Selwood: Out (in more than one way)

[CatFan79]

Raines turned his body as he came in to take possession

Open the other eye and you'll see Raines eyes were on Selwood not the ball..

Stop making out like this is a Selwood rule, the AFL have made it clear players have a duty of care to not make head high contact.. At very best Raines was negligent.

 

[Off The Couch]

They showed another angle yesterday that looks very bad for Raines. Threw a massive hook and will get weeks. Plus another couple for his bump on Selwood's head earlier in the game.

Selwood 1-2 for the jumper punch.

Really, a massive hook - it was a quick jab that obviously had a bit of power or maybe just caught selwood unawares. Either way selwood has form with this sort of crap and both will cop some time which is unfortunate for raines as he was only reacting to a punch that he copped.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I think some Geelong fans have been used to spin doctoring for Selwood for so long that they are starting to believe themselves.

I used to do the same with Justin Sherman and Jared Brennan, arguing that they weren't as soft/inconsistent/lairish as people thought.

Now I look back and cringe.

Note I said only SOME cats fans. Others (some of who have posted in this thread and similar threads) seem to be a little more objective about it.

Sad thing for Selwood is that he is a fine player and doesn't need to do it. Black, Mitchell, Ball, Kennedy, Watson all manage to win the hard ball without playing for cheap frees. I don't care that he gets them by voluntarily putting his head on the line. That might make him courageous (or stupid) but it's still cheap. It's not in the spirit of the game.

 

[CatFan79]

I think some Geelong fans have been used to spin doctoring for Selwood for so long that they are starting to believe themselves.

I used to do the same with Justin Sherman and Jared Brennan, arguing that they weren't as soft/inconsistent/lairish as people thought.

Now I look back and cringe.

Note I said only SOME cats fans. Others (some of who have posted in this thread and similar threads) seem to be a little more objective about it.

I don't condone what Selwood did, it was stupid and if Ivan Maric got a week for his strike to the face I'd agree Selwood should too.. There is nothing different in the 2 incidents. The fact that Raines was able to retaliate with a good shot shows Selwood's hit had very little force in it. The MRP need to be consistent.

To say Raines had eyes for the ball and nothing else in the first qtr incident is simply moronic.

 

[Hollow Knight]

To say Raines had eyes for the ball and nothing else in the first qtr incident is simply moronic.

Had a perfect view of it at the game. Was going for the ball and nothing else.

Your views based on misleading super slo-mo replays from selective angles that completely distort the timeframes in which players have to make decisions don't interest me.

We all know he'll go for it because the MRP is obsessed with protecting the head. But it is completely irrational nonetheless. Keep suspending players for situations where they had no other reasonable alternative. No one learns anything from it because there is nothing to learn.

I repeat. If Selwood has no duty of care over his own head, how can another player? How do you anticipate a player putting their head straight into the line of impact when they have other options. The only alternative is to stand back, let Selwood have a free go at the ball. Good for footy.

 

[CatFan79]

Had a perfect view of it at the game. Was going for the ball and nothing else.

Your views based on super slo-mo replays from selected angles don't interest me.

Its called denial..

 

[Topper Harley]

Had a perfect view of it at the game. Was going for the ball and nothing else.

Your views based on misleading super slo-mo replays from selective angles that completely distort the timeframes in which players have to make decisions don't interest me.

We all know he'll go for it because the MRP is obsessed with protecting the head. But it is completely irrational nonetheless. Keep suspending players for situations where they had no other reasonable alternative. No one learns anything from it because there is nothing to learn.

I repeat. If Selwood has no duty of care over his own head, how can another player? How do you anticipate a player putting their head straight into the line of impact when they have other options. The only alternative is to stand back, let Selwood have a free go at the ball. Good for footy.

So Selwood had other options but Raines didn't?

Surely you're not suggesting that Selwood played for a free in that incident, al he did was try to get the ball. Then Raines came through and collected him.

FWIW I don't think Raines should go, but it seems your view of the incident is as misguided as some Geelong fans views on it.

 

[azyboy]

Which will be a travesty in itself. What else was Raines meant to do there in a split second? He had eyes for the ball and nothing else.

If Selwood makes no attempt to protect his head, how can the opposition?

There is no need for Selwood to lead with his head like that other than to scam a free kick.

quote]

Let me preface this with the fact that I have absolutely zero sympathy for Selwood in the 2nd incident. To suggest, however, that Selwood has a duty of care in the first incident is complete and utter shite. Have you had a look at the footage? And I'm not talking frame by frame or any of that crap. He went for the ball and was collected recklessly by Raines. How was Selwoood to know that Raines was going to act in that fashion? **** me - you post some intelligent stuff around the traps but this is a complete brain fade.

