Headland vs Selwood

[BenchedEagle]

Question

How can Selwood be found not guility, then the same tribunal find Headland Guilty of the two charges, but that the exceptional and compelling circumstances of provocation justified his actions.

if there are exceptional and compelling circumstances of provocation, doesn't this mean Selwood is Guilty?

but considering Selwood's case had been thrown out, how could their be compelling circumstances of provocation?

The AFL have obviously played their get out of jail free card on this one

My thoughts exactly.

[Wedgie]

Quite simple really, just like in the legal business "not guilty" is a lot different to "innocent".

[McAlmanac]

Quite simple really, just like in the legal business "not guilty" is a lot different to "innocent".

Exactly. We all know Selwood is morally guilty, but under which law of the game is he guilty and liable to suspension?

The tribunal has got it right.

[scoob]

Quite simple really, just like in the legal business "not guilty" is a lot different to "innocent".

Exactly. We all know Selwood is morally guilty, but under which law of the game is he guilty and liable to suspension?

The tribunal has got it right.

Rubbish, they had a chance to say that this sledging is unacceptable and that headland reaction isnt acceptable... they did neither. One of them has to be guilty and they have got away with out penalty... how can this be right???

[Wedgie]

I agree with Macca, its pretty obvious in most people eyes what Selwood said but unless it was caught on tape or by a third party he can only be found not guilty.
The way Headland reacted is fully acceptable as any decent parent would understand.
Ive gained more respect for Headland and lost any I had for Selwood and the West Coast Eagles at the moment, the whole club thinks they're bigger than the game are bringing the game into disrepute on so many fronts.

[scoob]

Well im obviously not a decent parent then because i dont think headlands reaction is acceptable... it would be pretty obvious to des that what was said was untrue... you would think that he would know where his daughter was the night before... if he had said i want to **** his daughter that would be a different story in my view... people have different ways of looking at it i suppose...

[The Girth]

I agree with Macca, its pretty obvious in most people eyes what Selwood said but unless it was caught on tape or by a third party he can only be found not guilty.
The way Headland reacted is fully acceptable as any decent parent would understand.
Ive gained more respect for Headland and lost any I had for Selwood and the West Coast Eagles at the moment, the whole club thinks they're bigger than the game are bringing the game into disrepute on so many fronts.

spot on wedgie well said

[McAlmanac]

Remember - Headland WAS found guilty of striking. The tribunal chose to accept the provocation defence when setting the penalty.

The player I have lost all respect for is Daniel Chick. His tribunal performance coming on top of his choice of house mate shows an individual with some real issues.

[JK]

Remember - Headland WAS found guilty of striking. The tribunal chose to accept the provocation defence when setting the penalty.

The player I have lost all respect for is Daniel Chick. His tribunal performance coming on top of his choice of house mate shows an individual with some real issues.

Apparently Headland's testimony went unopposed, meaning the judiciary had to accept it as fact ... On that basis I can understand the decision.

Tribunal changes and professionalism have mirrored those of society, where morally and legally are poles apart nowadays.

[Hondo]

Have the AFL opened a can of worms with this "severe provacation" defence. What stops a player from making up a story next time in an attempt to get off. Is retaliating to the biff now OK if you didn't throw the first punch? Doubt it, but interesting to think about.

BTW, I am not saying Headland made his story up - just looking at the future implications of this decision.