SA Footy

I noted that Selwood mentioned on twitter that Farren Ray was only going for the ball, and that it was fair.

Now... Farren Ray got reported, and Joel Selwood has commented on something BEFORE it goes to the tribunal.

If he did that in an interview for Channel 7, then he'd cop a fine, right?

What's the deal now with other forms of "media?"

The form of media is irrelevent and what he said was fine and it wouldn't have made any difference if it was on C7 IMHO.

Ray should not have been reported in the first place!

Should be no fine and no report IMO. A football contest. Move on AFL.

10 years ago we would be talking about this in a completely different way. but the afl are trying to take the HARD contested footy out of the game.
As much as I don't want to see the aftermath (could only imagine how Joel's parents and family were feeling) you still want to see the players going for the ball.
Joel Selwood is one of the few remaining guys in the AFL putting his game before his safety.

Wouldn't be surprised if Farren got games. The AFL want all head high contact out of the game regardless if it was a accident or not....

SJABC wrote:Wouldn't be surprised if Farren got games. The AFL want all head high contact out of the game regardless if it was a accident or not....

In that case the owner of the stray knee that collected Jonathon Brown would have to be VERY worried. It appeared to be plain bad luck, but I'm expecting the big fella to be out for almost 12 weeks.

If Ray gets games for that then the AFL is in a far sadder state and heading in a much sadder direction than I ever thought.

Just got back from overseas. I saw the Farry Ray incident in the Aussie Bar in Phuket, nothing in it whatsover and couldn't believe it when people were still talking about it this morning. Good to see common sense being used for a change. A reminder to the tribunal and MRP that accidents CAN happen in football. Not everything is malicious.

SJABC wrote:Wouldn't be surprised if Farren got games. The AFL want all head high contact out of the game regardless if it was a accident or not....

What did surprise me was that Waite got off given his record.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

SJABC wrote:Wouldn't be surprised if Farren got games. The AFL want all head high contact out of the game regardless if it was a accident or not....

What did surprise me was that Waite got off given his record.

regards,

REB

I couldn't believe that either.

Pag wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

SJABC wrote:Wouldn't be surprised if Farren got games. The AFL want all head high contact out of the game regardless if it was a accident or not....

What did surprise me was that Waite got off given his record.

regards,

REB

I couldn't believe that either.

x3

Who was the Richmond guy who got 3 or 4 games? Didn't seem too much in that either.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Who was the Richmond guy who got 3 or 4 games? Didn't seem too much in that either.

Rance. Pleaded guilty and got three games. Behind the play, head high contact, waite concussed, probably fair enough.

Waite getting away with the kick to the nuts is a joke IMO

CoverKing wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Who was the Richmond guy who got 3 or 4 games? Didn't seem too much in that either.

Rance. Pleaded guilty and got three games. Behind the play, head high contact, waite concussed, probably fair enough.

Waite getting away with the kick to the nuts is a joke IMO

Either the guy he kicked has no nuts or steel nuts as he didn't flinch or show any pain. If none of those are applicable (no nuts or steel nuts) then the ruling of low impact is a fair call by the tribunal.

Voice wrote:

CoverKing wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Who was the Richmond guy who got 3 or 4 games? Didn't seem too much in that either.

Rance. Pleaded guilty and got three games. Behind the play, head high contact, waite concussed, probably fair enough.

Waite getting away with the kick to the nuts is a joke IMO

Either the guy he kicked has no nuts or steel nuts as he didn't flinch or show any pain. If none of those are applicable (no nuts or steel nuts) then the ruling of low impact is a fair call by the tribunal.

Bollocks Cyclops.

regards,

REB

Sorry Dude wrote:Ray should not have been reported in the first place!

Agreed. Umpires have a tendency to allow reportable incidents to pass through to the MRP these days, and the one they choose to report was not reportable.

What concerns me is there seems to be an attitude creeping into football that if a player gets injured, or hit high, it cannot be accidental. The stupidity of this is if Ray got injured and Selwood didn't, would the umpire have reported Selwood? If both players got injured, who would they have reported then?

I'm still seething over a report of a player in my team last season, totally accidental contact, got 2 matches. They are expecting players to make the correct split decision to avoid contact whilst at the same time committing themselves to a physical contest. Some of these players aren't able to make the decision not to drink too much at nightclubs but are expected to have the presence of mind to avoid accidental contact.

Rik E Boy wrote:

Voice wrote:

CoverKing wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Who was the Richmond guy who got 3 or 4 games? Didn't seem too much in that either.

Rance. Pleaded guilty and got three games. Behind the play, head high contact, waite concussed, probably fair enough.

Waite getting away with the kick to the nuts is a joke IMO

Either the guy he kicked has no nuts or steel nuts as he didn't flinch or show any pain. If none of those are applicable (no nuts or steel nuts) then the ruling of low impact is a fair call by the tribunal.

Bollocks Cyclops.

regards,

REB

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Sorry Dude wrote:Ray should not have been reported in the first place!

Agreed. Umpires have a tendency to allow reportable incidents to pass through to the MRP these days, and the one they choose to report was not reportable.

What concerns me is there seems to be an attitude creeping into football that if a player gets injured, or hit high, it cannot be accidental. The stupidity of this is if Ray got injured and Selwood didn't, would the umpire have reported Selwood? If both players got injured, who would they have reported then?

I'm still seething over a report of a player in my team last season, totally accidental contact, got 2 matches. They are expecting players to make the correct split decision to avoid contact whilst at the same time committing themselves to a physical contest. Some of these players aren't able to make the decision not to drink too much at nightclubs but are expected to have the presence of mind to avoid accidental contact.

I thought both players actually tried to avoid each other in the end and couldn't do so.

regards,

REB

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Sorry Dude wrote:Ray should not have been reported in the first place!

Agreed. Umpires have a tendency to allow reportable incidents to pass through to the MRP these days, and the one they choose to report was not reportable.

What concerns me is there seems to be an attitude creeping into football that if a player gets injured, or hit high, it cannot be accidental. The stupidity of this is if Ray got injured and Selwood didn't, would the umpire have reported Selwood? If both players got injured, who would they have reported then?

I'm still seething over a report of a player in my team last season, totally accidental contact, got 2 matches. They are expecting players to make the correct split decision to avoid contact whilst at the same time committing themselves to a physical contest. Some of these players aren't able to make the decision not to drink too much at nightclubs but are expected to have the presence of mind to avoid accidental contact.

Good Call.