Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 22

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have this feeling Selwood will retire and age and develop mental problems because of footy and then the game will change to prevent those things happening, when reality is he brought it on himself how about get f’ed.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
I'm not entirely disagreeing with this, but the umpires and AFL are extremely culpable in all this too.

They should have stamped out Duckwood's playstyle a decade ago, but didn't have the guts because he had won flags. If it had been anybody else they would have done much more to get rid of it. He only continues to do it because he continues to get rewarded for it - the free kick numbers speak for themselves.
 
Norf will be breathing fire this week given the media coverage in the last 24hours…this game might not be the cakewalk many previously thought.

I don’t see them as a team that will just rollover quite yet so we’ll need to be on to get the points.
 

Log in to remove this ad.


This will be a very interesting test case.

How much responsibility can be landed at the feet of the current Bulldogs, who are now a very different corporate entity to the Footscray FC of the 70s/80s. Will also be interesting to see how much the VFL (now AFL) is held to account. Given the similar cases with St Kilda, and more recently, Collingwood (Joffa) there seems to be a history of governance failure at VFL/AFL clubs. Massive can of worms.
 
I'm not entirely disagreeing with this, but the umpires and AFL are extremely culpable in all this too.

They should have stamped out Duckwood's playstyle a decade ago, but didn't have the guts because he had won flags.
They've already stopped paying Jack Ginnivan frees for high contact after like 10 games. Selwood has been cheating for 340 games, to the point where he's received 250+ more free kicks than the second highest player for free kicks over the past three decades, and still gets the same generous whistle he got in year one. It's baffling.
 
I'm not entirely disagreeing with this, but the umpires and AFL are extremely culpable in all this too.

They should have stamped out Duckwood's playstyle a decade ago, but didn't have the guts because he had won flags. If it had been anybody else they would have done much more to get rid of it. He only continues to do it because he continues to get rewarded for it - the free kick numbers speak for themselves.
The AFL brought in the interpretation that if you duck, including dropping at the knees, to draw high contact or shrug a tackle high to draw high contact this would be deemed as prior opportunity and would be ruled as holding the ball. They then applied this interpretation selectively and almost never to the biggest culprit Joel "The Ducker" Selwood.

As Roy and HG have said, The Ducker could get a free for high contact even if he was the only player on the ground.
 
Last edited:
This will be a very interesting test case.

How much responsibility can be landed at the feet of the current Bulldogs, who are now a very different corporate entity to the Footscray FC of the 70s/80s. Will also be interesting to see how much the VFL (now AFL) is held to account. Given the similar cases with St Kilda, and more recently, Collingwood (Joffa) there seems to be a history of governance failure at VFL/AFL clubs. Massive can of worms.
The Dogs should give this guy a healthy settlement & put some coin into programs for victims of sexual abuse as well. They can't change the past but if they own it and do the right thing now people will respect that to a degree, fighting it would be such a bad look.
 
They've already stopped paying Jack Ginnivan frees for high contact after like 10 games. Selwood has been cheating for 340 games, to the point where he's received 250+ more free kicks than the second highest player for free kicks over the past three decades, and still gets the same generous whistle he got in year one. It's baffling.
I've forgotten which umpire it was but they interviewed him once about Selwood and it felt almost like hero worship - like he was just so excited to be on the field with him. I think a lot of umpires are like this. They sit around in their circles talking about Good Bloke Hero Selwood and have no ability to be unbiased with him. Its almost fanboy stuff for some of them.
 
The Dogs should give this guy a healthy settlement & put some coin into programs for victims of sexual abuse as well. They can't change the past but if they own it and do the right thing now people will respect that to a degree, fighting it would be such a bad look.
Fighting the victims of sexual abuse worked well for the Catholic church for a long time.
 
The Catholic church won if we are to be honest. There are still recommendations from the royal commission that haven't been legislated and never will.
Instead we are arguing over whether they should be able to ban gays from their workplace.
 
This will be a very interesting test case.

How much responsibility can be landed at the feet of the current Bulldogs, who are now a very different corporate entity to the Footscray FC of the 70s/80s. Will also be interesting to see how much the VFL (now AFL) is held to account. Given the similar cases with St Kilda, and more recently, Collingwood (Joffa) there seems to be a history of governance failure at VFL/AFL clubs. Massive can of worms.
It’s a real tough one you can’t sue the people involved at the club at the time because most would be dead or on a age pension so no money to be got there.
Question is how much responsibility does an organisation have for past matters?
I guess if you take the argument between indigenous groups and the Government it can go back over 200 years so things not looking good for the Western Bulldogs.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The AFL brought in the interpretation that if you duck, including dropping at the knees, to draw high contact or shrug a tackle high to draw high contact this would be deemed as prior opportunity and would be ruled as holding the ball. They then applied this interpretation selectively and almost never to the biggest culprit Joel "The Ducker" Selwood.

