Whitecross offered a week for having Selwood run into his shoulder

[Freo Ruckus]

Gee I used to have respect for Selwood. Now he is just a cheating germ who rorts the system bulls*** free kicks week after week and now his knee dropping antics have unjustly cost a player a trip to the tribunal.

Glad to see the umps on the weekend weren't as lenient as they usually are except for SJ in the 1st Q.

"Ducker" Selwood - surely he has to be booked for staging. The umps have been falling for it for years. Now every other midfielder is trying to imitate his horizontal running. Look at the Eagles Luke Shuey - now he's caught the ducker craze. Can Selwood run upright? Because he certainly can't lie straight in bed.

 

[Freo Ruckus]

i can't believe he got a week. Admittedly, looking at those replays it doesn't look that great.

But the fact is that live it looked completely and utterly accidental. He got up and all of a sudden selwood is running into him

he's another ducker victim!!!! Ducker selwood - the umpire's best friend...

 

[PalaceGun]

With the majority in thinking this decision is ridiculous. Sad what this game is becoming.

Clubs soon will be employing matador coaches, one session a week in the correct way to avoid "dangerous" collisions in a safe and quick thinking manner.

I can hear it now:
Dennis Commetti, "Whitecross did well there, he saw Selwood heading his way and he's done extremely well to avoid any contact, he could have missed a few weeks there, he'll be happy with that. And as we await the return of the ball to the centre square, Richo talk us through that Selwood goal..."

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Pretty clear the general footy supporting population are unable to think beyond 'Selwood, ducker, deserves it'.

Quite depressing that people can't think critically, without emotion, but we are Australian sport fans I guess.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

The reason the ump didn't pay a free is that BW's movement is from left to right and inline with the umpires line of sight, just like the camera angle from the other side of the ground looking over the centre (ther first one you see)

When you look at the angle from the boundry side you see that when BW first gets up his body is pretty much centered over his feet and JS is about 2m away. By the time JS has reached BW he has actually taken a small step to his right and his body is completely outside the line of his right foot and he has rotated his right shoulder towards JS.

BW makes the decision (a split second one yes, but definately a decision) to move into JS's path and lead with his shoulder.

Even after all that is said I don't think there was any malace whatsoever by BW and his split second decision to bump was probably becasue he expected JS to get higher than he did and a tackle was going to cause head to head contact or risk his own head.
Therefore for mine I don't think he should of got a week. A fine or/and carry over points yes but no suspension.

Your spot on analysis is over the head of most, but very well posted.

 

[PalaceGun]

Even after all that is said I don't think there was any malace whatsoever by BW and his split second decision to bump was probably becasue he expected JS to get higher than he did and a tackle was going to cause head to head contact or risk his own head.

Therefore for mine I don't think he should of got a week. A fine or/and carry over points yes but no suspension.

What purpose does a fine serve?

AFL: Wrong place, wrong time, give us some money?

I agree about your thoughts on tackling.

So he should have either tried to absorb the collision and let Selwood run over him (more likely to injure himself) or take an extremely quick step to his left and avoid contact all together? (I don't even think there was enough time in that scenario)

 

[mezaire]

What purpose does a fine serve?

AFL: Wrong place, wrong time, give us some money?

I agree about your thoughts on tackling.

So he should have either tried to absorb the collision and let Selwood run over him (more likely to injure himself) or take an extremely quick step to his left and avoid contact all together? (I don't even think there was enough time in that scenario)

Yeah you're probably right on the fine, didn't really think that one through.

I'm not sure what he should of done but stepping into Selwood's line with a leading shoulder was probably not the best idea although you do see plenty of tackles in a game where both players are low down and the tackling player turns/pulls his head back to avoid contact.

 

[podfather31]

What a joke... Title of the thread pretty much sums it up I think.

 

[MightyHawks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfu46ZGHm-U

Whitecross had less time to react, used less force, had less intention to make contact, had less ability to avoid the contact, and didn't leave the ground than this "accidental" collision.

