Selwood elbow to the back of Mitchell

Remove this Banner Ad

romeohwho said:
Think you are exaggerating the incident but am happy as long as you say the same thing when Fyfe whacks people.
Click to expand...
I did, previously ;)
The thing is, as we mature we learn to take the rose-coloured glasses off......Fyfe, Neale, anyone really and I would have said what I said about this incident...
 
kingswood71 said:
I did, previously ;)
The thing is, as we mature we learn to take the rose-coloured glasses off......Fyfe, Neale, anyone really and I would have said what I said about this incident...
Click to expand...
Well, that's something -good on you. Of course a greater sign of maturity is keeping perspective and not overreacting to an incident, that if viewed in real time-the time he had, is actually not that big a deal. People would benefit from keeping a bit calmer about Selwood instead of always looking at him through the most negative of glasses.
 
Will be amassive * next to his name if he wins the Brownlow this year.

Though I doubt he'll win anyway. He wouldn't even be the favourite from his own club.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

kingswood71 said:
I think we all understand that it was intentional, but was graded as careless as there was enough "doubt" because of the trip....
I think everyone just needs to look at it from a perspective of "is this something we really want to keep in the game"?
Ask yourself: If that was your 12 year old son copping that treatment during his game on the weekend, would you be happy with it??....Because thats what happens...Kids see that and think that its okay to drop a forearm into another kids head....as long as its in the act of falling or made to appear to be.
Click to expand...

Yes kid mimic everything after all. Better ban all tv shows, video games and turn afl into touch footy.
 
Clout Bombers said:
Yes kid mimic everything after all. Better ban all tv shows, video games and turn afl into touch footy.
Click to expand...
I think you kinda missed the point....Children of a certain age develop an ability to distinguish real from fantasy, so (all things been equal) a child with this discriminatory ability can watch a bit of violence on TV and say to themselves "he is not really shot, he is an actor, its not real". My point in the original post was that the AFL has basically legitimized this real action. Did he really hit him in the head? Yes. Did they say that it was accidental/careless? Yes.
In addition, TV shows, video games etc have ratings on them. Ban all TV shows??...Why are all of them violent?? Ban video games?? Why?...there are many non-violent age-appropriate ones. If your 6 year old kid is playing R rated video games, thats your fault, not the games....
Just to add, you should perhaps google all the research that has been done into the early exposure of kids to violence and the subsequent development of aggressive tendencies.
 
ReservoirDog said:
You don't see a conflict of interest in that? I assume they recuse themselves in those situations but if not they all should.
Click to expand...
Actually I don't have an issue with it. If an ex Carlton player is on the panel assessing a current Carlton player etc -I am not fussed. I have trust that they are professionals who understood the nature of the job when they signed on. And that means being impartial and fair and being diligent. And as far as I can see they do conduct themselves in a professional manner. It would be a pretty poor and paranoid world if that can't happen.
 
kingswood71 said:
I think you kinda missed the point....Children of a certain age develop an ability to distinguish real from fantasy, so (all things been equal) a child with this discriminatory ability can watch a bit of violence on TV and say to themselves "he is not really shot, he is an actor, its not real". My point in the original post was that the AFL has basically legitimized this real action. Did he really hit him in the head? Yes. Did they say that it was accidental/careless? Yes.
In addition, TV shows, video games etc have ratings on them. Ban all TV shows??...Why are all of them violent?? Ban video games?? Why?...there are many non-violent age-appropriate ones. If your 6 year old kid is playing R rated video games, thats your fault, not the games....
Just to add, you should perhaps google all the research that has been done into the early exposure of kids to violence and the subsequent development of aggressive tendencies.
Click to expand...
Kids are not stupid and I suspect most of them can see Selwood tripped and that was a contributing factor. Just by the way in all the years of my son playing junior footy and beyond, I have seen worse stuff in the local comps than the afl. Just playing a tough, contact sport. They have no need of mimicking the big league and think you are drawing a long bow.
 
I'm actually a biomechanic* and can categorically say that yes, you do brace for impact with your forearm. Those saying you don't, need another angle to attack from because it is a complete fallacy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

romeohwho said:
Anyway only so much head banging one can do, so leaving this now.
Will just say as last word-given the MRP only handed this a fine, that means all you blood -bayers are either:

Wrong :)
Buying into a conspiracy theory.:rolleyes:
A hawthorn nutjob ;)

So which one of these options are you?
Click to expand...

You forgot option d. All of the above
 
hawkman said:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl...e-afl-match-review-panel-20170620-gwuvf4.html

Strange the article goes through all the big decisions of the week except the Selwood one
Click to expand...
No matter. afl.com.au covered it.

