Deflection

[Yze_Magic 3]

[Demon15 0]

PGSquad: So you are the one that condones the assualt of another individual.

Again, your'e ability to mount an argument is appalling.

Never have I condoned Headlands actions. I merely understand them.

Pistosl at 10 paces - gawd save us.

Nasher - I'm not wasting my time on your'e approach. Wer'e clearly on different wavelengths about some issues in society.

As they say - rape is merely a wolfwhistle away.

Have a nice day.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

If it's not illegal at the time when Selwood said it, then he shouldn't be punished for it. If they want to make it illegal in the future then it's a different issue and people who do it in the future should be punsihed according to the law at the time.

The point is that Selwood has not actually committed an act which is against an AFL law.

And everything anyone says is offensive to someone. Does that mean that we should just outlaw talking or communication?

As Scoop said, what about telling someone that if they go near the ball then they'll whack them?

Just because you don't like what was allegedly said, it doesn't make it illegal. The consequences of his actions are what's happening now because he is being judged by the public. That is enough to stop people doing it in the future, but you can't legislate against it.

You can't live in a bubble forever.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

Bob bringing the game into disrepute is against an AFL law.

I hope the AFL deal with Selwood appropriately.

Great post RR.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

If it's not illegal at the time when Selwood said it, then he shouldn't be punished for it. If they want to make it illegal in the future then it's a different issue and people who do it in the future should be punsihed according to the law at the time.

The point is that Selwood has not actually committed an act which is against an AFL law.

And everything anyone says is offensive to someone. Does that mean that we should just outlaw talking or communication?

As Scoop said, what about telling someone that if they go near the ball then they'll whack them?

Just because you don't like what was allegedly said, it doesn't make it illegal. The consequences of his actions are what's happening now because he is being judged by the public. That is enough to stop people doing it in the future, but you can't legislate against it.

You can't live in a bubble forever.

Bob, you seem like a smart man so surely you can understand that everything isnt always as black and white (no pun intended) as you like to beleive.

To suggest that we outlaw communicication is neither constructive or sensible, although I know it was said in jest. Players just need to apply sound judgement and be accountable where they dont.

If you compair your example of a threat to wack someone with Selwoods actions they are miles apart. One is intimadating and I believe part of the game. The other is derogatory and adds no value to football.

You dont need to live in a bubble to expect that sexually explicit remarks will not be made about your daughter.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Players just need to apply sound judgement and be accountable where they dont.

But what is sound judgement? How do you test what is sound judgement and what isn't?

In law (of which I am only vaguely familiar) the test would be the 'common man'. Please people correct me if I'm wrong. You are saying that a common man wouldn't say this. But a common man wouldn't believe those comments to be anything but foolish baiting.

The standards for what is OK to say are different for everybody. Unless there is some line that can be determined then who is to know what is appropriate or not.

Are we trying to police what people can or can't say? Isn't that the idea of free speech?

I don't like what he said, but I'll defend his right to say it.

stinga: One is intimidating and one is sledging, and both are part of the game. Even saying nothing can be a form of sledging sometimes.

[sideshowbob 0]

In this post i am not attempting to address all issues arising from this matter - i am only attempting to address one - whether Selwood has "brought the game into disrepute" in contravention of the AFL rules.

Fan said this...

Bob bringing the game into disrepute is against an AFL law.

Yes, it is a "law", but this "law" lacks definition. There are so many things that happen which bring the game into disrepute. You could (potentially) say some of our players have brought the game into disrepute through alleged gambling/drunken incidents**. This is a catch all rule which is only brought out of mothballs when it suits. There are many instances over this summer which i believe have brought the game into disrepute which have gone unpunished - i don't believe we should leave all those unpunished yet have a go at Adam Selwood. Axis of Bob is correct in effect when he says Selwood has not contravened an AFL law as the precedent has been set with regard to what they (the AFL) will NOT punish, and therefore they should not punish in this case.

**nb please don't go too far off topic by contesting whether they have or not - i only throw this line in to illustrate the breadth of potential interpretation of "bringing the game into disrepute".

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

In this post i am not attempting to address all issues arising from this matter - i am only attempting to address one - whether Selwood has "brought the game into disrepute" in contravention of the AFL rules.