As Roy and HG have said, The Ducker could get a free for high contact even if he was the only player on the ground.
I don't think I've ever seen this paid as holding the ball. They just pay it as high contact. Jack Macrae did this in the first quarter on Friday and got a free kick. Yes he plays for Western, but I don't think it's rare for umpires to give a free kick to anyone that does it.
 
The central problem with AFL rules is that they weren't designed for the rolling maul that is today's game. High tackle, in the back, holding - these free kicks could literally be paid one thousand times a game. You could pluck one out at nearly every contest and it would technically be there. So what we have is basically random umpire intervention with neither players nor fans clear on what constitutes a free kick. It's a total shambles.
 
I'm not entirely disagreeing with this, but the umpires and AFL are extremely culpable in all this too.

They should have stamped out Duckwood's playstyle a decade ago, but didn't have the guts because he had won flags. If it had been anybody else they would have done much more to get rid of it. He only continues to do it because he continues to get rewarded for it - the free kick numbers speak for themselves.

Remember when Lindsay Thomas came to us? He used to get head high frees for ducking, then got publically called out for it. After that it was a free for all where someone could literally clothesline him and it was play on.
 
I don't think I've ever seen this paid as holding the ball. They just pay it as high contact. Jack Macrae did this in the first quarter on Friday and got a free kick. Yes he plays for Western, but I don't think it's rare for umpires to give a free kick to anyone that does it.
Yes, Macrae was awarded a free kick when he should have been penalised for holding the ball. The umpiring on Friday night was atrocious even by AFL standards.
 
I don't think I've ever seen this paid as holding the ball. They just pay it as high contact. Jack Macrae did this in the first quarter on Friday and got a free kick. Yes he plays for Western, but I don't think it's rare for umpires to give a free kick to anyone that does it.

Darcy MacPherson was pinged for one in their win over the Swans.

It wasn’t terribly blatant, and it looked like a flinch in response to oncoming contact rather than a deliberate attempt to milk a free, but he got tackled front-on while effectively doubled over and was whistled HTB.

Refreshing.
 
So what we have is basically random umpire intervention with neither players nor fans clear on what constitutes a free kick. It's a total shambles.

You say shambles, VAFL says perfectamundo.
 

His story is one of the toughest things I have ever read. There is a part about halfway that implores you to keep reading, I was about to give up before that. Absolutely gut wrenching. That a bloke could be shepherding young boys throughout the club into empty rooms with no-one batting an eyelid is damning, even for the 80's.
 
His story is one of the toughest things I have ever read. There is a part about halfway that implores you to keep reading, I was about to give up before that. Absolutely gut wrenching. That a bloke could be shepherding young boys throughout the club into empty rooms with no-one batting an eyelid is damning, even for the 80's.

Yeah, having read his story, I find it very, very difficult to believe that nobody else knew, let alone could be bothered to ask some questions.
 
You say shambles, VAFL says perfectamundo.
If the AFL was interested in curbing the ability of umpires to influence the results of games they would not continue to give them more and more "rules" open to varied interpretation with which to do so.

Last season we had the Stand rule which was the perfect solution to a problem that didn't exist and this season we have 50m for players showing emotion. Add those to all of the other rules that umpires apply inconsistently.

In a game with large legal betting markets it's amazing that apparently biased and inconsistent umpiring and it's influence on results isn't put under any real scrutiny.
 
If the AFL was interested in curbing the ability of umpires to influence the results of games they would not continue to give them more and more "rules" open to varied interpretation with which to do so.

Last season we had the Stand rule which was the perfect solution to a problem that didn't exist and this season we have 50m for players showing emotion. Add those to all of the other rules that umpires apply inconsistently.

In a game with large legal betting markets it's amazing that apparently biased and inconsistent umpiring and it's influence on results isn't put under any real scrutiny.
Yes indeed.
Gambling should ensure a system with less exposure to potential manipulation due to nebulous rules interpretations.
But, hey!
VFL is the VFL - always was, is now, always will be subject to shenanigans.
 
His story is one of the toughest things I have ever read. There is a part about halfway that implores you to keep reading, I was about to give up before that. Absolutely gut wrenching. That a bloke could be shepherding young boys throughout the club into empty rooms with no-one batting an eyelid is damning, even for the 80's.
Yes, I felt sick reading it. It reads like SA's Ki Meakins story in the book Red Tap Rape. These sort of stories are not rare but Adam was seriously brutalised and should be compensated. Victims/survivors of abuse are given a heavy load to carry - either it is drug/alcohol abuse, severe depression/anxiety, lack of an ability to have love/emotion. They are handicapped before they even become adults as their emotional growth is stunted.
I can't believe that others at the club didn't know what was going on. Sporting clubs back in my day were a target for these filth but people tended to turn a blind eye to what was going on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top