Whitecross offered a week for having Selwood run into his shoulder

[Furn]

If I accidentally run someone over I still get in trouble for it

Just kidding, it shouldnt have been anything.

No you don't actually.

 

[eldorado]

Some interesting ideas put forward, such as Whitecross being to blame because you can see he moves slightly in Selwood's direction as he gets up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the suggestion that he should have got out of the way???

Things are going bizarro world here...

 

[MYOB]

Hawthorn are taking this to the tribunal.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Some interesting ideas put forward, such as Whitecross being to blame because you can see he moves slightly in Selwood's direction as he gets up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the suggestion that he should have got out of the way???

Things are going bizarro world here...

Some people are strange. They think we're playing touch footy here.
Tackling Selwood is an infringement you know.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Indeed Doris, indeed

You're as bad as "randyandy" or whatever that clown's called. I think it's pretty obvious you'd have a different mindset if you'd actually played footy before instead of hitting bowls, you can't appreciate a high-impact contest occuring in milli-seconds being purely accidental otherwise. I suspect you're Gerard Whately.

Not just me champ, plenty of people posting the truth about what happened. Like I said, couldn't care less if he gets reported or let off or whatever, but there was an intentional element, if you actually watch what occurred.

 

[Jedstar]

Far out. People are either unbelievably biased or think that Whitecross should have let Selwood just pass him without contact.
I think I read someone saying Selwood didn't deserve to be reported after slapping a bloke in the side of the face hard enough to rupture an ear drum... yet this is reportable? Get real.

 

[Jazz71286]

He's decided to challenge, which I think is a smart move. The MRP is rarely challenged as players take the early plea even if they have a half decent case. Should be interesting.

I personally don't think he should've been given anything. That's footy, happens every week in club matches. Move on.

I think the fact that no Cats players came up to Whitecross after the fact for a bit of retribution is telling. In a high intensity high pressure match you would think that an intentional head high bump on our skip would've resulted in at least a bit of wrestling/jumper punching.

 

[Changa10]

Not just me champ, plenty of people posting the truth about what happened. Like I said, couldn't care less if he gets reported or let off or whatever, but there was an intentional element, if you actually watch what occurred, in slow motion.

There fixed that for you.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Some interesting ideas put forward, such as Whitecross being to blame because you can see he moves slightly in Selwood's direction as he gets up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the suggestion that he should have got out of the way???

Things are going bizarro world here...

Not at all, but he didn't need to point his shoulder at Selwood's head. Use his arms to tackle, twist with the momentum, plenty of other options.

 

[Feerits Elf]

He's decided to challenge, which I think is a smart move. The MRP is rarely challenged as players take the early plea even if they have a half decent case. Should be interesting.

I personally don't think he should've been given anything. That's footy, happens every week in club matches. Move on.

I think the fact that no Cats players came up to Whitecross after the fact for a bit of retribution is telling. In a high intensity high pressure match you would think that an intentional head high bump on our skip would've resulted in at least a bit of wrestling/jumper punching.

Yeah but intent isn't an element of the offence.

 

[eldorado]

Not just me champ, plenty of people posting the truth about what happened. Like I said, couldn't care less if he gets reported or let off or whatever, but there was an intentional element, if you actually watch what occurred.

Yes, in that tenth of a second, he intended not to get out of the way, and clearly intended not to get annihilated by opening himself up.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

There fixed that for you.

Players are making plenty of decisions every second, you think these guys have average spatial awareness and reflexes?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Not just me champ, plenty of people posting the truth about what happened. Like I said, couldn't care less if he gets reported or let off or whatever, but there was an intentional element, if you actually watch what occurred.

So you're admitting to having never played the game?

All of a sudden your posting makes complete sense.

The only intentional thing Whitecross did was adjust his stance to prepare for the incoming impact.

Go and watch some videos of Grizzly or Polar Bears fighting, Gorilla's testing each other, or even some Sumo events and take note of the similar way in which each of these bi-pedal animals adjust their stance and lean into their opponent in an attempt to move their centre of gravity and contend with the weight that is about to hit them front on.

There was no malice in Whitecross's action, nor was there any negligence or intent to inflict pain, he was simply preparing himself for the charging player.

 

[eldorado]

Not at all, but he didn't need to point his shoulder at Selwood's head. Use his arms to tackle, twist with the momentum, plenty of other options.

As I said, at that speed setting himself to tackle, to open himself up, wasn't an option.

Look where the momentum takes him, he has barely enough time to turn the shoulder.