Fan said this...

Yes, it is a "law", but this "law" lacks definition. There are so many things that happen which bring the game into disrepute.

SBob you're right in that the AFL have made a rod for their own back with their treatment of past issues. Sadly they have left discipline to the clubs for general player misbehaviour and therefore there has been no consistency. The clubs now recognise this and want the AFL to take responsibility for general discipline.

The reality is that if Headland hadn't overreacted to the Selwood sledge the game isn't brought into disrepute. But Selwood sledged with the intension of getting a response from Headland. He's therefore responsible IMO even though he did not intend to get that response.

But you're right. The ever astute ABob is playing the devil's advocate to some degree and putting a good case. Of course these issues are not black and white and of course it depends where you're coming from. I want this game to thrive and I want to be proud of it.

Selwood made a mistake IMO. It would be an even bigger mistake to do nothing about it.

[Ash35 425]

I'm sure Selwood knew Headland would react that way. That's why he said it. It's not the sort of tactic I would use, but that's just me.

Headland will say he was defending his daughter with his reaction. If he actually wanted to protect her, he would have just walked away. By reacting the way he did, he put the story on the front page. And while Des and his family will shield her from it now, when she gets older, there will be no escaping the fact that she was "involved" in this incident. Hopefully it doesn't affect her negatively.

And before people say "put yourself in his position", I play competitive sport. I get sledged all the time. I've never reacted any other way than just laughing it off. In fact, this cricket season just past, a bowler told me my mother was a hooker and he had slept with her last night. I told him he wouldn't be able to afford her, and all he could do is laugh. I'm not saying Headland should have "played along" with Selwoods game, but he could have handled it better.

I can see where Bob is coming from. I don't think he condones the comments, but Selwood hasn't done anything illegal. Definately without taste, but not illegal.

It's a fine line. The AFL enforces an anti racism policy. That is clear-cut. But what category does Selwoods comments fall into? What if a player said to Chance Bateman "Choo choo, here comes the train", in reference to his sisters fatal train accident. I would think this is worse, as it actual happened. As we all know Selwood didn't actually sleep with Headlands daughter, perhaps Des should have been a little more professional about it.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I dont think legality is the issue. I think the AFL needs to assess the appropriateness of the conduct and act accordingly.

FWIW, I do know of an ex - AFL player who during his playing days had his daughter die from a terrible infliction. In a match not more than 12 months after the incident, he taunted on the field about his daughter and what had happened to her.

He did not strike out or complain. I was party to his recounting of the incident. Its was as disgusting and sick as the alleged Selwood incident. This happened about 10 years ago and the AFL would have been aware of this going on.

Ash I think Selwood's comments fall into one of my no go categories above. If the Clubs were not aware of the benchmark they should be after the tribunal.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

But, RR, that incident actually occurred. There's a difference.

Just because it was in poor taste it doesn't mean that he's not allowed to say it. Do you prosecute if one of your friends makes a paedophile joke? No, but if you don't like it then you'll tell him and probably think less of him afterwards.

A law talking friend of mine summed it up very well when he said that Selwood hasn't defamed anyone but himself.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

But, RR, that incident actually occurred. There's a difference.

Just because it was in poor taste it doesn't mean that he's not allowed to say it. Do you prosecute if one of your friends makes a paedophile joke? No, but if you don't like it then you'll tell him and probably think less of him afterwards.

A law talking friend of mine summed it up very well when he said that Selwood hasn't defamed anyone but himself.

Agree Bob. Selwood has defamed himself.

We are not talking about the law and prosecution under it but the assess of the behaviour in accoradance with a Code of Conduct of a sporting association tribunal made up of ex-players and an ex-umpire. There is no community involvement in the process.

However, the panel will have to address the behaviour in accordance with the Code and with an eye protecting the AFL's public image.

[Ash35 425]

Ash I think Selwood's comments fall into one of my no go categories above. If the Clubs were not aware of the benchmark they should be after the tribunal.

You are probably right. As I said, it's not the sort of thing I would say to anyone.

And as Bob says, Selwood has done more harm to himself than anyone else. Headland might disagree, but I'm firm believer of the "sticks n stones" rule.

[gOLLy 401]

Racism has no part in football- anything else is fair go.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

You are probably right. As I said, it's not the sort of thing I would say to anyone.

