Two words to be used here, perspective and context.

Most would agree that in many, if not all, situations what Selwood said was not acceptable.

Most would agree that Headlands reaction was disproportinate - afterall it is the football field and he does get be thousands of dollars to play football not get suspended.

At the end of the day Selwood hasn't broken any criminal law in the land, yet Headland has... as has Kerr and Cousins, and Chick and....

I applaud Selwood for putting Headland off his game

Whatever he said got into his head

And the Eagles won. They are reigning premiers. Maybe some of our players should toughen up and start to unleash some real sledging to put the oppositon off their game

Too right, Y_M

There are no rules against what he did ATM - so to me it is all gamesmanship. I have no problem with people doing whatever it takes to win within the rules.

I argue this point with anybody who complains about the Australian cricket team and their sledging.

For starters racial vilification is against the law in many states.

So is child abuse and paedophilia!

The tribunal will decide on the player's guilt but no one one this board, in newspapers or on talk back radio should ever make excuses for the suggested comments.

Let's make it clear what Selwood has been alleged to have said. "I f____ her last night.", to which Headland responded "What are you talking about? It's my six year old daughter.", to which Selwood is alleged to have said "Yeah, she's a s___."

In my opinion if he said it he got off lightly amd if you make an excuse for those comments then you're just as pathetic as Selwood.

Like I said in an earlier post, unfortunately ATM it is, until there is a concerted effort from the AFLPA for the AFL to do something about it. Again drawing the line is a problem.

Although it has hardly any relevance to this topic - I was trying to put across the point that I felt there was a way to put a view across construcitvely without engaging in personal abuse and just downright disrespect, a concept you have clearly failed to have grasped.

I would hardly call it sooking.

Indeed.

Putting ther preachers hat on again Slander?

I made an observation, which was canned. A sledge? Doubt it! Nasher plays footy. So do you. Don't be such a pussyfoot. If Nasher has cool heels, as he suggests, it should have been water off a ducks back.

But I draw the line where we are talking about the comments made about a 6 year old girl..sexually orientated smut..Selwood is a grub and I will watch this unfold with great interest. What you call & I call differ Slander. What I grasp is common decency. What you grasp is your business.

So is child abuse and paedophilia!

The tribunal will decide on the player's guilt but no one one this board, in newspapers or on talk back radio should ever make excuses for the suggested comments.

Let's make it clear what Selwood has been alleged to have said. "I f____ her last night.", to which Headland responded "What are you talking about? It's my six year old daughter.", to which Selwood is alleged to have said "Yeah, she's a s___."

In my opinion if he said it he got off lightly amd if you make an excuse for those comments then you're just as pathetic as Selwood.

and there isn't a court in the land that would convict him on saying something that was clearly not true. There are no laws against lying or being an idiot. Only one in ten child abuse cases get investigated due to a lack of resources and then only one of those then has action taken.... if people want to get upset about the issue then they should direct their indignation towards their local member not slagging off on some message board at other anonymous posters about the actions of a couple of overpaid morons. None of that will 1) gain a greater appreciation of the issues involved or 2) actually lead to anything constructive being done.

The irony for me is that if Headland hadn't reacted in such a way he wouldn't have created such a public furore. I feel a little bit sorry for his daughter who will no doubt be reminded of this incident regularly in the future. Did Headland resort to violence in a bid to defend his daughter? If so it has backfired in the worst possible way. The best thing he could have done for his daughter, his team, his supporters and his bank account is to walk away and focus on a winning a game of football. But he couldn't. He's got a lot of growing up to do. I hope for his daughter's sake he does so quickly.

Because you clearly are about the only person here who thinks that Headland did the right thing.

Hmmm, maybe there's a point in the absurdity after all.

Sorry Mate, but Herb's right and your arguments mounted throughout this thread are appalling.

I didn't want to buy into this after I had enough earlier, but.....

One day you'll understand - hopefully.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Remember, according to SEN this morning, Worsfold made a comment to a Hawks player about a recent close bereavement during a match in the late 80's early 90's.

What a leader.

(and don't give me the crap line about at least he's won the flag . ....in these circumstances I don't give a rats.)

