Bombertalk

I actually thought the sledge was pretty funny considering who it was about. She is a six year old girl and Selwood just did it to get under Headland's skin. Headland is just an aboslute tool to respond to the comment.
There was nothing else involved except a sledge to annoy an opponent to put him off his game. If it was something said outside of a game, okay, then i could see the Family association people could take it further, but for f*** sakes, it was during a match.

Surprise Surprise the Eagles are denying everything:

The West Coast Eagles have released a statement strongly denying the reported lewd comments by midfielder Adam Selwood during Saturday night’s game against Fremantle.

Selwood will face the AFL Tribunal tomorrow night in relation to the alleged comments directed at Fremantle’s Des Headland.

The case will be a tough one for the tribunal with a number of suggestions about potential defamation action if Selwood is found not guilty.

Interesting to see if Des takes it further outside the AFL as indicated.

lozza89 wrote:I actually thought the sledge was pretty funny considering who it was about. She is a six year old girl and Selwood just did it to get under Headland's skin. Headland is just an aboslute tool to respond to the comment.
There was nothing else involved except a sledge to annoy an opponent to put him off his game. If it was something said outside of a game, okay, then i could see the Family association people could take it further, but for f*** sakes, it was during a match.

LOL Do we ever disagree

lozza89 wrote:I actually thought the sledge was pretty funny considering who it was about. She is a six year old girl and Selwood just did it to get under Headland's skin. Headland is just an aboslute tool to respond to the comment.
There was nothing else involved except a sledge to annoy an opponent to put him off his game. If it was something said outside of a game, okay, then i could see the Family association people could take it further, but for f*** sakes, it was during a match.

Did you laugh when Monkhorst called Michael Long a black c***?

tom9779 wrote:

Megan wrote:Tom, should Sheeds have told Longy to harden the f*** up instead of grizzling about being racially taunted?

You say all sorts of shit on the paddock to get a rise - to call Longy anything racist doesn't mean the player SAYING it IS racist, but that they knew they'd get a rise.

So I assume you have no problem with racist comments on the paddock as long as they stay there?

I think comments about some blokes tattoo is a lot different to a racist slur. for one you can't choose your race.

but c'mon how is it different to a slur about shagging someones mum(should be a crime i reckon), or any other remark.

it is only words.

Tom it's hard to answer that because I don't feel like it's something you can articulate - you either find that sort of thing incredibly offensive, or you don't, there doesn't seem to be any inbetween. But if I had to attempt to I would say only this - having a crack at someones missus isn't the nicest thing to do but it's not illegal. She's six. A child. The tattoo was completely irrelevant to that fact, I haven't seen the tat in detail but I've no doubt he hasn't got a tattoo of what he thinks the kid will look like when she's of legal age... I suspect it would be clear it was of a child.

Monkhorst may or may not be a racist, I dunno. He may have said what he said to Longy to get a reaction - and it worked. Selwood almost certainly isn't a pedo. He said what he said to get a rise and it worked.

Racism is illegal and the AFL have cracked right down on it, as they should. Paedophilia is also illegal, frankly I think it's 10 times worse than making a racist crack at someone, I feel the AFL should treat it much the same.

I'm sure if you asked anyone who had been racially taunted what they'd rather - comments about THEM or comments about their CHILDREN - 99% of them will tell you to say what you want about them. Children are not fair game on the footy field.

Stocksy wrote:Just sit on the fence Donnie, asked the question because unless you really thought he had given it a go with your daughter why would it even bother you?

And again this is ALLEDGEDLY said, I mean Des insinuated he would kill Selwood, unless we take it as serious threat we let it slide, if we thought he was really going to do it we would lock him up. Does Adam get a restraining order now for something said on the field?

You were more than happy to point out to Tom that most people took pedophillia serious which gave the impression that this was your thoughts.

When I said you were getting off track I was talking about the pedophillia comment, last time I heard he was being charged with sledging, not pedophillia...

