MRP / Trib. Joel Selwood....again

Remove this Banner Ad

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,432
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
OMG he had SWELLING! SWELLING I tell you.

Tell me, did they intubate at hospital?
You're a doctor, are you? Are you saying the Geelong doctor over reacted by calling for Dangerfield to go to hospital? Un-*******-believable! Your hatred of anything Geelong is so overwhelming that you're questioning the wisdom of medical decisions.

FYI, he had scans to show whether he had fractured the laryngeal.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,325
19,304
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
You're a doctor, are you? Are you saying the Geelong doctor over reacted by calling for Dangerfield to go to hospital? Un-*******-believable! Your hatred of anything Geelong is so overwhelming that you're questioning the wisdom of medical decisions.

FYI, he had scans to show whether he had fractured the laryngeal.
I didn’t say he over-reacted. What he did was take precautionary measures (which included the scans), which is perfectly fine, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for severity of incident and/or punishment. If the GWS doc sent Kelly to hospital because he got caught in the throat you’d be here saying “nothing to see here, Kelly is ok, what over-reaction”. If the Geelong doc was experienced in ENT he might’ve said your ok Patrick, no need to go to hospital. If it was a Grand Final I doubt Dangerfield would’ve even left the stadium after being assessed. If being rushed to hospital was a basis for suspension then Hawkins should’ve copped a few weeks for fracturing May’s eye socket requiring May to be… wait for it… rushed to hospital.

Your one-eyed bias refuses to see the similarities between the two incidents but if you showed both to someone unfamiliar with AFL I’m pretty certain they’d view them as identical.

All I’m wanting is consistency from the MRO.
 
Last edited:

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,432
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
I didn’t say he over-reacted. What he did was take precautionary measures (which included the scans), which is perfectly fine, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for severity of incident and/or punishment. If the GWS doc sent Kelly to hospital because he got caught in the throat you’d be here saying “nothing to see here, Kelly is ok, what over-reaction”. If the Geelong doc was experienced in ENT he might’ve said your ok Patrick, no need to go to hospital. If it was a Grand Final I doubt Dangerfield would’ve even left the stadium after being assessed.

Your one-eyed bias refuses to see the similarities between the two incidents but if you showed both to someone unfamiliar with AFL I’m pretty certain they’d view them as identical.

All I’m wanting is consistency from the MRO.
You didn't explicitly say he overreacted but you were highly dismissive of the actions taken by the club to sub Dangerfield out and take him to hospital. Your words, "OMG he had SWELLING! SWELLING I tell you. Tell me, did they intubate at hospital?" FYI, a fracture of the laryngeal is potentially fatal. It's rare, but it can happen. Do your Googles

This has nothing to do with being "one eyed biased". As other posters have pointed out in this thread the two cases are NOT identical. In fact they are different in so many respects, including severity of impact.

Tell me in all honesty, if Greene's hit was worth a one week suspension, what is Selwood's worth?
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,325
19,304
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
You didn't explicitly say he overreacted but you were highly dismissive of the actions taken by the club to sub Dangerfield out and take him to hospital. Your words, "OMG he had SWELLING! SWELLING I tell you. Tell me, did they intubate at hospital?" FYI, a fracture of the laryngeal is potentially fatal. It's rare, but it can happen. Do your Googles

This has nothing to do with being "one eyed biased". As other posters have pointed out in this thread the two cases are NOT identical. In fact they are different in so many respects, including severity of impact.

Tell me in all honesty, if Greene's hit was worth a one week suspension, what is Selwood's worth?
I wasn't mocking the doctor I was mocking you. FMD!

You can't see any similarities? You don't see Greene and Selwood both being first to the ball, both taking possession, both being aware of an approaching opponent, both raising the arm to fend off and both collecting their opponent in the throat region? OK, you're more biased than I thought.

Now, if you want to punish based on the outcome and not the action that is fine. But then you'll definitely have wanted Hawkins suspended for the hit on May, because outcome is what is important and not the action. But if you want to punish on the action and not the outcome then Hawkins walks but Selwood has to be looked at. So which is it?
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,432
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
I wasn't mocking the doctor I was mocking you. FMD!