I knew I'd cop it. Why? Perhaps it might have [censored] him off?

Nope, but it [censored] me off, and we all know you don't want to mess with me! <_<

I hope I deleted it before anyone got a chance to see it, especially the poster in question.

And another thing, I started this thread hoping to get some mature discussion going on, given everything that has been happening at our club lately.

If people can't discuss or argue their point in a mature way, and feel the need to abuse one another (and this goes to everyone, not just you SS), I will lock the thread... which will be a shame because this is actually the first non 'Melbourne is crap' thread we've had on this site since Round 1.

So is child abuse and paedophilia!

Off the cuff remarks by some yobbo footballer is NOT paedophilia and to suggest it is is laughable. It's exactly just that, an off the cuff remark by some yobbo on a footy field. Selwood didn't do anything illegal. Racial vilification is illegal. The two are completely and utterly incomparable.

By the way Gardiner I am still waiting for my explanation.

I personally think what was apparently said is absolutely atrocious. No question about that.

I completely understand that things are said on the field all the time in order to "rile up" the opponent, but this was just plain wrong. In terms of discipline, I have no idea what should be done or shouldn't be done. But the fact stands, what was apparently said, should not, under any circumstances have been said.

However, I agree that the apparent statement could of been "laughed off" rather than using physical violence would probably of been a better solution, for lack of a better word. But you also have to take into account the seriousness of what was said.

Physical, sexual abuse of children is very real in this society, and i'm sure we can all agree, is very wrong, so to make light of such a thing is morally wrong not to mention downright insensitive, sick minded and absolutely horrendous.

There should never be a situation where it is deemed okay to say this kind of thing and I am appalled to think otherwise. Some form of discipline must be dished out to the so called "man" who made such horrific comments, as it must be known that his actions were incredibly uncalled for. I also think that the poor guy who had to hear such words spoken about his beautiful daughter should also succumb to some form of discipline as it must also be noted that physical violence should also not be tolerated.

Just my two cents

Off the cuff remarks by some yobbo footballer is NOT paedophilia and to suggest it is is laughable. It's exactly just that, an off the cuff remark by some yobbo on a footy field. Selwood didn't do anything illegal. Racial vilification is illegal. The two are completely and utterly incomparable.

What Nasher said.

Worsfold allegedly said horrible some things during his career that to me we're way lower than (As Nasher beautifully put) these off the cuff remarks by a yobbo.

It hasn't been against the rules of the game in the past, it isn't against the rules of the game now and until it is I won't have a problem with sledging as long as it doesn't dive into the illegal act of racial or religous vilification.

That is my p.o.v and for people to suggest that because of it I have no morals, am siding with or should be compared to those who perform sexual assault towards or upon children is farcical, disgusting and ludicrous.

I have read through this long post and I believe that I can see what the points are.

1. People find child abuse reprehensible.

2. Sledging is a tactic well used in professional sport

3. Sellwood has succeeded in upsetting his opponent

4. He has not done anything illegal

5.The comments were offensive and in bad taste.

6. Sellwood has not done himself or the AFL any favours

on that note how about half time...and a new topic...its going to be a long season !!

deefuture has summed up 4 pages worth of argument in one post.

Everyone is arguing that child abuse is bad. Really? No ****!!!

People are calling Selwood a paedophile. There is no proof to that and his comments do not make him a paedophile.

What Selwood said was stupid, but there's nothing illegal about them.

There are people that cannot distinguish between these points and want to be seen by everyone to be saying the right thing. Politics is built on it.

PGSquad: So you are the one that condones the assualt of another individual. I have not been condoning illegal action, but you are. What if he killed Selwood after the game? Is that OK? Or is that suddenly wrong? Alternatively maybe you are more in favour of pistols at 10 paces.

You'll also note that I have not said that Selwood is a good person for making the comments, but he has a right to say what he has because it's not illegal. Is it? There are so many people that I'd love to hit because I don't like what they say, but they have every right to say it.

Also, misspelling your username give you exactly zero respect, just as a hint.

