Whitecross offered a week for having Selwood run into his shoulder

[Supercats]

Selwood ran into Whitecross, do you not see that?

Watch the footage Whitecross steps into his path.

 

[wce1989]

Whitecross could have avoided contact, do you not see that?

Say a guy is diving down to get the ball, doesn't mean you can have a stationary knee waiting for him on arrival. Players have to protect the head, especially when given options.

Complete rubbish. He had only just got back to his feet when Selwood pelted full-tilt into his shoulder. I would love to see you try and avoid that.

 

[isen river]

Whitecross could have avoided contact, do you not see that?

Say a guy is diving down to get the ball, doesn't mean you can have a stationary knee waiting for him on arrival. Players have to protect the head, especially when given options.

He could of but I think he was trying to play AFL, where shit happens or use to.

 

[SSSSSS]

Absolute bullshit decision, but the MRP have a reputation for this sort of stuff.

Hope we challenge it.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Funny if Hawthorn challenge, they could call the umpire as a witness… “that was accidental”. Wonder how that would pan out?

I would love to see that. Terrible decision to report him, although I did think that it was a free kick at the time.

See the Greg Williams case for how little it means.

 

[Hawks1523]

The Schoenmakers punch to Hawkins jaw in a marking contest seemed more worthy of being looked at than this. (Admittedly it was right infront of me so looked worse than it was. )

 

[Supercats]

He could of but I think he was trying to play AFL, where shit happens or use to.

Exactly

 

[Anzac16]

Watching the game live, to me it looked like a clear accident.

Watching the replay however it does look like Whitecross makes a slight movement into the path of Selwood. He tucks his shoulder in, bends his knees and accidentally makes contact with Selwood head.

Nonetheless a pretty terrible decision, should have been a reprimand at worst.

 

[morgoth]

Absolutely comical.

If the AFL had any shred of credibility it would sack the MRP members who made this call.

A duty of care requires you to be able to reasonably foresee the consequences of your actions. You watch that footage and their is no time to think, he is getting to his feet after hitting the ground, FFS this game is comical.

 

[telsor]

1 week?

Grab it with both hands and be happy.


Rance copped 3 when Waite ran into him last year.



Of course, that was the same game where Waite kicked McGuane and got off for it, so the MRP wasn't trying to hide the wheel-of-weeks that game.

 

[MC_9]

What I find amazing is that the umpires were on the scene and didn't see fit to give Selwood a free. Who runs the game, the umpires or MRP?

I think it was already a free to the Whitecross for a holding the ball against Geelong, before the Selwood hit.

 

[sgbn77]

Thanks, saw that.

Perhaps you should have a close look at the footage again. Particularily the side on footage were you can see him get up and move off his line to initiate contact.

If he'd stood still, Selwood would've run straight past him.

I know you are responding to an earlier conversation, but two points strike me from your post.

Firstly, "if he'd stood still, Selwood would've run straight past him". Are you advocating that one of his choices was to allow his opponent to run straight past him?

Secondly, if you are stationary, and your opponent is running flat chat (not saying it's Selwood's fault, as he'd just picked up the ball), then you brace for impact. Bend the knees, and push your body weight forward.

If he stood still, or upright, he'd end up in the goal square.

 

[Subprime]

Watch the footage Whitecross steps into his path.

Whitecross stands up, the feet are still.

Selwood is the one in motion, barrelling towards goals with Whitecross in the way.

 

[Lach72]

How'd Pav get off of his if Whitecross got done for that?

Didn't get Malceski in the head

 

[alfy!]

then you brace for impact. Bend the knees, and push your body weight forward.

That was not bracing for impact.

Watch the second view: http://www.afl.com.au/Video/tabid/76/contentid/438403/invoke/Default.aspx

 

[dlanod]

This is the MRP that suspended a guy last year for a head clash. Apparently mutual high contact is actionable on just one side. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/05/2891361.htm?site=sport&section=afl

Having got that off my chest (again), I thought it was likely to be a week out when watching the game. Whitecross leads with the shoulder, he makes accidental contact to the head, but given appearance of the action (putting the shoulder into a situation where it will contact the player) and the result (contact with the head) it fits with what the MRP has been targetting for years.

