Selwood a tough test for tribunal

THE AFL Tribunal will tomorrow night face one of its most serious tests since it was reformed by the AFL in 2005.

The match review panel’s decision to refer West Coast’s Adam Selwood directly to the tribunal on a charge of using insulting language, without any opportunity for an early plea, is the first matter of its kind under the new system.

How it got to the tribunal is fascinating in itself.

We know Fremantle’s Des Headland was reported for striking Selwood on Saturday.

Selwood wasn’t reported by an umpire during the match. Did Fremantle approach the AFL and complain about Selwood’s alleged sledging of Headland? That’s unlikely even in Perth where tension between the clubs is always high.

The more likely avenue for the matter to be brought to the AFL’s attention is from the umpires.

Either the umpires would have lodged a notice of investigation with the match report or an umpire would have written a letter to Adrian Anderson advising him that Headland had approached him during the match to report the alleged abuse by Selwood.

This is a serious matter.

Fremantle faces losing Headland for several weeks. The striking charge doesn’t look good.

West Coast has one of its future leaders in Selwood having his reputation tarnished by these allegations of comments he made about Headland’s six-year-old daughter – ugly stuff in anyone’s book.

Fremantle is likely to test one of the new tribunal powers in defending Headland.

The tribunal has the power “in exceptional and compelling circumstances” to substitute an alternate outcome from the prescribed points consequences of the system.

For example, if Headland is found guilty of striking Selwood but succeeds in convincing the tribunal he was provoked, it is open to the tribunal to allow Headland off without any penalty “if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so”.

What an outcome that would be. Every player would then argue provocation to justify his conduct or behaviour.

But this one sounds like an extreme case.

Lots of types of abuse are fair game on a football field for players to gain an advantage. But sometimes the line is crossed. If Selwood knew or ought to have known the tattooed image on Headland’s arm was of his daughter, then the alleged comments are so far over the line that he deserves a month off.

And the tribunal will look to impose a very stiff penalty to deter other players.

Selwood is likely to argue he had no idea the tattoo was of Headland’s daughter.

The tribunal is still faced with a very tough call.

Selwood’s alleged comments are, on any assessment, demeaning and highly derogatory towards women.

Even if they get used regularly on a football field but never see the light of a tribunal room, they will be regarded as very offensive by many female football followers.

The AFL and players’ association are serious about raising issues of respect for women among players. This will be a huge early test on this issue and the tribunal might just make an example of Selwood (if he is found to have made the alleged comments) for purposes of a greater good in AFL football.

Whichever way this matter plays out, footy is likely to be a little different after tonight.