One of the proudest records that Freo had prior to this game was having beaten West Coast in their last 5 meetings, covering the period when West Coast had managed to win the 2006 premiership. Of course, one of those wins was an exhibition game in London, and two of them were pre-season cup games, but even so, beating the Eagles twice in the regular season during their premiership year was something to be proud of.

In terms of the game itself, Freo got beaten fair and square. There was no free to air coverage of the game here in Melbourne, so I didn't see it. I was able to listen to it online, but the only coverage I could find was from 6PR, so I didn't actually get to hear how Freo went, only that West Coast were beating their opponents.

The main interest came after the game, and thats what this page will be about. If you don't want to hear my opinions about Des Headland and Adam Selwood, I suggest you look away now.

Here is what is not disputed: In the third quarter of the match, Des Headland was reported after getting into a scuffle with Adam Selwood. According to Umpire Wenn, Headland said to Selwood "don't talk about my six-year-old daughter like that" during the incident, but did not raise any complaint about Selwood's provocation when he was reported. Headland was dragged from the ground, and was clearly unhappy. While on the bench he told Peter Bell that Selwood had called his (Headland's) daughter a slut. At the end of the match, Headland shook the hand of other West Coast players, but had to be restrained from attacking Selwood after Selwood appeared to say something to him.

Pretty much everything else is in dispute. Headland claims that Selwood saw a tattoo on Headland's arm dedicated to his daughter and said that he had "f...ed her last night" (except Selwood filled in the blanks. Headland told Selwood that he was referring to his 6 year old daughter, and Selwood responded by repeating his claim to have f...ed her and said that she was a slut. Selwood's claim is that he never used the F word, didn't call anyone a slut, and only claimed to have been "with" someone "like" the girl on Headland's arm, who, by the way, he never knew was Headland's daughter.

The match committee charged Healdnad with two counts of striking and offered him a 5 week suspension (6 if contested). Fremantle announced that it would be contested, and lodged a complaint against Selwood over his comments. West Coast, on behalf of Daniel Chick lodged a complaint against Josh Carr for striking Chick in the first quarter.

When it all went to the tribunal, evcerybody got off, in one sense or another. Selwood and Carr were found not guilty, while Headland was found guilty, but had his suspension waived because he was found to have suffered extreme provocation.

Here are a couple of common misconceptions about the tribunal finding that I would like to address. I have heard these repeated in parts of the media who I thought should know better, so no doubt they are commonly held beliefs.

• Selwood was found not guilty, therefore the tribunal believed him ahead of Headland - No. Selwood was presumed innocent until he could be proved guilty. Headland's allegations weren't proof, and the other evidence was only evidence of what Headland thought Selwood had said, not of what he actually said. Headland was not proved to be a liar by this finding.
• It is inconsistent to find Selwood not guilty, and that Headland was provoked - Selwood was guilty only if it could be proved that he said (more or less) what Headland claimed he said. That couldn't be proved. What could be proved was that Headland was provoked by what he clearly believed was said to him. Whether that was what Selwood actually said or not doesn't need to be proved for that (though obviously it would help Headland's credibility if it was proved).
• Headland escaped a 6 week suspension by pleading provocation - Headland faced a total of 6 weeks suspension for two charges of striking. He was found not guilty on one of those charges, so whether he was provoked or not was completely irrelevant to at least half of his potential sentence. On the other charge he was found guilty, but not suspended. So at most, his penalty was reduced by 3 weeks, not 6.

My personal opinion is that Selwood said something pretty close to what Headland claims he did. Certainly not the sanitised version he presented to the tribunal. Where I am prepared to give him some benefit of the doubt is that he probably didn't realise at the time he was talking about a 6 year old, and that if Headland called him on it, Selwood was probably not in a mood to listen too closely to a guy who was thumping him at the time. I do not believe that he made any attempt to apologise - Headland's reaction after the game looked to me like Selwood was attempting to provoke him further, not make up apologise for an innocent mistake.

Oh, and just a final comment from me. Whatever Selwood said to him, I still think Headland deserved to be suspended. There's no doubt that he resorted to physical violence in response to something that was said, and I don't think that's ever justified.

Final Score : West Coast 14.17-101 beat Fremantle 11.4-70

© 2006 timnfromoz timnfromoz@hotmail.com

Return to TimN's Home Page