will bring in the Geelong Doctor to give evidence. He will confirm that Selwoods eyebrow has been slit 23 times in the past 4 seasons .... including once in a team meeting before the game when a fly landed on it!!

Nothing to see here move on.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Selwood is a haemophiliac and the AFL should require him to be pre-bandaged before each game he bleeds that much.
The commentators on FOX were laughing saying they should have bet how long it would take before Selwood would have his head bandaged.
Minor bump, Selwood doesn't even go to ground and get a nick above his eye. Accidental, low impact, nothing to see here.
BigRed
 
MagpieJo said:
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!
Click to expand...
MagpieJo said:
If the cut was taped after he hit the dirt the first time, he wouldn't have had to leave after the bump.
Click to expand...


The bump from Harvey came before the incident where he hit his head on the dirt....

The television footage was shown out of order. You can see blood on his cheek before he hits the turf
 
MagpieJo said:
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!
Click to expand...

Does anyone play the game of this site?

Surely you realise blocks off the ball are a massive part of the game? And always will be.....
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fraser 3 weeks ago...Instead of saying "maybe we got the Fyfe one wrong given the Goodes & Buddy bumps were allowed instead weeks" he went with the below & has made a rod for his back.

Fyfe made accidental head contact with Michael Rischitelli as he bumped the Gold Coast midfielder from the side. Fraser said he stood by the suspension, which was upgraded from one to two matches when Fyfe’s carry-over points were added.

“Absolutely,” he said. “Yes, it is a definite rough conduct charge the way we grade things this year.

“With that same incident occurring this weekend, exactly the same penalty would occur. Whether it was Nat Fyfe or whether it was Rischitelli, it would be the same penalty.”

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...022290426?nk=95f3ec5360736c6d91e25b2447ae20ef

No one bumps another bloke intending to bump heads, that would be dumb. It happens in a fast physical game, boomer's problems are he has left his feet, it's off the ball, he has priors, and there was blood. In his favour is the MRP knows it's final time and anything can be justified with these clowns, instead of just having common sense in rds1-23 they come down hard on blokes then let others off later in the season or if they wear red/white.
 
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...

Not everyone, the fyfe decision was correct, with perhaps the level of force wrong.

The rule is clear, you elect to bump and make high contact you are gone.

There have been a couple of other decisions this year where high contact has been made however it hasn't been deemed they have. "Elected to bump "

Players have either turned side on to contest the ball or in the case if viney - going for the ball and bracing for impact at the end.

Boomer doesn't have those excuses, neither I'd fyfe.

The spirit of the law was due to Thomas changing his line, jumping off the ground and collecting a bloke high. That should be a suspension.

I'm leaning towards the Harvey incident being in that realm as well, off the ball - jump junto a bloke -accept what comes
 
Sydney Bloods said:
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!
Click to expand...

They say it doesn't but I'd be staggered if it wasn't mentioned behind closed doors when they adjudicate.
 
MagpieJo said:
If the cut was taped after he hit the dirt the first time, he wouldn't have had to leave after the bump.
Click to expand...

The bump came first. You can see the blood already down the side of his face at the start of the clip.
 
Surprised no one has mentioned Duncan bumping Thompson who had his head over the footy, would have been third quarter. Even the commentary glossed over it and no free was paid, but it left him lying on the deck and looked consistent with what they are trying to eradicate from the game.
 

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