Some of you people are a joke and goes to show how emotions overcome brain power to make some of the comments in relation to this, DO YOU KNOW ALL THE FACTS YET or are you judging Selwood by what is in the papers and TV, I myself will wait for the facts to come out before I judge him. If it is not proved I all hope you are ready to say sorry for jumping to conclusions, but if he is guilty then a penalty will be handed out, I myself will wait before I judge him!!!!

I am not one to pick arguments around here, but thank goodness someone on here has a little more perspective.....

Selwood has publicly denied saying what has been reported that he said, a fact that was unfortunately brushed passed pretty quickly on here.

But throughout the media across the country and on sites like this across the AFL I have no doubt whatsoever that there is an automatic presumption of his guilt.

For example:-

What Selwood did is wrong.

Selwood has to be accountable for his words, but then again unaccountability is nothing new when it comes to players of the West Coast Eagles.

So what makes Headland's account of events any more believable than Selwoods?

Is it because Headland reacted the way he did? And please tell me that is not the factor given his track record and well known short fuse.

Or is there something innately more believable about his story?

I particularly liked the family photo in the paper (and I am in Sydney) today......that wasn't at all manipulative.

Or does it have something to do with the fact that Selwood is from West Coast, and they are all automatically bad seeds?

IF he did say it, does that mean Selwood condones the act? I would think not, and Bob is right no-one does, so that argument is a little redundant.

But I try to hold off condemning anyone before all the facts are in. And please, for heavens sake, don't try to paint this position as me condoning paedophilia or sexual exploitation or the abuse of it verbally, of any kind, as I have more knowledge and experience of this than most.

And while I am sure he said something that [censored] Headland off and IF he said what has been reported then it was an appalling, if effective, choice of a sledge.

But that is it.

As I said in the initial post, all of this is nothing but mere allegations, and we'll probably never know exactly what took place.

Selwood will keep defending his position, and Headland will defend his.

The issue for the AFL is now bigger than just this incident though.

They will surely examine sledging, just as they have high-tackles, tripping, eye gouging and so on, to try and establish some sort of guidelines.

People will say that sledging is in no way dangerous like high tackles may be, or eye gouging, and that's true in a physical sense, but who are we to judge what emotional pain comes from these incidents?

Already we know of players suffering from depression. Who knows what your opponent is going through behind closed doors, or what highly personal and inappropriate sledges may do to their well-being.

The AFL has an obligation to keep its players safe and healthy, and this is part of it.

Any workplace with decent OH&S laws has rules in place in regards to bullying and verbal taunting.

I'm not saying we should completely eliminate talk out on the field. We don't want to sterilize the game to the point where it's boring and lifeless, but some things are not fair game and there is a point where 'white line fever' becomes a poor excuse for stupid and hurtful behaviour.

BTW, claiming that anyone on has commented on this issue supports child abuse or pedophilia is completely ridiculous and unjustified. Nobody has come out and condoned child molestation and if they did, they wouldn't post here anymore.

Just having thought about this a little more I reckon there's a lot of right on both sides of the arguement, but I reckon if you put me up one end of a table, and Headland, his daughter and his wife up the other end, arguing the case against his vilent actions may be impossible...

Not sure if it has much to do with all this, but it was an interesting scenario that popped into my head...

Apropos......

He Hit Me First - Selwood

And after posting this I am going to bed.......

League talks but Coast won't listen

By Patrick Smith

April 18, 2007

AT last count talkback radio callers threw 275 punches between the hours of 9am and noon yesterday.

They were full-blooded whacks, too. Smash, wham, bang.

Talkback host Kevin Bartlett from Melbourne's SEN took the calls in response to the Adam Selwood affair,

which will be settled by the AFL tribunal tonight........

And after posting this I am going to bed.......

League talks but Coast won't listen

By Patrick Smith

April 18, 2007

He goes on to say the following, which I think is absolutely correct -

The comment, as offensive as it is, is obviously wrong. The honour of the girl is hardly compromised, for she would have no idea what was meant or what was happening. All this punching and hollering is macho gibberish, just a vehicle for people to shout their false bravado.