You can't see any similarities? You don't see Greene and Selwood both being first to the ball, both taking possession, both being aware of an approaching opponent, both raising the arm to fend off and both collecting their opponent in the throat region? OK, you're more biased than I thought.

Now, if you want to punish based on the outcome and not the action that is fine. But then you'll definitely have wanted Hawkins suspended for the hit on May, because outcome is what is important and not the action. But if you want to punish on the action and not the outcome then Hawkins walks but Selwood has to be looked at. So which is it?
“It was the view of the MRO that there was insufficient forceful high contact to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.”
 

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
89,972
119,726
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Bushrangers, AC Milan
“Selwood raises his arm to fend and high contact occurs. It was the view of the MRO that there was insufficient forceful high contact to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken”

Conclusion: Bigfooty is filled with halfwits.
 

AWOL

Team Captain
Jul 7, 2008
551
632
Hawthorn
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Fitzroy FC
I wasn't mocking the doctor I was mocking you. FMD!

You can't see any similarities? You don't see Greene and Selwood both being first to the ball, both taking possession, both being aware of an approaching opponent, both raising the arm to fend off and both collecting their opponent in the throat region? OK, you're more biased than I thought.

Now, if you want to punish based on the outcome and not the action that is fine. But then you'll definitely have wanted Hawkins suspended for the hit on May, because outcome is what is important and not the action. But if you want to punish on the action and not the outcome then Hawkins walks but Selwood has to be looked at. So which is it?
Yes there are similarities. Are they the same though? Not entirely. And that there is the difference.

Both careless. Both high. One had low impact causing a player out of the game. One had insufficient force where player wasn’t impacted and was able to take his free kick and continue to play very well in the match.
 

Generalissimo

His Excellency
Jul 14, 2002
5,499
5,088
Somewhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
The Mighty Cats
So much sooking in this thread. It's great.

WAAAAA! Selwood. WAAAAAAA! SHocking conspiracy. WAAAAAA!

Dry those eyes. It was worth a free kick, nothing more, and that's what they paid.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

STPer18

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 12, 2017
8,459
23,811
AFL Club
Geelong
The two were identical in terms of actions.
The only difference was the obvious and ongoing bias. Anyone else gets a week for that action. Just Greene gets the +1 bias and Selwood gets a +1 wristy. Is anyone surprised?
Poor Greene...:'(
 

Ricky Vaughn

Premiership Player
Feb 9, 2015
3,926
7,665
AFL Club
Geelong
I didn’t say he over-reacted. What he did was take precautionary measures (which included the scans), which is perfectly fine, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for severity of incident and/or punishment. If the GWS doc sent Kelly to hospital because he got caught in the throat you’d be here saying “nothing to see here, Kelly is ok, what over-reaction”. If the Geelong doc was experienced in ENT he might’ve said your ok Patrick, no need to go to hospital. If it was a Grand Final I doubt Dangerfield would’ve even left the stadium after being assessed. If being rushed to hospital was a basis for suspension then Hawkins should’ve copped a few weeks for fracturing May’s eye socket requiring May to be… wait for it… rushed to hospital.

Your one-eyed bias refuses to see the similarities between the two incidents but if you showed both to someone unfamiliar with AFL I’m pretty certain they’d view them as identical.

All I’m wanting is consistency from the MRO.
Once you accept the MRO take into account both action and outcome, it'll frustrate you a lot less.

Plenty of people seem to struggle with it.
 

donbooger

Club Legend
Sep 27, 2007
1,757
1,595
Williamstown
AFL Club
Geelong
Once you accept the MRO take into account both action and outcome, it'll frustrate you a lot less.

Plenty of people seem to struggle with it.
Agreed, both boxes need ticking. Unlawful action leading to injury.

For example the May Hawkins one quoted, injury was severe, however the action was not unlawful.

This Selwood incident, unlawful incident perhaps, but no injury. Hawkins as well, unlawful act, no injury.

Greene Danger, injury occured as player missed rest of game. Like Selwood, unlawful act so both boxes ticked and he got a penalty.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad