Without revisiting the absurdity of what happened at the Tribunal in the "Headland case", the mere fact that the AFL through its tribunal has now sanctioned violence as allowable, if one is "provoked" by "sledging", ( spoken words. ), notwithstanding that it is outside the law of the land, is to try and rewrite the law and place itself above the law.

You can now do on a football field what you can't do in the street.

It is not a defence to assault to say someone made derogatory comments to you, as it is not self defence. You are expected by the law to walk away and not assault the perpetrator.

In my view the AFL has now brought the game into disrepute.

It will also make it harder to get younger players to play, as they can be assaulted on a football field and the aggressor can get off without sanction by claiming the victim provoked him with words.

This is an unmitigated disgrace.

It makes the Moloney conviction for striking where the video showed no contact pale into insignificance.

  Redleg said:

Without revisiting the absurdity of what happened at the Tribunal in the "Headland case", the mere fact that the AFL through its tribunal has now sanctioned violence as allowable, if one is "provoked" by "sledging", ( spoken words. ), notwithstanding that it is outside the law of the land, is to try and rewrite the law and place itself above the law.

You can now do on a football field what you can't do in the street.

It is not a defence to assault to say someone made derogatory comments to you, as it is not self defence. You are expected by the law to walk away and not assault the perpetrator.

In my view the AFL has now brought the game into disrepute.

It will also make it harder to get younger players to play, as they can be assaulted on a football field and the aggressor can get off without sanction by claiming the victim provoked him with words.

This is an unmitigated disgrace.

It makes the Moloney conviction for striking where the video showed no contact pale into insignificance.

I absolutely agree with you Redders it is a ludicrous situation.

The worst possible outcome was reached.

Headland should have been suspended, no matter what the provocation - provocation should only allow for a reduced sentence.

In my view Selwood should also have been suspended and now he has added coward and liar to his unenviable dossier.

A small point ...

  Quote

You can now do on a football field what you can't do in the street.

This was always the case - I can't lay a fair hip and shoulder in the street.

Who cares. its old news. bring on freo. God knows we had little chance against em anyway with or without headland and carr. Headland has been a hack since he left brissy. The afl have set a precident and it lies with them.

  old55 said:

This was always the case - I can't lay a fair hip and shoulder in the street.

gee..they hardly let you do it on the field either now

spot on Red.. I cant quite understand where th ebalance is ( sorry what was I thinking ) with the AFL's methods of promotion.

They sanitize the marketing to appeal to all, the family...its good natured but hard at it game .....

They've re-ruled the game to make it softer....

And after all this they carry on perpetuating some mythical attitude within the game where its all, "nudge nudge , no what I mean SAY NO MORE " in fact....say nothing !!

For me the AFL is very out of touch of the realities of community expectations.

my exact thoughts

wonder how many more times this will come up, he deserved 3 weeks for what he did, reduced sentence i agree with, 0 weeks is absurd

  Redleg said:

Without revisiting the absurdity of what happened at the Tribunal in the "Headland case", the mere fact that the AFL through its tribunal has now sanctioned violence as allowable, if one is "provoked" by "sledging", ( spoken words. ), notwithstanding that it is outside the law of the land, is to try and rewrite the law and place itself above the law.

You can now do on a football field what you can't do in the street.

It is not a defence to assault to say someone made derogatory comments to you, as it is not self defence. You are expected by the law to walk away and not assault the perpetrator.

In my view the AFL has now brought the game into disrepute.

It will also make it harder to get younger players to play, as they can be assaulted on a football field and the aggressor can get off without sanction by claiming the victim provoked him with words.

This is an unmitigated disgrace.

It makes the Moloney conviction for striking where the video showed no contact pale into insignificance.

I completely and utterly agree. Only the ICC could stuff it up any further.

  Rhino Richards said:

I completely and utterly agree. Only the ICC could stuff it up any further.

lol....dont give them ideas !!ffs !! lol

I don't understand what the AFL's stance on the issue is. On 1 stance they have said that it's ok to say sexually explicit stuff about somebody's daughter, yet on the other said that it's ok for somebody to punch a bloke as a result of the sledge.

The regrettable outcome requires the AFL to be able to take these things to a mediation process. Currently there is no avenue to do this under the AFL match review rules.

I actually feel sorry for Selwood who has been seriously defamed and had his good name absolutely muddied as a consequence of the past 72 hours and should be talking to his lawyer about his options.

  Rhino Richards said:

Only the ICC could stuff it up any further.

Spot on Rhino,

just a farce, complete farce.

  Rhino Richards said:

I actually feel sorry for Selwood who has been seriously defamed and had his good name absolutely muddied as a consequence of the past 72 hours and should be talking to his lawyer about his options.

I'd feel sorry for him if I thought he was innocent, but I don't... and clearly neither does the AFL because they let Headland off.

It's all very confusing

  Jaded said:

I'd feel sorry for him if I thought he was innocent, but I don't... and clearly neither does the AFL because they let Headland off.

It's all very confusing

Exactly right. He has no options.

We will never hear a peep from Selwood.

Go Dees for Sunday!

  Jaded said:

I'd feel sorry for him if I thought he was innocent, but I don't... and clearly neither does the AFL because they let Headland off.

It's all very confusing

See I differ enormously here and while I understand your point I think that the AFL are just trying to push the whole situation under the carpet.

I don't see it as a guilty by proxy finding on Selwood.

And this was quite obviously the simplest and easiest way to do just that. They could never have found Selwood guilty (unlike many armchair viewers) given there was no independent evidence and emphatic denials, and therefore to water down any further conflict they let Headland off as well.

And just for what its worth, I don't trust Headland either, or not as much as a lot of people seem to. He has a short fuse and a bad record.

I am not sure why his assertions are any more automatically believable than Selwoods protests of innocence. But that is what has happened all over the place.

And while I am sure Selwood said something, probably inappropriate in the light of day, I definitely don't think he deserved the absolute assumption of guilt and mud raking that has been applied to him on the back of nothing more than Headlands statement, which seems to have a hell of a lot of holes.

  Rhino Richards said:

I actually feel sorry for Selwood who has been seriously defamed and had his good name absolutely muddied as a consequence of the past 72 hours and should be talking to his lawyer about his options.

I feel sorry for him as well Rhino (innocent until proven guilty and all that), and while I can see this happening, I don't think it will......

I would imagine that Adam Selwood would like nothing more than to put this whole week, and everything that has been said and written about him and what he has been accused of, in the past. He may well feel gutted and hurt by it all, but I truly can't see anything legal coming out of it.

Your Highness,

I dont know if Selwood is guilty or innocent. I believe he went some form of a derogatory sexual slur at Headland and not necessarily at his daughter. For that I dont have a lot of respect for him.

However, there have been no winners in this. Selwood has been seriously defamed. Headland has proven himself a flaky unreliable goose that has compromised his daughters standing more than Selwood.

The AFL's lack of mediation facilitation arrangements have poured petrol on this problem and left the tribunal to access a matter that clearly it is not equipped to do.

And the Press and talk back radio has well and truly highlighted that the sickness they criticise is very much the sickness they possess.

Everyone lost and we are all the lesser for it.

I hope some lessons are learnt from this. I fear not.

Queen and Rhino, I respect your opinions ...

This is the Selwood evidence:

"I saw that tatt on his arm and I said 'what's that [censored] on your arm?' and I said 'I was with a girl like that the other night.'"

"... I was with a girl like that ..."

Do you believe Selwood said this? I do not. You can join the dots.

  old55 said:

Do you believe Selwood said this? I do not. You can join the dots.

Unfortunately this is one case where your belief doesn't matter. Then again, neither does mine.