 

[Hollow Knight]

So Selwood had other options but Raines didn't?

If both players turn their bodies rather than leading with their head, there is no issue.

Selwood didn't NEED to lead with his head. It was an unnecessary risk that didn't really improve his chances of getting the ball.

Of course players need to avoid unecessary head contact. Selwood isn't meeting them halfway.

 

[Veroldin]

From now on Joel Selwood shall be referred to as Glass Jaw.

 

[winty]

If both players turn their bodies rather than leading with their head, there is no issue.

Selwood didn't NEED to lead with his head. It was an unnecessary risk that didn't really improve his chances of getting the ball.

Of course players need to avoid unecessary head contact. Selwood isn't meeting them halfway.

Maybe Selwood had no idea Raines was there as his sole focus was the ball. Bit hard to brace yourself for a hit if you don't know one's coming...

 

[witsend]

Which will be a travesty in itself. What else was Raines meant to do there in a split second? He had eyes for the ball and nothing else.

If Selwood makes no attempt to protect his head, how can the opposition?

There is no need for Selwood to lead with his head like that other than to scam a free kick.

Raines turned his body as he came in to take possession and it would be reasonable to expect the opposition player do to the same, leading to a fair contest at ground level. But Selwood comes in and leads with his head. That doesn't provide any advantage in terms of getting the ball, only the free kick. Simon Black never needed to do that.

Just don't know what else Raines can do in a split second... "Okay, there is an opposition player coming at this ball too, I need to put my body in low and hard as I can straight at the ball, and he's probably going to do the same oh wait, that looks like Joel Selwood... isn't he that bloke who leads with his hea... *crunch* *whistle*"

It's frustrating enough that he gets free kicks for it, but opposition players missing games because of it is something else entirely.

Yeah yeah it's within the rules, bleat bleat bleat... so was bodyline.

Ignorance of the highest order.
Have you ever tried picking a football up off the ground without putting your head over the ball?
Absolutely sick to death of weak gutless armchair warriors suggesting we should change rules to punish a player/players with the courage to attack the footy with no concern for their own safety.
Maybe we should pay a free against a player running for a mark with the flight of the ball?

 

[Tiger Titus]

If both players turn their bodies rather than leading with their head, there is no issue.

Selwood didn't NEED to lead with his head. It was an unnecessary risk that didn't really improve his chances of getting the ball.

Of course players need to avoid unecessary head contact. Selwood isn't meeting them halfway.

I had the temerity to suggest that Selwood unnecessarily leads with his head last week in another thread. I was shot down as a fool and/or a troll.

Don't bother. Geelong fans think Selwood cops all these knocks to the head because he is "the bravest player in the AFL". It's going to take a serious spinal injury for them to at least consider the idea that some of his actions are foolish and reckless. I really hope it never gets to that point.

 

[azyboy]

I had the temerity to suggest that Selwood unnecessarily leads with his head last week in another thread. I was shot down as a fool and/or a troll.

Don't bother. Geelong fans think Selwood cops all these knocks to the head because he is "the bravest player in the AFL". It's going to take a serious spinal injury for them to at least consider the idea that some of his actions are foolish and reckless. I really hope it never gets to that point.

As far as I can tell, other cat fans and myself in this thread are taking umbrage at TBDs suggestion that Selwood "led" with the head in the first incident with Raines on Saturday night. That is a complete fabrication, and naturally Cat fans will defend that assertion to the hilt. If he ducks his head, play on, but don't tell me that he did anything wrong on Saturday night in said incident.

 

[Tiger Titus]

As far as I can tell, other cat fans and myself in this thread are taking umbrage at TBDs suggestion that Selwood "led" with the head in the first incident with Raines on Saturday night. That is a complete fabrication, and naturally Cat fans will defend that assertion to the hilt. If he ducks his head, play on, but don't tell me that he did anything wrong on Saturday night in said incident.

I will admit I haven't watched the footage from Saturday so I'm not qualified to comment on that incident.

My worry with Selwood is that he is the natural consequence of the AFL's push to make the head sacrosanct. He has learned that copping a knock to the head results in benefits to him and his team (in the form of free kicks received) so he is now taking less care to protect his own head in situations where he otherwise may have. This is not just a problem with Joel Selwood, it is a problem with the way the rules are interpreted atm. Joel is just ahead of the curve in adopting behaviour that maximises his benefit from these rules interpretations.

As long as the rules stay the way they are we will start to see more players adopting this cavalier playing style which will result in more head clashes. The fans of those players will say they are brave and the detractors will say they are reckless/stupid, but either way I think it's a concern that the rules are producing players that are happy to unnecessarily put their heads in positions where they are likely to get knocked off just to win their team a free kick.