I couldn't be less off the fence Stocksy I think I have been fairly clear what side of the fence that I am sitting on with this one.

You keep making a point of whether I or he seriously thought that Selwood f***** Headlands daughter and I am unsure what you are talking about. Obviously this is not the case but in this incident it is irrelevant as Headland did not bash him for f****** his daughter he bashed him because he said he did and that she was a slut... Good on Des!!!

Stocksy I think the important thing to remember here is it was spontaneous. Headland didn't wander off and give it some thought, come back and job him. Selwood slandered his daughter and Headland lashed out. Same as a good percentage of people would.

This is kinda relevant to the debate, seeing as I already know Donnie has at least one child - do you have kids? I don't, so I can only guess at how it might make a parent feel - it offends me greatly and I'm not even a parent. The whole empathy vs sympathy thing. I don't think I've spoken to anyone with kids who hasn't found the comment to be horribly offensive.

Before we all start shooting Selwood he does actually have to have been proven guilty of saying what is reported.

For arguments sake I think it's worth noting that most people in this topic are talking about the act more than the player... I speak for myself when I say even when I've named him I actually mean the deed. Tho it does read like I'm annointing him guilty already - oops. Apologies

But yeah I was just thinking earlier how horrifying this would be if it was crap. That A) everyone judged over it and it was rubbish and B) how he'll be rememebred as the guy who said what he didn't even say.

I'm eagerly waiting to see if they have any third parties to back it up or shoot it down.

I doubt they will.

It will be word on word which generally leads to the accused party of being "proven" innocent.

West Coast denying it isn't a surprise. They never do anything wrong over there...

robrulz5 wrote:West Coast denying it isn't a surprise.

And how would they know what he actually said out there?

If Selwood had any guts (and I doubt it judging by his cowardly comments), he'd stand up and admit it, apologise and get on with it. To deny and hide is a gutless act.

Panel for tonight's hearing has been announced:

Richard Loveridge
Emmett Dunne
and Wayne Schimmelbusch

Newspapers this morning are confirming that there are no third parties who heard the statement. Hence, it is going to be Selwood's word against Headland's.

What do you all think an appropriate penalty would be?

Me, I am leaning towards a hefty suspended sentence / fine for Selwood (if found guilty). As for Headland, he should cop his wack and not have his sentence reduced at all. If you start a precedent that you can get your sentence reduced because of provocation, then every single player will try to claim provocation to get off the hook.

What happens if someone comes before the Tribunal in Grand Final Week? Would you just completely make up a story that another player had provoked you to play in a Grand Final? Of course you would, and that's why reducing Headland's sentence would be a very dangerous precedent for the Tribunal to set.

The tribunal are so inconsistent it probably wouldn't matter all that much.

Staggy wrote:Panel for tonight's hearing has been announced:

Richard Loveridge
Emmett Dunne
and Wayne Schimmelbusch

Newspapers this morning are confirming that there are no third parties who heard the statement. Hence, it is going to be Selwood's word against Headland's.

What do you all think an appropriate penalty would be?

Me, I am leaning towards a hefty suspended sentence / fine for Selwood (if found guilty). As for Headland, he should cop his wack and not have his sentence reduced at all. If you start a precedent that you can get your sentence reduced because of provocation, then every single player will try to claim provocation to get off the hook.

What happens if someone comes before the Tribunal in Grand Final Week? Would you just completely make up a story that another player had provoked you to play in a Grand Final? Of course you would, and that's why reducing Headland's sentence would be a very dangerous precedent for the Tribunal to set.

The most famous case involving provocation against a striking charge was John Coleman against Harry Caspar. Coleman was suspended for 4 weeks (I think) which meant that he'd miss the 1951 GF. Coleman claimed Caspar grabbed his knackers, provoking his actions, but the tribunal didn't take it into consideration.

These days, the tribunal system is a lot different. You can virtually bargain your penalty these days. Accept what is offered or challenge. I'm tipping he'll get a slight reduction on what was offered.

