It wasnt as bad an the throws that werent paid against Selwood, or the incorrect disposal despite no prior against Vlastuin, or the non 50 against Stewart after he first knocked ball out of Dusty's hand, then refused to move back on the mark despite being asked 3 times, or the non-holding the man paid to Bolton in the forward pocket when he went to pick the ball up, but surely if someone has their head over the ball and high contact is made by an opposing player a free should be paid?
The rest were clear frees to us that were missed, and probably cost us the game.
Its even worse than that, Luke Parker got a free kick for knocking out Kamdyn. I'm still pissed off about it.
Mansell has hands on the ball but Selwood was already also going for the ball at the same time. You can"t suddenly pull out because the opponent has put hand on ball a millisecond before you. Incidental contact. Concussion is a serious issue but this incessant micro analysis these days of every single incident that causes a concussion is really frustrating to listen to. Address the issues but don't punish players for playing within the spirit of the rules. Winning the ball has always been the primary objective and under this scenario innocent clashes will happen.
- Mansell has hands on the ball
- Selwood is reaching for the ball but doesn't yet have hands on the ball
- Selwood strikes Mansell's head with his body after this still
Thanks, this picture demonstrates perfectly that Selwood's focus is 100% on the ball rather than to bump.
- Mansell has hands on the ball
- Selwood is reaching for the ball but doesn't yet have hands on the ball
- Selwood strikes Mansell's head with his body after this still
Sure, it all happened very quickly and I said from the start there is an absence of malice. But the AFL will crap on about "duty of care" when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. I don't care if Selwood plays next week or not, but let's at least demand the illusion of consistency from our overlords. Don't pretend you are about protecting the head,
Do you believe that if the same thing happens next week and e.g. Jack Ross puts Josh Kelly in a spinal unit for a month with a crook neck, that Ross isn't getting a lengthy holiday?
Doesn't matter. He hit him in the head regardless of his intention. Under the laws of the game high contact is a free kick unless the player who gets hit deliberately contributes to the contact. There is no way Mansell contributed to the high contact; you need to bend down to pick up the ball. This should have been free kick and to suggest otherwise is just being contrarian for the sake of it. I have absolutely no doubt that if the roles were reversed Selwood would have been paid a free kick.
The intent doesn't matter. I accept it was incidental or accidental but it is still high contact. It is a free kick. It's not reportable but it's a free kick; unless Mansell has contributed by deliberately ducking his head and drawing the contact which is not the case.
Agree that it was an accident and agree there should be no report or suspension but accidents still result in free kicks. I reckon its a fee kick every day or the week. Its like a fullback trying to punch the ball but punching the leading full forward in the back of the head by accident...still a free kick.
Mansell should know from his junior days not to lead with your head when approaching a contested situation. He has a responsibility to protect himself too.
- Mansell has hands on the ball
- Selwood is reaching for the ball but doesn't yet have hands on the ball
- Selwood strikes Mansell's head with his body after this still
Sure, it all happened very quickly and I said from the start there is an absence of malice. But the AFL will crap on about "duty of care" when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. I don't care if Selwood plays next week or not, but let's at least demand the illusion of consistency from our overlords. Don't pretend you are about protecting the head, you dishonest *smile*.