 

[zb14]

Anyone who watched After the Bounce last night will have seen that Raines is facing scrutiny over THREE incidents. The two mostly discussed, high bump and "retaliatory strike", but he also clocked Selwood high off the ball moments before Selwood gave him a slap to the neck. Selwood should be fine if the Maric hit last week didn't constitute necessary force, but we all know the MRP has its agendas. Raines will go for two incidents at least, the bump and retaliatory strike, maybe even the third given it was more forceful than Selwood's.

 

[Mephistopheles929]

I think some Geelong fans have been used to spin doctoring for Selwood for so long that they are starting to believe themselves.

Right Geelong fans are the only ones "spin doctoring" in regards to Selwood.

Let's have a look at your views in this thread.

So far you've claimed that Selwood chose to lead with his head while Raines on the other hand, had no other option. You've said that Raines was going for the ball and had no other option or intention while Selwood chose to lead with his head and was trying to scam a free kick. Obviously by bending over to pick up the ball Selwood couldn't have been hoping to, you know, pick up the ball.

You've also claimed that Selwood's grogginess following Raines' second hit likely came from him inadvertently hitting his head on the ground whilst diving for a free kick. I'm not saying this didn't happen, but the relatively inconclusive footage (that doesn't show whether Raines used an open or closed hand, where Raines hit him or how much force there likely was) hardly proves Selwood was "injured during the dive," as you put it.

All of this sounds like spin doctoring to fit your view.

With that biased crap out of the way, IMO Selwood should probably get a week (which'll go up to 2 after his loading).

As for Raines; I think he'll get a week for the second hit (probably 2 down to 1 with a good record/guilty plea reduction) and they'll probably throw him a reprimand for the first one. Don't think he deserves it for the first one and they might throw it out but the MRP have been pretty harsh on head hits lately.

 

[mollyfud]

Anyone who watched After the Bounce last night will have seen that Raines is facing scrutiny over THREE incidents. The two mostly discussed, high bump and "retaliatory strike", but he also clocked Selwood high off the ball moments before Selwood gave him a slap to the neck. Selwood should be fine if the Maric hit last week didn't constitute necessary force, but we all know the MRP has its agendas. Raines will go for two incidents at least, the bump and retaliatory strike, maybe even the third given it was more forceful than Selwood's.

I guess it will depend on if it is seen like Maric or like Lake. If it does get to the required level of impact, it will be a 2 week suspension (225 base points if intentional that you would think it would be +40% loading + 25 carry over points -25% for an early plea).

Will be interesting to see the force thought.

 

[nohairandfair]

Was it even a punch? Looked more like a slow-motion shove to the chest of Raines. Not even worthy of a free-kick.

If he gets sighted by the MRP for this very minor contact then the Cats need to contest it.

You see this type of contact in every game; and it generally doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

The difference is the captain of the reigning premiers gets incessantly scrutinised and is very easy to pot.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

There was a second angle of the vision for Selwood 'hitting' Raines. Raines had his arm extended touching Selwood. That's when Selwood slapped him but because Raines' arm was there, Selwood struggled to reach Raines.

The intent may have been there but there was stuff all force in it, he couldn't reach him.

The Raines retaliation is different though. He reached back behind himself and then swung. A fair bit more impact in it. It did look to me like an open hand rather than a fist though, unless of course he struck him with the edge of his hand.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Ignorance is bliss?

If anyone would know this, it's a cats fan.

 

[boncer34]

Love TBD saying Selwood leading with his head is reckless but when anyone suggested Brown doing the same thing repeatedly when going back with the flight he was the first to call them a troll.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Love TBD saying Selwood leading with his head is reckless but when anyone suggested Brown doing the same thing repeatedly when going back with the flight he was the first to call them a troll.

Two requests.

1. Link to where I called them trolls please.

2. Was anyone suspended for making contact with Brown when he took the risk? No. Nor should they be. My point stands. If a player decides to go in head first to a contest for the ball whether in the air or on the ground, it should go in the "shit happens" file. Unless someone intentionally lines them up instead of going the ball.

 

[CatFan79]

2. Was anyone suspended for making contact with Brown when he took the risk? No. Nor should they be. My point stands. If a player decides to go in head first to a contest for the ball whether in the air or on the ground, it should go in the "shit happens" file. Unless someone intentionally lines them up instead of going the ball.

Because Raines' first priority is always the ball. Oh wait...

 

[Hollow Knight]

Because Raines' first priority is always the ball. Oh wait...

How is that an argument for anything?

Because he plays primarily as a tagger he should be marked harder in one on one contests?