(Yes, he turns the shoulder, that is not in dispute, what is in dispute is that someone who is stationary can be described as being in the act of 'bumping')

I'm sure the definition of 'bump', i.e. to forcefully move one's body towards an opponent with force, will be the basis of the legal challenge.

 

[Jazz71286]

Yeah but intent isn't an element of the offence.

And therein lies the problem with the MRP. They are too reactionary to injuries/head contact that anything and everything has to be looked at. They fail to understand that in a fast paced contact sport, there will be the occasional head clash or bump but not all of them are worth weeks.

At least for mine, the players intent is the most important aspect of any suspension.

 

[Topper Harley]

[YOUTUBE]BPS_SaUNXI8[/YOUTUBE]

I've tried to see this from the MRP panel point of view, but I just can't.

He had so little time to make a decision, basically, he stood up, braced himself and was ran into. I know Selwood word would carry no weight in this situation, but surely the umpires does?

Horrible decision, this sort of stuff really frustrates me.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Not at all, but he didn't need to point his shoulder at Selwood's head. Use his arms to tackle, twist with the momentum, plenty of other options.

Doris it is accidental contact and should be treated as such. An accident is an accident.

Yes I understand that the AFL are saying that accidents are not acceptable but they have it wrong, they are the only organization that believes in accidents are avoidable.

It is very easy to watch slow motion replays and form opinions as the AFL do that he had other options, all this happened in 1-2 seconds and you think he should of thought about his options?

This was accidental contact, outcome should have no bearing. He in my view had no other option but yes I see how some believe that in slow motion he had other options.

But until the game is played in slow motion then accidents will occur and there could also be some serious injuries occurring from these accidents.

That is football, you could get hurt. Thats the game. If you don't like it play something else, if you don't like seeing it then watch something else.

Fortunately for you and others the AFL want to make it non contact. Poor old Whitecross now has to think whether or not he should put his body on the line. Maybe it is not worth doing that? Not sure his coach will be that wrapped in that though.

 

[Burning Desire]

Correct decision, Whitecross could've/should've tackled Selwood around his hips opposed to bumping him & he wouldn't be in this situation.
Tackle should always be first instinct & the bump should only be used to Shepard your team mate preventing opposition player from tackling him, there is no value in bumping some one when they have the ball as Selwood did.

 

[bigbuddyboy]

Correct decision, Whitecross could've/should've tackled Selwood around his hips opposed to bumping him & he wouldn't be in this situation.
Tackle should always be first instinct & the bump should only be used to Shepard your team mate preventing opposition player from tackling him, there is no value in bumping some one when they have the ball as Selwood did.

It was a dead ball. The whistle had gone, so it's not a case of 'selwood had the ball whitecross should have tackled'.

Selwood ran into whitecross, who was standing still yet braces himself (I would with a bloke like selwood running full stick at me). Doesn't deserve weeks. They're (mrp) ruining the game.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Yes, in that tenth of a second, he intended not to get out of the way, and clearly intended not to get annihilated by opening himself up.

That's fine, but by lowering his shoulder, indeed moving acroos and towards the oncoming player slightly, he impacts another blokes head with considerable force.

Just reading your next post, fair comment, agreed entirely.

 

[GreatBradScott]

And therein lies the problem with the MRP. They are too reactionary to injuries/head contact that anything and everything has to be looked at. They fail to understand that in a fast paced contact sport, there will be the occasional head clash or bump but not all of them are worth weeks.

At least for mine, the players intent is the most important aspect of any suspension.

So much truth in the post. Preach.

 

[Books]

Technically, seeing as the free kick had already been paid to Hawthorn, it should have been a 50 m penalty against Selwood.

Seriously, there was no evil intent from Whitecross. Nor was there any time to consider his options. He merely braced to protect himself, as anybody would instinctively do. To be suspended for that is just plain ridiculous.

 

[PalaceGun]

Correct decision, Whitecross could've/should've tackled Selwood around his hips opposed to bumping him & he wouldn't be in this situation.
Tackle should always be first instinct & the bump should only be used to Shepard your team mate preventing opposition player from tackling him, there is no value in bumping some one when they have the ball as Selwood did.

apart from self-preservation...

 

[Snoozer]

Can people please stop saying 'accidental'. An accident implies that nobody is responsible.

The contact is incidental, for which Selwood is responsible. He has not exercised his duty of care to himself, which overrides any duty of care that Whitecross has to Selwood.

 

[Feerits Elf]

Contributory negligence by Selwood does not absolve Whitecross of the obligation to exercise a duty of care to Selwood.

Not that I think Whitecross was negligent.