Selwood on Josh Kelly - how many?

[LeverPuller]

Spitting image of the Greene fend off on Danger from a few weeks back.

Greene got ruled careless, high contact and medium impact, giving him a week.

 

[Devastating Boris]

Be nice but he probably gets off. Greene sent Danger to hospital.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

From the AFL "Greene on Dangerfield" a month ago.

Absolute farce.
And they dug even deeper today: the exact words used by the AFL

"Greene starts to shape his body in a way that shows great skill and anticipation; he's shaping to meet Dangerfield with the right side of his body. Nothing wrong with that. But he actually starts to shape his arm almost in preparation for what comes next; he gathers the ball in his left hand and then up (his right arm goes). This is a technique that was careless; it wasn't reflexive, nor did a player sneak up on him from a side. Many players flinch or brace and raise an elbow, that's not this case.
The essence of carelessness is there was a risk. He's moving in a way you cannot control but may deviate by centimetres, tens of centimetres, but you know he's going low. Those things tell you as a prudent player you can't raise your elbow because if I do, I might make contact with his neck, chin, jaw, face, eye socket. At that speed in which the contest is engaged, it need only take a few millimetres movement either way for the point of impact to change quite appreciably. That's why it's careless. The simple point is: don't engage in that contest with a raised elbow. The jury found he chose to engage in a contest with a raised elbow."

Now replace "Greene" with "Selwood", "Dangerfield" with "Kelly".

Selwood. One week.
If not, they confirm the pro-Geelong, anti-Greene bias.

 

[Sttew]

From the AFL "Greene on Dangerfield" a month ago.


Now replace "Greene" with "Selwood", "Dangerfield" with "Kelly".

Selwood. One week.
If not, they confirm the pro-Geelong, anti-Greene bias.

Grow up

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Grow up

Great analytical insight from you there.

 

[Dancing Dougy]

Remarkably similar action. Outcome different however, which seemingly is all the AFL care about. Due to that, I doubt it’ll even be sited.

But yet another, almost weekly example of Selwood’s grubby behaviour. Playing dirty is so ingrained in Selwood.

 

[Sttew]

Great analytical insight from you there.

That’s all your post deserves. Dangerfield was subbed out and went to hospital. The GWS guy got a free and was unscathed.

 

[Sttew]

Remarkably similar action. Outcome different however, which seemingly is all the AFL care about. Due to that, I doubt it’ll even be sited.

Or cited

 

[Blackhawk42]

Danger played the following week. The 'went to hospital' narrative didn't hold up for mine.

Should absolutely be a week if all things are fair. But considering what Selwood got away with in the same game that Greene was suspended in means the outcome here will likely be 'no case to answer'.

 

[theyellowsash]

Selwood discount, won't even be mentioned

 

[Dancing Dougy]

Or cited

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Should Selwood have copped bans for previous things he’s done this year? Yes

For that fend off? Not at all.

It’s a slight tap on the neck which happens all the time. Free kick was paid and end of story.

Just because he’s got off lightly before doesn’t mean you hang him for things that aren’t there.

 

[The 747]

When Joel finally retires this place is going to be lost for someone to mindlessly hate on.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

None. Soft thread.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Spitting image of the Greene fend off on Danger from a few weeks back.

Greene got ruled careless, high contact and medium impact, giving him a week.

Selwood's was a fend, Greene's was a charge toward Danger.

If you can't see that, delete yr bigfooty account.

Oh, Dees supporter, * me dead.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

That’s all your post deserves. Dangerfield was subbed out and went to hospital. The GWS guy got a free and was unscathed.

Is it the action or the injury that is the important issue?

Because I'm seeing about 50% of each this year and it seems awfully like it depends on who's involved.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Selwood's was a fend, Greene's was a charge toward Danger.

If you can't see that, delete yr bigfooty account.

Oh, Dees supporter, fu** me dead.

Greene was a player charging to the ball and got there first, with Dangerfield slipping as he tried to stop realising he wasn't getting there first.
Remarkably like Selwood.

If you can't see that.... well, you obviously know what to do.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It’s Selwood

They got the Toby Tax last week to be seen to actually be enforcing things…

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Greene was a player charging to the ball and got there first, with Dangerfield slipping as he tried to stop realising he wasn't getting there first.
Remarkably like Selwood.

If you can't see that.... well, you obviously know what to do.

Nah.

In addition, Selwood's fend hit the arm and slid up to the neck. Greene's was bang on target and deliberate.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Nah.

In addition, Selwood's fend hit the arm and slid up to the neck. Greene's was bang on target and deliberate.

I know he won't get charged, because Joel Selwood. If Greene had been treated fairly, I might even agree with you. But its the double standard that's at play.

AFL's own words on some actions, bolded is my emphasis
"The essence of carelessness is there was a risk. He's moving in a way you cannot control but may deviate by centimetres, tens of centimetres, but you know he's going low. Those things tell you as a prudent player you can't raise your elbow because if I do, I might make contact with his neck, chin, jaw, face, eye socket. At that speed in which the contest is engaged, it need only take a few millimetres movement either way for the point of impact to change quite appreciably. That's why it's careless. The simple point is: don't engage in that contest with a raised elbow. The jury found he chose to engage in a contest with a raised elbow." "

 

[Patronus]

Danger played the following week. The 'went to hospital' narrative didn't hold up for mine.