As for Selwood - he is charged with using insulting language. How do you prove that? I guess you look at Headland's reaction and you'd determine that he was insulted wouldn't you? Without witnesses it will be virtually impossible to take one person's word over another unless they take Headland's reaction into account.

Yes Megan I have Kids, 2 actually. Not arguing with the fact that des snotted him, said on the first page I would love to see the biff come back.

But thats where it should have stayed, not dragged into the media and become the circus it is now, & again it is still alledged, we are in this country still inoncent until proven guilty arent we? Unless your Donnie then the word of one means your a Pedophile...

He bashed (weak as piss effort of bashing but will go with your words) Selwood for something he beleived he heard, again Donnie its still only alledged. He made a reference to the person in the tattoo, and denies that he called that person a slut.

Stocksy wrote:Yes Megan I have Kids, 2 actually. Not arguing with the fact that des snotted him, said on the first page I would love to see the biff come back.

But thats where it should have stayed, not dragged into the media and become the circus it is now, & again it is still alledged, we are in this country still inoncent until proven guilty arent we? Unless your Donnie then the word of one means your a Pedophile...

He bashed (weak as piss effort of bashing but will go with your words) Selwood for something he beleived he heard, again Donnie its still only alledged. He made a reference to the person in the tattoo, and denies that he called that person a slut.

Or perhaps Headland is making it all up and is bending and twisting Selwoods words to suit his argument as you are to mine?

Not twisting them Donnie, just not ready to hang a bloke for something that is alledged.

Megan wrote:

tom9779 wrote:

Megan wrote:Tom, should Sheeds have told Longy to harden the f*** up instead of grizzling about being racially taunted?

You say all sorts of shit on the paddock to get a rise - to call Longy anything racist doesn't mean the player SAYING it IS racist, but that they knew they'd get a rise.

So I assume you have no problem with racist comments on the paddock as long as they stay there?

I think comments about some blokes tattoo is a lot different to a racist slur. for one you can't choose your race.

but c'mon how is it different to a slur about shagging someones mum(should be a crime i reckon), or any other remark.

it is only words.

Tom it's hard to answer that because I don't feel like it's something you can articulate - you either find that sort of thing incredibly offensive, or you don't, there doesn't seem to be any inbetween. But if I had to attempt to I would say only this - having a crack at someones missus isn't the nicest thing to do but it's not illegal. She's six. A child. The tattoo was completely irrelevant to that fact, I haven't seen the tat in detail but I've no doubt he hasn't got a tattoo of what he thinks the kid will look like when she's of legal age... I suspect it would be clear it was of a child.

Monkhorst may or may not be a racist, I dunno. He may have said what he said to Longy to get a reaction - and it worked. Selwood almost certainly isn't a pedo. He said what he said to get a rise and it worked.

Racism is illegal and the AFL have cracked right down on it, as they should. Paedophilia is also illegal, frankly I think it's 10 times worse than making a racist crack at someone, I feel the AFL should treat it much the same.

I'm sure if you asked anyone who had been racially taunted what they'd rather - comments about THEM or comments about their CHILDREN - 99% of them will tell you to say what you want about them. Children are not fair game on the footy field.

its just bad taste. i am sure if headlands tat was of his mum or his sister selwood would still have sledged back 'i f**ked her etc' the point was he was trying to put him off his game.

I am sorry, but it is JUST WORDS. and political correctness has gone too far if he is penalised for it.

des headland is a grown man, the comments were ridiculous. surely he should just build a bridge and get over it.

its not a sledge i would use, but personally I wouldn't give a rats what came out of his mouth if i was headland.

both parties(des and adam) need to grow up and act like men. they should have sorted it out between themselves after the game.

IF HEADLAND DIDN'T GET SUSPENDED, I GUARANTEE IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.

words aren't an excuse for violence. that should be the message sent to Headland.

And selwood should just get a bit more creative with his sledging, that one was pretty lame.

tom9779 wrote:
IF HEADLAND DIDN'T GET SUSPENDED, I GUARANTEE IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.

Very true.