 

[PalaceGun]

Yeah you're probably right on the fine, didn't really think that one through.

I'm not sure what he should of done but stepping into Selwood's line with a leading shoulder was probably not the best idea although you do see plenty of tackles in a game where both players are low down and the tackling player turns/pulls his head back to avoid contact.

For self preservation it is and if he gets out of the way every man and his dog gets on their soap box and calls him soft.

It seems to be a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't scenario

 

[PalaceGun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfu46ZGHm-U

Whitecross had less time to react, used less force, had less intention to make contact, had less ability to avoid the contact, and didn't leave the ground than this "accidental" collision.

Whoever delivered that pass should get a suspension...

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

For self preservation it is and if he gets out of the way every man and his dog gets on their soap box and calls him soft.

It seems to be a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't scenario

Its alright though, no such scenario for Joel. He is a fearless, courageous warrior no matter what WX does.

He's already admitted he exploits the rules. How many more players is he going to get ruboed out before he breaks his neck?

Barging into hardened athletes head first may be brave, but it is also incredibly dangerous, stupid and unethical.

 

[TheStinger]

There is no doubt that Selwood puts his head in some dangerous situations and you can call it brave or foolhardy depending on the situation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting your head over the ball and doing your best to get a possession but when you put your head down deliberately in the hope that your opponent either tackles you high or panics and gets out of the way so as not to cause contact, it becomes dangerous and reckless conduct on your own part.

We constantly hear about how you have to have a duty of care for your opponent, but what about a duty of care to yourself? Putting your head into a dangerous situation in the hope of getting a free kick is not the same as putting your head over the ball in a fierce contest for possession. Selwood does both and in my opinion should be rewarded for one but not the other.

He has already been knocked silly at least twice that I can recall, one was in a contest and one was by him trying to get a free kick. I am sure there are other times that he has come close to being knocked out as well. Will he eventually learn and stop trying to draw free kicks and just play hard footy?

I hope so, for his sake. Because one day he will get seriously injured trying to get a free kick and everyone will say he did it to himself.

 

[Keys]

Pretty clear the general footy supporting population are unable to think beyond 'Selwood, ducker, deserves it'.

Quite depressing that people can't think critically, without emotion, but we are Australian sport fans I guess.

Whitecross is incredibly unlucky imo and there's no way he should be looking at a suspension for what was essentially a collision that is part and parcel of our game

That said I don't understand the viewpoint that selwood either caused the collision or made the contact worse by ducking as he did neither. Selwoods momentum carried him into whitecross who had no time to make a considered decision of what to do so braced himself for the inevitable contact

I don't like that waters was charged for his bump on grimes but can at least understand why he was. I can't understand at all why whitecross has been sanctioned and certainly don't like it at all

 

[Stamos]

Absolute joke. I hope Hawthorn appeal and get him off.

 

[Dangas]

Disgraceful decision

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Its alright though, no such scenario for Joel. He is a fearless, courageous warrior no matter what WX does.

He's already admitted he exploits the rules. How many more players is he going to get ruboed out before he breaks his neck?

Barging into hardened athletes head first may be brave, but it is also incredibly dangerous, stupid and unethical.

If you think Selwood deliberately ran into Whitecross headfirst, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Seth]

Gee I used to have respect for Selwood. Now he is just rorts the system and gets rubbish free kicks week after week and now his knee dropping antics have unjustly cost a player a trip to the tribunal.

If he wants to drop his knees upon contact then he will continue to get knocked out but we cant be penalising the other player involved when it is clearly not their fault.

I don't know about anyone else but I cringe every time I see Selwood go in for the ball and about to get tackled and see how he drops his knees and lifts his elbows. For the first time on Monday the umpires were not as sucked into it but they let one slip by the 1st Q to SJ. That is a clear example of how Geelong players do this, they must practice it at training. Get the ball see a player coming into tackle, drop the knees and receive head high contact. Done.

