Geelong are set to take captain Joel Selwood’s one-game striking suspension to the AFL tribunal.
Cats coach Chris Scott is shocked at Selwood’s charge and said he would take a lot of convincing not to back a tribunal challenge.
Scott told AFL360 he was proud of the restraint Selwood showed after a bump from Thomas concussed his brother Scott.
Match reviewer Michael Christian has already referred Port Adelaide small forward Lindsay Thomas and Hawthorn defender James Sicily to Tuesday night’s tribunal.
Thomas faces a suspension of three to four weeks for rough conduct, after he ironed out Selwood’s brother Scott with a bump.
Immediately after that incident on Saturday night at Adelaide Oval, the Cats captain remonstrated with Thomas.
Joel Selwood and Thomas face one-game bans for striking each other in that scuffle.
“I’m shocked … our decision makers need to take the time to really dissect the vision,” Scott said.
“I can’t say I’m any less surprised, having looked at the vision.
“As a football person, you look at it – independent of the fact that his brother’s just been knocked out – and think ‘is that worth a week?’
“That’s the question on my mind.”
Under the new tribunal system, Geelong also do no risk an extra week’s penalty by challenging the one-game ban for Selwood.
“I can’t absolutely declare that we will challenge it,” he said.
“But those smart people (at Geelong) would have to do a really good job of convincing me that I should roll over on it.”
Scott and his twin brother Brad were a formidable duo in Brisbane’s three-peat premiership team of 2001-03.
The Cats coach said he would not have been as restrained as Selwood if that bump had happened to Brad.
“I am proud of him – I played with my brother as well and if I saw that, I’m not sure I would have been as controlled,” Scott said.
“He (Joel) honestly believes he didn’t make any contact all – he grabbed his jumper and he had to remonstrate.
“His blood would have been boiling.”
Maggie
Guest
Lol at Selwood’s defence at Tribunal - “please sir, he made me do it”! No one except me seems concerned about Thomas’s head bouncing off the ground as it wasn’t mentioned. I agree without that being seen as an issue, the punch itself was not of sufficient strength to warrant a suspension. So Selwood free, smart decision by Geelong to challenge.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
either
Cat
Roar Guru
Thomas or Selwood?
Cat
Roar Guru
So give us your examples where there has been inconsistency this year ...
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
That's 'cause there wasn't one!
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I can't see the punch?
anon
Roar Pro
Last year there was at least an element of consistency and objectivity. You might not have agreed with the punishment, but it was explainable and they were logical outcomes. Now punishment is decided by Christian seemingly on a whim and whether he has an agenda (making a statement by not punishing an old fashioned shirt front).
Birdman
Guest
Actually Christian has been miles more consistent than the previous MRP system, it's just lots of the footy public and (more shamefully) the media seem to be stuck in the old paradigm. Let's face it no-one will get universal praise on the MRO outcomes - consistency is the key.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Can I also add, the head as a no go zone was the retaliation strike from Thomas while he was on the ground (again minimal force) also having been reported and given a one match ban. At least they are being consistent.
anon
Roar Pro
A precedent was set last year where a jumper punch was punished with a one week suspension. This is a "double jumper punch". Get these cheap shots out of the game. Michael Christian has been nothing short of a disaster and embarrassment.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Whether it's a shove, strike whatever, the fact remain the same, it has potential for injury (the head is a no go area) and Selwoods acted caused Thomas head to come into contact with the ground. Pretty simple. The AFL is serious about contact with the head, this is a week off.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
While provocation has certainly contributed, the act itself is quite dangerous. I see a bit force debate, but as we've seen some people only have to be touched to be injured knocked out, while others (Danger and Hartlett have head like Granite) the force has to be significant. The AFL should be looking at the potential to injury rather than reactive from injury with the result. The act was dangerous, Selwood should get a week.
Cat
Roar Guru
You don't punch with two hands at the same time. Its a shove.
Maggie
Guest
Two handfuls of jumper - precisely, it was a jumper punch. Which because Thomas was lying on the ground caused Thomas’s head to thump into the ground.
Birdman
Guest
it's a real worry :)
Cat
Roar Guru
I agree with you on Burton and you agree with me on Selwood. The apocalypse is surely upon us then.
Birdman
Guest
I agree with Cat, Selwood should be cleared if the Cats appeal - Thomas is vulnerable but the force is negligible so only worth a fine IMHO.
Cat
Roar Guru
What punch? I've watched it a couple times all I see is Selwood grab two handfuls of jumper and push Thomas down. Didn't look like much force in it at all. Thomas definitely took a swing at Joel Selwood though. No one, including Chris Scott, is 'promoting retaliatory actions' but to expect team mates not to have issues when one is taken out by a dirty play is just head in the sand stuff. Doesn't matter what the 'AFL likes or dislikes', it matters what the actual rules are.
Mattyb
Guest
Selwood unfortunately deserves a week. The Scott twins are fascinating football people. I seem to spend one third of the time thinking they're football geniuses,a third cringing at how biased and simple they are and a third laughing at their entertainment value for tv.
Maggie
Guest
It will be interesting to see what the Tribunal determine if Geelong do appeal. Thomas was lying on his back and Selwood’s punch caused Thomas’s head to be driven into the ground which is quite dangerous. Lachie Hunter got a one match suspension for bouncing Tom Papley’s head into the ground earlier this season. I would have thought Joel Selwood should get the same. And I don’t think Chris Scott’s comments are appropriate or helpful. A coach promoting retaliatory actions on the field is not something I would expect the AFL would like.