I'm not suggesting this because I'm bitter and twisted as a result of the Headland and Carr vedicts clearing both of them to play against Melbourne however I don't understand how it's possible that:-

(a) Selwood is cleared of sledging, and then

(B) Headland is cleared of two offences the MRP though worthy of 6 weeks suspension basically for the reason that he was sledged.

Now, IMO if you're going to excuse Headland because he was stupid enough to be taken in by a perceived sledge (it couldn't have been a real one because Selwood went unpunished) then he has to go for the second assault because that was premeditated after the original non-existent provocation.

Something stinks to high heaven at the AFL.

I'm not suggesting this because I'm bitter and twisted as a result of the Headland and Carr vedicts clearing both of them to play against Melbourne however I don't understand how it's possible that:-

(a) Selwood is cleared of sledging, and then

(B) Headland is cleared of two offences the MRP though worthy of 6 weeks suspension basically for the reason that he was sledged.

Now, IMO if you're going to excuse Headland because he was stupid enough to be taken in by a perceived sledge (it couldn't have been a real one because Selwood went unpunished) then he has to go for the second assault because that was premeditated after the original non-existent provocation.

Something stinks to high heaven at the AFL.

The striking incident was heard separately to that involving the insulting language and no testimony was sought from Selwood in the matter. The tribunal were thus obliged to accept the evidence of player Headland.

The striking incident was heard separately to that involving the insulting language and no testimony was sought from Selwood in the matter. The tribunal were thus obliged to accept the evidence of player Headland.

Which is exactly my point.

If the provocation was the element that resulted in the leniency to Headland then in the interests of justice (if that is what the AFL indeed seeks in these matters) it was crucial to determine whether what was stated by Headland to be fact was actually true and correct. Selwood should have given evidence in the Headland case.

I love Selwood's comment afterwards, 'it was not my intention to offend Headland.....', you've already admitted to sledging him, how can you do that without offending him??

then if you also consider Chick's performance as well it was truly a bizzare night at the tribunal.

As usual, the AFL goes out of their way to stuff themselves up. Took the easy way out. Every player should now use provocation as self defence in future if they're likely to get weeks & miss finals matches. Any lawyer should lick their lips at this one.

Unbelievable. How they can both be innocent defies logic. I just don't understand.

Unbelievable. How they can both be innocent defies logic. I just don't understand.

They are both not innocent.

Your comment should be more along the lines of, how can they both admit or be found guilty of an offence and recieve no penalty?

They are both not innocent.

Your comment should be more along the lines of, how can they both admit or be found guilty of an offence and recieve no penalty?

Yes, that. No penalty amounts to innocent anyway as far as I'm concerned.

As usual, the AFL goes out of their way to stuff themselves up. Took the easy way out. Every player should now use provocation as self defence in future if they're likely to get weeks & miss finals matches. Any lawyer should lick their lips at this one.

Everybody thinks that provocation is now a defence which will get them off.

This is not the case. The des Headland case is a very specific example in that it involved a sexual remark about a family member who is only 6 years old.

The AFL will distinguish these facts from players who claim provocation in the future.

Unbelievable. How they can both be innocent defies logic. I just don't understand.

Are they both innocent? To quote Danny Frawley (and the AFL tribunal?): "Yeah, no ..."

Headland was never going to do the time. Nothing can stop the tribunal when they WANT to get someone off.

The AFL will distinguish these facts from players who claim provocation in the future.

Everyone is provoked in different ways. I think the AFL should have taken this opportunity to look at sledging in general instead of focusing on just one particular instant & making a stupid decision.

Anybody else not surprised that both players play in the West?

It seems Freo, and especially West Coast, have the AFL over a barrel. They can do as they please and the AFL just stands and watches.