The Des Headland Outburst!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • nat
    On the Rookie List
    • Oct 2006
    • 501

    Hm.. i don't understand why Headland wasn't suspended.

    The jury of Emmett Dunne, Richard Loveridge and Wayne Schimmelbusch took approximately half-an-hour to decide Headland was guilty of the two charges, but that the exceptional and compelling circumstances of provocation justified his actions.


    They are saying he was found guilty but because of the "exceptional and compelling circumstances of provocation" they aren't suspending him, but nothing that he claims was said has actually been proved..

    In the future does that mean other players can say similar things and get off? Because it would appear that way now.. if it was good enough for Des, then it's gotta be good enough for everyone.

    Comment

    • Lucky Knickers
      Fandom of Fabulousness
      • Oct 2003
      • 4220

      Right result.
      Obviously a bit of a watershed moment for the AFL in how they deal with these issues going forward. The story was a runaway train from the moment the game ended, so hard to control the fallout.

      Comment

      • Chow-Chicker
        Senior Player
        • Jun 2006
        • 1602

        Originally posted by nat
        Hm.. i don't understand why Headland wasn't suspended.





        They are saying he was found guilty but because of the "exceptional and compelling circumstances of provocation" they aren't suspending him, but nothing that he claims was said has actually been proved..

        In the future does that mean other players can say similar things and get off? Because it would appear that way now.. if it was good enough for Des, then it's gotta be good enough for everyone.
        Marvellous isn't it!

        Selwood is "innocent", but Headland was "provoked". By what?

        Comment

        • Ruda Wakening
          Survived The Meltdown
          • Aug 2003
          • 1519

          Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
          Marvellous isn't it!

          Selwood is "innocent", but Headland was "provoked". By what?
          The voices in his head.
          Sit down or i swear to God i'll have you shot.

          Comment

          • ScottH
            It's Goodes to cheer!!
            • Sep 2003
            • 23665

            Originally posted by Ruda Wakening
            The voices in his head.
            Stop stalking him then!


            Selwood is considereing legal action now to clear his name of any wrong doing.

            Comment

            • Chow-Chicker
              Senior Player
              • Jun 2006
              • 1602

              Originally posted by ScottH
              Selwood is considereing legal action now to clear his name of any wrong doing.
              Haha, that's a funny one!

              The way it reads, he is guilty of displaying "exceptional and compelling circumstances of provocation". Good luck to him. Take the matter to court. He may find that system slightly different to a tribunal where you sit around sipping a cup of tea instead of having to swear an oath of telling the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....

              Comment

              • Wardy
                The old Boiler!
                • Sep 2003
                • 6676

                Well wouldnt the fact that they let Headland off mean that Selwood was in some way guilty? Selwood admitted saying what was said, he pleaded that he didnt know that the tattoo was Headlands daughter (am I right in saying this?) but still he said it about a woman regardless of whether she was 6 or 26 so that is deemed Ok as far as the Tribunal is concerned? And surely Selwood would have known that the tattoo would have some sentimental meaning to Headland, because why else would the tattoo be there in the first place? I'm confused. Its all a bit much now - add to that the silly charge that Chick put up against Josh Carr and its all turning into a bit of a farce.
                I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure..................
                Chickens drink - but they don't pee!
                AGE IS ONLY IMPORTANT FOR TWO THINGS - WINE & CHEESE!

                Comment

                • Mr_Juicy
                  Warming the Bench
                  • Mar 2007
                  • 397

                  Originally posted by NMWBloods
                  Maybe he should just contribute to a payment to Headland - that seems to make some people here think you are innocent...
                  now who was it that was screaming hypocrisy?

                  Comment

                  • Mr_Juicy
                    Warming the Bench
                    • Mar 2007
                    • 397

                    Originally posted by Pommie Swannie
                    I understand the point you're making in regards to double standards, but probably best to leave the link between two very different allegations alone.

                    From a wider 'football perspective' I'm glad the result went the way it did. It should now be left well alone, and hopefully the sport / media can move on.

                    Of course, if he did say it, it's disappointing. But as in many aspects of life, when it comes done to 2 differing versions of an event with no witnesses, proof is extraordinarily difficult.
                    Much better understanding of what's happened.

                    Comment

                    • hammo
                      Veterans List
                      • Jul 2003
                      • 5554

                      Originally posted by Wardy
                      Its all a bit much now - add to that the silly charge that Chick put up against Josh Carr and its all turning into a bit of a farce.
                      Another disgraceful effort by the Eagles. Trevor Nisbett's running of that club is shambolic.

                      I hope the AFL fines the Eagles and Chick for wasting everyone's time.
                      "As everyone knows our style of football is defensive and unattractive, and as such I have completely forgotten how to mark or kick over the years" - Brett Kirk

                      Comment

                      • cruiser
                        What the frack!
                        • Jul 2004
                        • 6114

                        Originally posted by ScottH
                        Stop stalking him then!


                        Selwood is considereing legal action now to clear his name of any wrong doing.
                        To clear his name of what? Are Wardy and I the only ones who think that even what Selwood admits to saying is vile and reflects a very poor attitude towards women?
                        Last edited by cruiser; 19 April 2007, 09:49 AM.
                        Occupational hazards:
                        I don't eat animals since discovering this ability. I used to. But one day the lamb I was eating came through to me and ever since then I haven't been able to eat meat.
                        - animal psychic Amanda de Warren

                        Comment

                        • 573v30
                          On the bandwagon...
                          • Sep 2005
                          • 5017

                          Originally posted by hammo
                          Another disgraceful effort by the Eagles. Trevor Nisbett's running of that club is shambolic.

                          I hope the AFL fines the Eagles and Chick for wasting everyone's time.
                          Well, they are attention seekers...
                          I only support one team: The SYDNEY SWANS!!!!! :adore

                          Comment

                          • AnnieH
                            RWOs Black Sheep
                            • Aug 2006
                            • 11332

                            i'm in no way a lawyer, but, if hedland was excused as he was "provoked", shouldn't that make selwood guilty of provocation ... doesn't really matter what he said?

                            west coast criminals.
                            Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
                            Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

                            Comment

                            • sydneyswans1989
                              bleeding red and white
                              • Jun 2005
                              • 384

                              Selwood was very lucky to have gotten off, I believe he did make such comments not because I'm a sydney supporter & i hate the weagles, just because something nasty was said to Headland that made him lose it. Now Selwood believed all he said was " I was with a girl like that the other night" firstly I find that hard to believe as why would Headland get so upset over a comment like that & the fact that Umpire Wenn had said he heard Headland call Selwood a pedo.

                              So it seems to me that Umpire Wenn only heard what Headland said after the nasty comments Selwood made. FFS Headland was crying when the verdict was set out, now you can't tell Headland is putting on a show for everyone to see.

                              Selwood has gulity all over him...
                              Forget about Hall, it's all about Bradshaw

                              Comment

                              • Margie
                                Regular in the Side
                                • Sep 2003
                                • 800

                                Originally posted by cruiser
                                To clear his name of what? Are Wardy and I the only ones who think that even what Selwood admits to saying is vile and reflects a very poor attitude towards women?
                                No, I agree. Nisbett's comments that Selwood is "...an outstanding young man..." and "I am very pleased that his character is intact..." shows just how low the bar is set. Selwood obviously said something about the person depicted in the tattoo and yet it's okay if it wasn't intentionally directed at a 6 year-old girl. Bogans!

                                Comment

                                Working...