Should absolutely be a week if all things are fair. But considering what Selwood got away with in the same game that Greene was suspended in means the outcome here will likely be 'no case to answer'.

I have massive trouble trying to follow this type of narrative about Dangefeild.

Yeah Geelong played 3 1/2 quarters without their best midfielder just to stitch up Green and GWS and get him suspended for games that don’t effect Geelong.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I know he won't get charged, because Joel Selwood. If Greene had been treated fairly, I might even agree with you. But its the double standard that's at play.

AFL's own words on some actions, bolded is my emphasis
"The essence of carelessness is there was a risk. He's moving in a way you cannot control but may deviate by centimetres, tens of centimetres, but you know he's going low. Those things tell you as a prudent player you can't raise your elbow because if I do, I might make contact with his neck, chin, jaw, face, eye socket. At that speed in which the contest is engaged, it need only take a few millimetres movement either way for the point of impact to change quite appreciably. That's why it's careless. The simple point is: don't engage in that contest with a raised elbow. The jury found he chose to engage in a contest with a raised elbow." "

I repeat - Joel is stationary, Greene is charging. Completely different events, sorry.

I still actually think Greene's was completely deliberate, and despite this Greene persecution bullshit, he actually gets let off very lightly for the most part.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Danger played the following week. The 'went to hospital' narrative didn't hold up for mine.

Which would be cool if the MRO could hold all verdicts to after the following round of games to assess the impact.

Greene got 'medium' and was bloody lucky.

No/minimal reaction = 'insufficient force' (see Selwood/Kelly)
Briefly dazed/stunned (for a few seconds), then fine = low impact
Obviously hurt by the hit, taken from the ground for assessment, but ultimately ok = medium impact
Taken from the ground for assessment and ruled out of the game = high impact
Time on the sidelines in subsequent rounds = severe impact.

I'm the type of supporter who screams at Tom Hawkins when he gave away the 50m last night because if he slightly caught the GWS player the wrong way, he's risking a suspension. Same as Selwood leading with the elbow for a fend off... you're treading on thin ice and if the opponent is hurt, you're in strife. Although the contact was much slighter, Hawkins' was worse because there was just no reason to do it. But ultimately the GWS players weren't even slightly hurt by those incidents, so move right along. I'd be surprised if they even looked at Selwood's

If Dangerfield hadn't been taken from the ground, Greene wouldn't have been suspended. That's how it works. And it's a mystery that a) the Greene hit on Dangerfield was re-assessed to 'medium'; and b) people are still whinging that he was treated harshly.

Not many certainties in life, especially at the moment, but one thing you can be sure if is that if Selwood had done a similar hit to Greene's on Dangerfield and Greene had done a similar hit to Selwood's on Kelly, several people in this (joke of a) thread would have been demanding 6-8 for Selwood and ridiculing the creation of a thread for Greene (as this thread should be).

Greene's two recent suspensions have amounted to four weeks on the sidelines and he could easily have received double that. Yet somehow he's unfairly persecuted. It's mind boggling.

How's Dane Swan's riot going?

 

[Blackhawk42]

Which would be cool if the MRO could hold all verdicts to after the following round of games to assess the impact.

Greene got 'medium' and was bloody lucky.

No/minimal reaction = 'insufficient force' (see Selwood/Kelly)
Briefly dazed/stunned (for a few seconds), then fine = low impact
Obviously hurt by the hit, taken from the ground for assessment, but ultimately ok = medium impact
Taken from the ground for assessment and ruled out of the game = high impact
Time on the sidelines in subsequent rounds = severe impact.

I'm the type of supporter who screams at Tom Hawkins when he gave away the 50m last night because if he slightly caught the GWS player the wrong way, he's risking a suspension. Same as Selwood leading with the elbow for a fend off... you're treading on thin ice and if the opponent is hurt, you're in strife. Although the contact was much slighter, Hawkins' was worse because there was just no reason to do it. But ultimately the GWS players weren't even slightly hurt by those incidents, so move right along. I'd be surprised if they even looked at Selwood's

If Dangerfield hadn't been taken from the ground, Greene wouldn't have been suspended. That's how it works. And it's a mystery that a) the Greene hit on Dangerfield was re-assessed to 'medium'; and b) people are still whinging that he was treated harshly.

Not many certainties in life, especially at the moment, but one thing you can be sure if is that if Selwood had done a similar hit to Greene's on Dangerfield and Greene had done a similar hit to Selwood's on Kelly, several people in this (joke of a) thread would have been demanding 6-8 for Selwood and ridiculing the creation of a thread for Greene (as this thread should be).

Greene's two recent suspensions have amounted to four weeks on the sidelines and he could easily have received double that. Yet somehow he's unfairly persecuted. It's mind boggling.

How's Dane Swan's riot going?

Should have gotten 6 weeks for the umpire bump.

Should have been cleared for the fend off.

 

[Matera92]

Don't understand players attempting this fendoff so high, it's a low reward, high risk technique.