He goes on to say the following, which I think is absolutely correct -

I was just about to quote that bit myself until I saw you already had. Sums up my thoughts on the matter and everything I've been saying in this thread 100%. I wish I had his words.

Selwood has publicly denied saying what has been reported that he said, a fact that was unfortunately brushed passed pretty quickly on here.

Yes, maybe Selwood (with the assistance of WC PR) now recalls he said:

"I once saw a movie where someone who looks a bit like me was intimate with someone who looks a bit like that person in your tattoo Des."

Maybe Headland is a violent hothead, on the other hand maybe he is a man with first hand experience of paedophilia. If it is the latter then a strong response is not surprising. We would never know if it is the latter because he's unlikely to go public just to avoid a 6 week suspension. When Selwood considers saying what he said, he needs to take into account that there is a possibility he is saying it to someone with that experience, consider the impact and consequences, and not say it, anywhere, anytime, any situation. If found guilty, he has brought the AFL game into significant direpute and should be suspended from playing.

Yes, maybe Selwood (with the assistance of WC PR) now recalls he said:

"I once saw a movie where someone who looks a bit like me was intimate with someone who looks a bit like that person in your tattoo Des."

Maybe Headland is a violent hothead, on the other hand maybe he is a man with first hand experience of paedophilia. If it is the latter then a strong response is not surprising. We would never know if it is the latter because he's unlikely to go public just to avoid a 6 week suspension. When Selwood considers saying what he said, he needs to take into account that there is a possibility he is saying it to someone with that experience, consider the impact and consequences, and not say it, anywhere, anytime, any situation. If found guilty, he has brought the AFL game into significant direpute and should be suspended from playing.

For what it's worth, despite having (kind of) defended Selwood in this thread, his dancing around the issue here is giving me the proverbials. I believe he should just take responsibility for what he said and accept whatever punishment comes his way. His and WCE's story seems to changing by the minute. Not a good way to defend your reputation.

When Selwood considers saying what he said, he needs to take into account that there is a possibility he is saying it to someone with that experience, consider the impact and consequences, and not say it, anywhere, anytime, any situation. If found guilty, he has brought the AFL game into significant direpute and should be suspended from playing.

Maybe the AFL just needs to codify sensible limits to sledging (a "Sledging Code of Conduct"? ). Any sledging involving race, religion or sexual innuendo involving children for a start.

I have not entered this debate before and much of what I have read is off the mark and does not address the issues.

FWIW, I don’t think Headland’s response has anything to do with it.

I think Selwood’s alleged statements highlight there are topics which within our society are verboten for exploitation when it comes to issues of gamesmanship. The key ones are:

1. Racial/Ethnicity

2. Religious (across Islamic,Christian or Judaism). I don’t think the Catholic/ Protestant issue is one now.

3. Criminal acts of a sexual nature –eg rape, paedophilia

4. Deceased relatives or close associates

5. Seriously or terminally ill relatives or close associates

There are probably others too.

This is not a matter of whether the behaviour of Selwood is criminal or not. It is not. Its not a matter of what a Court of law would do. Its not relevant.

It’s an issue for the Sports governing body to determine whether such behaviour is acceptable given the role and position of football in this community and to consider the damage to the game arising from it.

To me its not a storm in the teacup but a clear indication of where some of the boundaries are in sportsman behaviour and gamesmanship. This is just like the Winmar at Victoria Park and Peter Everitt case on racial issues

I don’t buy the “Win at all Costs” justification because in the end everyone loses from the player, the Club, the game and the supporters. It’s the same extension of this theory that provides stimulus and resolve for drug cheats in all sports

Furthermore, the justification that well it “worked” because it put him off his game and we “won” is also erroneous. Selwood is just a long line of examples from WCE who seem to say all things are OK so long as we win the flag.

But everything else loses, none more so than the players involved.

I would expect the AFL to fine Selwood if he is found guilty and effectively make a statement by way of significant monetary fine that such acts of gamesmanship are not to be tolerated. I think the AFL has no other choice for its own credibility to act swiftly in this matter.

Football and sport are great pastimes that potentially offer much to society. I am not sure what Selwood’s behaviour if proven by the Tribunal adds to this.