What part of NOT GUILTY, do you moral people not understand, there is no case to answer, so give it up, oh if you think 10,15,50 years from now people will remember this, you are deluded!!!

Headland cleared due to 'exceptional' circumstances...

Thank heavens that Selwood got cleared too, i am a firm believer of what is said on the field stays on the field.

if a melbourne player doesnt go striaght up headland and gets in his ear about ANYTHING!!!! i will very disappointed

can one of you boys shed the mr.nice guy thing for a week, and start acting like a ruthless team, like essendon in 2000, like brisbanes 3peat team, like WCE, they are hard, dirty, but they win...

if a melbourne player doesnt go striaght up headland and gets in his ear about ANYTHING!!!! i will very disappointed

Whelan? Probably not though, i reckon

Moloney? i reckon he woulda but probably won't play.

Carroll... time for you to step up my friend.

Headland cleared due to 'exceptional' circumstances...

Thus condoning his violent reaction?

Headland cleared due to 'exceptional' circumstances...

Thank heavens that Selwood got cleared too, i am a firm believer of what is said on the field stays on the field.

This is astonishing. What was Headland found to have been provoked by if it was not insulting language from Selwood.

Are they saying that there was insulting language but it may not be proved. I'd have thought this was a balance of probabilty thing where effect could be related to cause. Perverse stuff. It may have been better handled by a panel more qualified to read the intricacies of the matter rather than one of a Copper, ex used car salesman and Corporate Solicitor.

Once again the AFL gets it wrong, so totally and completely wrong.

They clear Selwood due to lack of evidence, then they clear Headland for decking him, which is a clear indication Selwood did indeed make the comments.

How can they not suspend Headland, when he clearly hit the guy, and how many players are now going to use the excuse of "oh, but he offended me, I had every right to punch him" to try and get off a charge?

And if Selwood's comments justify Headland's reaction, don't they also justify some sort of punishment for Selwood?

What the hell are they hoping to achieve with these decisions?

Swiping the issues under the rug yet again, hoping to not upset either camp and make this whole thing disappear. How typical of Demetrious' administration!

How can they not suspend Headland, when he clearly hit the guy, and how many players are now going to use the excuse of "oh, but he offended me, I had every right to punch him" to try and get off a charge?

Yep, the can is open and there are worms all over the place !!!

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.

What about a comment of "I'll belt you if you go near the footy"? A player sensitive to violence may find this type of threat very intimidating, despite a player of normal sensitivity not reacting. If the player to whom the comment was made then belts his opponent, why can't he argue that he was scared of being assaulted and therefore took action to prevent that from happening.

Spot on Jaded. It is an absolute disgrace. What Headland did was completely disproportionate to the provocation (which wasn't even proven).

It is an absolute disgrace. What Headland did was completely disproportionate to the provocation (which wasn't even proven).

And denied emphatically.

Headland doesn't get a free pass to smack anyone just because he thinks he heard what he thinks he heard.

I wonder if our (well formeley our) Jeffrey Farmer will be appealing the remainder of his sentence given this dangerous precedent.

I have no doubt that there have been some pretty disgusting barbs directed at him down the years and most likely leading up to his most recent infringement.

Although the above point doesn't really matter - as the AFL have now set a precedent of players getting off striking charges due to unproven provocation.

As Jaded so eloquently put it the AFL tribunal have got this wrong, so totally and completely wrong!

And now West Coast want to sue over the affair

And now West Coast want to sue over the affair

If I were Adam Selwood and I was genuinely innocent of the games (I'm not suggesting, nor do I believe that he is), I'd want to sue too. His name is completely and utterly mud now.

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.

Just to dig up Neddie, dust him off and take another swing with the whip ...

Interesting that Superintendent Mick Williams said that if a patron at an AFL venue said what Selwood is alleged to have said then he would be evicted from the venue by Victoria Police.

If I were Adam Selwood and I was genuinely innocent of the games (I'm not suggesting, nor do I believe that he is), I'd want to sue too. His name is completely and utterly mud now.

Selwood should take action against those who called him a paedophile as it was a false and unwarranted conclusion. Unfortunately for him he has reaped what he sowed in so far as his name being tarnished and I think that relates to the fact that he made a sexual sledge not the context (whatever it was). He is simply the first player to be exposed for it.

Old, if someone ran up to someone else, tackled them and threw them to the ground, I assume that they would do the same.

Well..... I'll be mighty disappointed if the boys don't have a crack at Headland tomorrow.

I hope that Godders reminds Headland all game what a little man he is.