By the way I thought you had to go through a fairly stringent medical assessment after being knocked out and not allowed back on for some time. Is the AFL going to investigate how it was that he came back on so quickly. He was clearly concussed. Just makes a mockery of the AFL's concussion rule, but then again it is Geelong.

 

[dlanod]

1. The ball was already 'dead', and Selwood didn't give the ball back immediately. Clearly understandable as he was unconscious/concussed....however he returned to the field very shortly thereafter. So was he concussed or not? IMO he clearly was (and Geelong Dr. should face review), but perhaps the Dr. isn't incompetent, and Selwood just played the umpire (and us all) very well?

Is that your opinion as a medical professional there? You can be dazed without being concussed. A concussion is a specific medical diagnosis, and there are standard tests for it applied in both sports (AFL, NFL) and by doctors outside of sports. I don't what the AFL test involves but I suspect it would be a quick quiz on memory (can he recall the events leading up to the hit? if he is shown an object which is then concealed, can he remember what it is?), reflexes/coordination and problem solving. If he shows only physical ill-effects (grogginess, wobbly knees, etc) and recovers quickly from them, then chances are that it is not a concussion.

 

[dlanod]

"Ducker" Selwood - surely he has to be booked for staging. The umps have been falling for it for years. Now every other midfielder is trying to imitate his horizontal running. Look at the Eagles Luke Shuey - now he's caught the ducker craze. Can Selwood run upright? Because he certainly can't lie straight in bed.

How is it staging? He got hit (and gets hit repeatedly) and as far as I have seen he doesn't exaggerate contact any more than any other AFL player. Definitely not as bad as a Ballantyne, Goodes or Adcock for example. Yes, he definitely positions himself in such a way as to draw a free kick by leading with his head - but that's not staging.

Personally I think they should call play on more frequently when a player leads with his head, and that would cover Selwood's case as well. That's also within AFL's rules, and you see it done a couple of times each game ("He ducked into it" from the umpire) but it would stamp out this tendancy if applied all the time. Unfortunately it would also be likely to result in more head injuries by tacklers interpreting that as having free reign for head contact with a ducking player, so the umpires are screwed either way.

 

[Righteo]

Big thumbs up to the majority of the sensible Geelong fans in this thread who agree it was completely accidental, the few who think it was a malicious act worthy of weeks though...utterly shameful tbh

 

[Righteo]

Pretty clear the general footy supporting population are unable to think beyond 'Selwood, ducker, deserves it'.

Quite depressing that people can't think critically, without emotion, but we are Australian sport fans I guess.

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.

 

[Zomertown]

The MRP has been a joke this week, firstly with Waters getting a reprimand for what looked to be the perfect bump on a player chasing the ball carier (within 5 metres), in which they called the contact low impact. Now Whitecross gets what will be 2 weeks without a guilty plee for being in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Their was absolutely nothing that he could have done to avoid the contact, which was classed as medium contact (more impact than the Waters/Grimes incident apparently).

Isn't the idea of suspending players to try and deter them from repeating malicious acts on another player? If Whitecross finds himself in the same position the exact same thing will happen again.

Ludicrous!

 

[Feerits Elf]

Didn't the umpire say twice after seeing the contact in real time "... that was an accident ... that was an accident ..."?

And now someone reviewing video slowed to a tenth of a second or better wants to deem culpability? For what? Immediately standing up and stepping into the path of a player with the ball moving past him at 20km/h and daring to brace himself against impact before the very concept of a textbook-perfect tackle had entered his mind?

I suppose he should have just let Selwood waltz through and put it on Podsiadly's tit, lace out. After all, that's what people want to see in a footy match, not a hard physical contest.

*****.

 

[Thommo 42]

this whole thing has nothing to do with Joel Selwood, its just unfortunate that his involvement has clouded the issue a bit given his penchant for initiating high contact (something he has admitted himself)

Whether it was Selwood, Ballantyne or Shane Mumford - Whitecross has absolutely no opportunity to do anything other than brace for contact. The fact that he ended up completely on his arse about 2m behind where he was standing tells the story on how the contact occurred and how much chance he had to avoid it.