James Sicily on Selwood

Remove this Banner Ad

So he accepted the ban. Can assume that is Clarko punishing him because of him losing focus - I doubt Clarko was too concerned for Selwood's wellbeing.

Only downside to contesting would have been a $10k fine to the club.

Contesting the fine (10k amount) goes towards the footy clubs department cap. All has to be considered now
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. There are lots of situations where 'the guy with the ball' is penalised. You never heard of the holding the ball rule?

Because the guy with the ball is infringed upon first through high contact means that in these cases HTB is irrelevant. My point is that the guy with the ball has to be tackled/dispossessed legally.



When the guy with the ball in soccer deliberately falls over the leg of a tackler the referee (if he notices) isn't rewarding him.

And when the guy with the ball gets illegally tripped the referee pays a penalty. Just like if illegal high contact is made. If the ump thinks a player is feigning high contact he had the right to call play-on.



If drop and shrug was deemed prior opportunity, the tackler would be getting rewarded in many of these situations.

But it is NOT deemed prior opportunity. It never has been. So the tackler needs to adjust or the rule needs to change. Until then your point is invalid.
 
Because the guy with the ball is infringed upon first through high contact means that in these cases HTB is irrelevant. My point is that the guy with the ball has to be tackled/dispossessed legally.

The high contact isn't first though is it? The guy with the ball is tackled, does a few twisty manoeuvres with his body, then the high contact occurs. Incidental high contact that we were told last year the AFL had instructive the umpires to stop paying.



And when the guy with the ball gets illegally tripped the referee pays a penalty.

Yeah, illegally tripped. Versus deliberately tripped over the tacklers leg.

Just like if illegal high contact is made. If the ump thinks a player is feigning high contact he had the right to call play-on.

It is not just for "feigning high contact" that the umpire has the right to call play on. it is for the tackled player CAUSING the high contact. Selwood and others are not feigning high contact. They are causing it by their actions after being tackled. The mystery is why they are not being called play on when the AFL had indicated that was their intention last year. I believe that less of them have been paid, but it is pretty clear the umpires are still not implementing what the AFL had told us was the new interpretation.



But it is NOT deemed prior opportunity. It never has been. So the tackler needs to adjust or the rule needs to change. Until then your point is invalid.

The rule/interpretation has been changed. Last year. The problem now is the implementation and interpretation of the rule. The rule could be further improved by making it prior opportunity too, but just enforcing the interpretation change from last year and calling play on would be a damn good start.
 
Calm your farm buddy. Take out your hatred for Selwood and look at the incident.
Drops his knee into his head, 1st one doesn’t worry me so much but than he goes and does it even more deliberately.

An intentional knee to the head. You can’t get any more damning than that.
Intentional
Knee
Head

It’s got nothing to do with who is involved.
Your hate is pathetic!

Did a classic Selwood on Selwood , i thought it was great for him to get some back .
It is not hatred but i despise players who give it then sook like a girl when someone gives it back .
 
The high contact isn't first though is it? The guy with the ball is tackled, does a few twisty manoeuvres with his body, then the high contact occurs. Incidental high contact that we were told last year the AFL had instructive the umpires to stop paying.





Yeah, illegally tripped. Versus deliberately tripped over the tacklers leg.



It is not just for "feigning high contact" that the umpire has the right to call play on. it is for the tackled player CAUSING the high contact. Selwood and others are not feigning high contact. They are causing it by their actions after being tackled. The mystery is why they are not being called play on when the AFL had indicated that was their intention last year. I believe that less of them have been paid, but it is pretty clear the umpires are still not implementing what the AFL had told us was the new interpretation.





The rule/interpretation has been changed. Last year. The problem now is the implementation and interpretation of the rule. The rule could be further improved by making it prior opportunity too, but just enforcing the interpretation change from last year and calling play on would be a damn good start.
You should be blaming the umps/law makers and not the player(s). This is not a problem with Selwood.
 
I didn't think it was THAT bad.

If it was done to anyone outside of the big 3 midfielders I doubt he gets a week.
 
what? roughhead didnt event get cited for breaking Dangers ribs last year in a clear deliberate act. you guys tried to take our danger again yesterday and largely succeeded given we were forced to rest him up forward for most of the game due to the hit to his head. Again not even cited.
Not even sure Henderson saw him. Dangerfield just went lower to win the ball
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I didn't think it was THAT bad.

If it was done to anyone outside of the big 3 midfielders I doubt he gets a week.

Rubbish.
If it wasn’t
A) A hawthorn player
B) Selwood
That player would get more weeks.
Deliberate knees to the head. Like F me, what more do you want? Would be 3-4 if not for A and or B.
Hawthorn leniency strikes again!
 
Rubbish.
If it wasn’t
A) A hawthorn player
B) Selwood
That player would get more weeks.
Deliberate knees to the head. Like F me, what more do you want? Would be 3-4 if not for A and or B.
Hawthorn leniency strikes again!

#Freelong
 
What’s the storey with people bringing up Sicily and dog in the same sentence. I am offended as when I hear the word dog I automatically think loyalty, consistent temperament, positive vibes ..... I love my little staffy. Happy to have a player like Sicily that plays close to the edge. This time he crossed it so be it.

Hodge and Lewis gone , hello Sicily and Hardwick! It’s a brutal game and most of the past premiership teams had a player or two with a bit of mongrel. Sicily will ruffle a few feathers and improve the peripheral vision of opposition players :thumbsu: good.
 
If Caddy got one then Sicily has to go.
But how does Caddy get one for an errant open hand (that did make contact ) but can easily be defended part of the play.

And Siciliy gets the same penalty for off the ball dropping the knee deliberately into the head of player laying on the ground - dog act.

If I was Caddy and Tigers fans id be pissed off. Sicily is a dog act and the kind of s**t the AFL want out of the game.
Caddy is in play, errant for sure but unintentional and at best careless and accidental. Yet the same penalty? WTF.

Go Catters
 
But how does Caddy get one for an errant open hand (that did make contact ) but can easily be defended part of the play.

And Siciliy gets the same penalty for off the ball dropping the knee deliberately into the head of player laying on the ground - dog act.

If I was Caddy and Tigers fans id be pissed off. Sicily is a dog act and the kind of s**t the AFL want out of the game.
Caddy is in play, errant for sure but unintentional and at best careless and accidental. Yet the same penalty? WTF.

Go Catters
Caddy incredibly stiff. Trying to swat the ball, makes incidental contact to the face, and he's facing time on the sidelines. I thought the whole point of the revamped MRP was to punish non-football acts (knees, punches, etc), and give a bit more leniency to the other blokes playing fairly?
 
Just when I started to have a decent opinion of the Hawthorn Football Club their 'unsociable' true colours come to the fore once again. It figures that you when you have an angry Coward Punch midget as your coach that he'd school their next bunch players really well in the dirty aspects of the game; continuing on the thuggish tradition of Lethal, Dermott, Dipper, etc...
 
Just when I started to have a decent opinion of the Hawthorn Football Club their 'unsociable' true colours come to the fore once again. It figures that you when you have an angry Coward Punch midget as your coach that he'd school their next bunch players really well in the dirty aspects of the game; continuing on the thuggish tradition of Lethal, Dermott, Dipper, etc...
Yeh and what about your choir boy coach and his mate Mal Michael ramming into a player coming of the field with a busted shoulder? Hypocrite much?
 
Not much you can do when someone grabs you around the ankles and doesnt let go.
If you fall backwards you risk ankle and knee damage, if you go forward you can give the idiot a knee in the head and make him reconsider the illegal tactic.
If the umpire paid holding the man or tripping it would have never got to this
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top