In Australian Football League, West Australian teams Fremantle and West Coast have long been bitter rivals, and any meeting of two teams on field is heated, spiteful and frequently violent. Their clash during April 2007 'rivalry round' was no exception, but controversy surrounding game was unprecedented. Following match, Fremantle player Des Headland accused West Coast's Adam Selwood of pointing at a tattoo of Headland's six-year-old daughter and saying 1 fucked her last night'; when Headland exclaimed that image was of his daughter Selwood allegedly replied, 'yeah, she's a slut'. Headland became enraged and twice punched Selwood during match. Selwood was charged with using insulting language by Australian Football League tribunal,1 and Headland faced two charges of striking2 and one of wrestling Selwood.3 The tribunal's standard procedure is to offer a penalty less than proven charge would merit if a player pleads guilty without case being heard at tribunal.4 Headland's striking charges drew a six-game suspension and he was offered a reduced penalty of five games' suspension if he pleaded guilty. In a move unprecedented since introduction of current tribunal system in 2005, Selwood was not offered a reduced penalty; in fact, it was never stated what penalty he may have faced had tribunal found him guilty of charge. In his defence, Selwood claimed that Headland had misunderstood his words, and that he had said, pointing to tattoo, 'What's that shit? I was with a girl like that other night'. He also claimed that he was unaware tattoo was of Headland's daughter. In a move described by media iMzarre',5 'extraordinary'6 and 'amazing'7 Australian Football League (AFL) simultaneously found charge against Selwood to be 'not sustained', whilst finding Headland guilty of one striking charge but imposing no penalty on grounds that he was provoked by Selwood. Headland also remained eligible for 2007 Brownlow Medal.8 Although AFL football operations general manager Adrian Anderson claimed that 'it is quite open for a jury to find that very serious comments alleged by Headland were not proven, but at same time to find that something was said, or believed by Headland to have been said, to cause him to lose control',9 most commentators believed that findings were contradictory. Despite having previously ruled that Headland's version was 'not proven', jury was 'instructed to accept as Headland's version of events'.10 Therefore, in Headland hearing, tribunal jury was expected to accept proven something they had previously ruled was not proven. Whilst tribunal's ruling is clearly contradictory, way in which cases were handled appears to allow only one possible outcome, one which protects game's image. Football journalist Mike Sheahan writes that 'some of us who sat through hearing, left in no tribunal had applied principle of reasonable doubt rather than the balance of probabilities stated in tribunal guidelines'.11 A boundary-rider (former West Coast player Drew Banfield), an umpire and Fremantle captain Peter Bell all corroborated elements of Headland's version; however, without witnesses to precisely what Selwood said a finding of guilt beyond reasonable would be virtually impossible. If jury must accept fact that Selwood called Headland's daughter a slut, saying that he 'fucked her', it seems fairly clear that this constitutes 'exceptional and compelling circumstances' which amount to extreme provocation under AFL tribunal rules.12 And, Humphery-Smith says, The matter will now just go away. There is no prospect of an appeal because all parties will be satisfied with outcome in terms of how it affects them'.13 This outcome is only one where matter could 'just go away'; had Headland been suspended he is likely to have appealed decision, prolonging debate and negative publicity for AFL. …