And as Bob says, Selwood has done more harm to himself than anyone else.

It's where we differ.

He's hurt his club. He's hurt the ALF. He's hurt Headlands daughter. He's been significantly hurt himself. And he's hurt Des Headland.

If I do something that hurts someone else, even if the consequences are unintended, I'm responsible.

Hell Bob, do you need a law to tell you what's right and wrong?

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

I am no lawyer either but given that the AFL Players Code of Conduct outlines that ALF players aspire to the highest standards of sportsmanship and professional conduct...and must conduct themselves in a manner so as not to bring Australian Rules Football, the AFL, AFL clubs and other AFL players into disrepute it is plausible that he has a case to answer and that under his employment contract he may not have had the "right" to behave in the manner that has been suggested.

At the end of the day, for me, this is not end of the world stuff. I am however a little bemused by the vigour with which you defend a persons right to make sexually explicit remarks about a 6 year old girl but each to their own. I dont believe this sort of conduct adds anything to our game or its image and should not be acceptable. But thats just me.

[Ash35 425]

It's where we differ.

He's hurt his club. He's hurt the ALF. He's hurt Headlands daughter. He's been significantly hurt himself. And he's hurt Des Headland.

If I do something that hurts someone else, even if the consequences are unintended, I'm responsible.

That's why I said he has done MORE harm to himself. Obviously the image of the West Coast Eagles, and the AFL has been tarnished, but I think Selwood will always be remembered for this. Incidents like this often label players. If I said to you Rayden Tallis, your first thoughts are 'that's the bloke who Dermie stood on in a practise match', or if I said Justin Charles, you think drug cheat. In 50 years time, when I say the name Adam Selwood, people will think 'he's the guy who sledged Headland about his daughter'.

Yes, Headland and his daughter have been hurt as well, but I think in the long term, Selwood has hurt himself more.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Hell Bob, do you need a law to tell you what's right and wrong?

Of course I don't, because the law isn't designed to do that.

I know what's right and wrong, and what Selwood said was wrong to me.

However that doesn't mean that he should be punished by the AFL for it, because right and wrong are different to legal and illegal.

Can you suspend Gary Ablett Snr because you think he's a bad person? No, you wait until he whacks someone and then suspend him for doing something illegal.

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

If we are playing in a Grand Final and are 5 points down, and a Melbourne player makes the same type of sledge to Headland, and Headland reacts and gives away a free kick in our forward 50, and we kick the goal and win the flag by a point, would anyone here argue that our premiership is tainted or would anyone believe that the club should offer the premiership to the Dockers?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I dont think the premiership is tainted or that we give the flag to the Dockers. Its Headlands reaction to the matter than lost them the game and he should be responsible for his actions. The MFCplayer should be accountable to the AFL tirbunal for breach of the Code of Conduct

For the players involved, the people in the subjected abuse, their Clubs, the AFL, supporters and the game itself there is a loss.

If the AFL is serious about the promotion of the game, the Clubs should be in no doubt what is and what is not acceptable.

Given the importance of a Grand Final, the penalties for Headland like incident should be a multiple of the existing case.

[Pates 9,660]

If we are playing in a Grand Final and are 5 points down, and a Melbourne player makes the same type of sledge to Headland, and Headland reacts and gives away a free kick in our forward 50, and we kick the goal and win the flag by a point, would anyone here argue that our premiership is tainted or would anyone believe that the club should offer the premiership to the Dockers?

Fair call, mate. I personally think that Selwood went too far with his sledging, but if was the difference between us having a premiership or not than i think a lot of people morals would become selective.

[QueenC 74]

Selwood has been cleared saying that he did not use the word "[censored]" and that he did not know he was making a comment about Headlands 6-year-old daughter when he made the comments. It was said that he was believable and there was no other corroborating evidence to prove Headlands claims about what was actually said. The decision came very quickly.

But his reputation has certainly taken a heavy hit this week.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Wow. Did headland's suspension stick?

[Dalrot 85]

Headland actually referred to Selwood as a pedophile during the tribunal.

I can see the defamtion lawyers lining up already.

[Guest fatty]

.........and the number one sledge heard around footy fields across the nation this weekend is?