And on the panel moves to the Selwood-Mitchell matter.

The vision rolls from several different angles for the five panel members with 1143 games experience between them.

As one panel member said after watching the incident several times: "One angle is bad; the other one tells the real story."

The camera angle the panel determined showed the real story was slowed down and showed Selwood's palms being the first point of contact into the top of Mitchell's back after he tripped over his feet.

It is more illuminating than the broadcast vision most punters watched in the three days before judgment was passed.

"He (Selwood) was always going to land in the middle of his back. The first action is hands on the middle of his back and then he makes him earn it," a panel member said.

At the MRP's discretion, the action is changed from striking to rough conduct.

Further viewing creates more debate, as the MRP was clearly uncomfortable with Selwood's action.

"It's not a good action, let's be honest," a panel member said.

The debate must, however, centre around whether the act was intentional or careless, rather than whether it was good or bad.

"He is a talented enough sportsperson to be able to fall in a different manner that doesn't do that," a panel member said.

"But does that make it intentional?"

Selwood tripped over Mitchell's feet, so it could not be argued he intended to commit a reportable offence. Therefore, the Cats' skipper was given the benefit of the doubt.

His action was graded as careless, high and low impact. Mitchell played on and left the ground soon afterwards due to the blood rule, but it was unclear how the cut was caused.
 
Doctor Gero said:
No matter. afl.com.au covered it.

And on the panel moves to the Selwood-Mitchell matter.

The vision rolls from several different angles for the five panel members with 1143 games experience between them.

As one panel member said after watching the incident several times: "One angle is bad; the other one tells the real story."

The camera angle the panel determined showed the real story was slowed down and showed Selwood's palms being the first point of contact into the top of Mitchell's back after he tripped over his feet.

It is more illuminating than the broadcast vision most punters watched in the three days before judgment was passed.

"He (Selwood) was always going to land in the middle of his back. The first action is hands on the middle of his back and then he makes him earn it," a panel member said.

At the MRP's discretion, the action is changed from striking to rough conduct.

Further viewing creates more debate, as the MRP was clearly uncomfortable with Selwood's action.

"It's not a good action, let's be honest," a panel member said.

The debate must, however, centre around whether the act was intentional or careless, rather than whether it was good or bad.

"He is a talented enough sportsperson to be able to fall in a different manner that doesn't do that," a panel member said.

"But does that make it intentional?"

Selwood tripped over Mitchell's feet, so it could not be argued he intended to commit a reportable offence. Therefore, the Cats' skipper was given the benefit of the doubt.

His action was graded as careless, high and low impact. Mitchell played on and left the ground soon afterwards due to the blood rule, but it was unclear how the cut was caused.
Click to expand...
That was more interesting than any of the cases that Sam McClure wrote about. You get the feeling they would have liked to have given a week for it but were kind of bound by the guidelines that he would only get a fine
 
hawkman said:
That was more interesting than any of the cases that Sam McClure wrote about. You get the feeling they would have liked to have given a week for it but were kind of bound by the guidelines that he would only get a fine
Click to expand...
Same could apply to Riewoldt. Get the feeling they'd want a week for it for the look it creates but body punches are fines as it's bloody hard to get medium impact for a shot to the body.

It's merely the surname that's extended this to 16 pages and I think it boils down to one simple thing. Unless we're going to jump the shark and assume no trip that he still chooses to cannon into his head regardless then logic dictates that the incident does not occur without the preceding trip. No trip = no elbow to head. So did he intend to trip/fall. That right there removes any possibility under the chart to an intentional grading. Funnily enough under the old system he'd have copped a week as there was an intermediate grading of reckless (2 down to 1 here).
 
cryptor said:
Mysterious footage from an angle no one in the public gets to see saves the day! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well it's interesting that with all the technology available to the AFL a hawks supporter with a remote control, a bucket of tears Mitch Thorpe koolaid, and zero AFL games can come to a more defined view of it.
 
Why is it that Geelong supporters always assume everyone else is crying at every little thing?

Seems like they're projecting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kreuuuzeurns
MRP / Trib. Pickett elbow on Soligo
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
170
Views
5K
sobrave
sobrave
matthew_s
Dusty elbowing
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Back One Out
Back One Out
danster168
Tom Mitchell staging
Replies
11
Views
810
Xtreme
Xtreme
flyinghi64
Diving forward to get a free for in the back
Replies
8
Views
774
The Hobo
The Hobo
MickG88
Elbowing
Replies
23
Views
1K
smeltitdeltit
smeltitdeltit
D
Score review and ball coming back into play.
Replies
1
Views
550
Randomizor
Randomizor
grimface_87
Back to the 9
Replies
18
Views
1K
Maze
M

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top