 

[Balony_pony16]

this decision reminds me of the Matt McGuire suspension for a head clash...absoulte joke

 

[klutch]

Whitecross could have avoided contact, do you not see that?

are you implying that whitecross lets his opponent run past him rather than risk making accidental high contact?

has the game really come to that?

 

[dipper86]

He did have a choice.

And he wasn't stationary and we wasnt standing still, watch the replay.

He moves to his right to make contact, which is fine, leads with his shoulder, that's fine, but he collects the bloke in the head, not fine, when he could have tackled, not fine.

His decision to move into Selwoods path, lead with the shoulder and make head eye contact, played a part in a player being knocked unconscious.

Every player has a right to put their head over the ball without being collected.

Whitecross moves to his right and forward.

To argue against that is futile.

Wrong answer, everyone has a choice in slow mo, but in real time he had no choice but to brace, he wasn't balanced he had no time to open his arms and if he did manage to open his arms slightly he would have been cleaned up front on.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Tricky incident. I always think rules have "edge cases". What I mean is that the case is right on the edge of, in reporting terms, being legal to being illegal and that sometimes people are lucky and get off and some are unlucky.

Have to say when I saw the replay of the issue, I thought he would get a week. Looking at it again and there is an argument to say that Selwood was tackled/pushed into Whitey. If it wouldn't mean an extra week if he lost at the tribunal, it is one probably worth challenging even if it means extra points.

I can live with this being an edge case but understand peoples issues with it.

Edit: Just looked at it again here (http://www.afl.com.au/Video/tabid/76/contentid/438403/invoke/Default.aspx) and he does shoulder charge him to a degree. Nothing vicious but careless and probably deserves a week (as sad as I am to see Whitey miss!)

It looks like a slightly different angle to what I saw on tv, slow mo makes it look worse too. When I first saw it last night it looked like he did drive his shoulder into him. Now it looks nothing like it.

I hope Hawthorn appeals it. No way known he should have got weeks for that. He barely had time to stand up and brace for impact before Selwood was on him.

The only other option would have been to stay on the deck and let Joel hurdle him, a la Timmy Watson.

 

[Snoozer]

This is the MRP that suspended a guy last year for a head clash. Apparently mutual high contact is actionable on just one side. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/05/2891361.htm?site=sport&section=afl

Having got that off my chest (again), I thought it was likely to be a week out when watching the game. Whitecross leads with the shoulder, he makes accidental contact to the head, but given appearance of the action (putting the shoulder into a situation where it will contact the player) and the result (contact with the head) it fits with what the MRP has been targetting for years.

Sorry, Whitecross is allowed to protect himself. What is he supposed to do, stand there while Selwood barrels into him? Whitecross would have probably come off sporting a gash to his own head.

Selwood is just as responsible for the contact as what Whitecross is. If not, moreso.

Maybe if more players protected themselves, and realised that they have a duty of care primarily to themselves, over and above a duty of care to everyone else, we wouldn't have players running around leaving themselves wide open for incidental contact.

 

[alfy!]

are you implying that whitecross lets his opponent run past him rather than risk making accidental high contact?

has the game really come to that?

If it was a choice between head high contact, and letting a player past, yes.

But in this case he certainly didn't have to lead with his shoulder in the bump. Could have even tackled.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Technically I understand why the MRP had to refer this. Its not up to them to judge whether Whitecross had any alternative.

Will be a very interesting test case to see if you can be suspended for holding your ground when somebody dives at you head first.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

But in this case he certainly didn't have to lead with his shoulder in the bump. Could have even tackled.

Whitecross would have broken his ribs at worst or laid an ineffective (and probably high) tackle at best.

 

[alfy!]

Whitecross would have broken his ribs at worst or laid an ineffective (and probably high) tackle at best.

How can you say that with such certainty? I personally think a tackle would most likely have stuck. But the play had stopped anyway.