Opinion Andrew Gaff's hit - should we introduce a red card system?

[CFC2010]

Your above set of red cards includes Cameron which was in a contest?

I watched Cameron's live on TV and contest or not that was unnecessary...…….he could have killed the kid.

Duty of care on his part was non existent.

How many weeks did he get again?

 

[Anzacday]

Poll added

 

[Saintly Viewed]

No.


Because just like the technology used for score reviews, it stops being about the howlers and becomes the arbiter in minute finger nail touches et al.

If you had a red card it would turn into as much a circus as the score review.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I’d be more keen on a poll Anzacday with

Should a red card be introduced

Yes

No

I’m in the no camp

 

[CFC2010]

Poll added

Should be able to choose more than one Anzacday

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Cards only to be used for the blatant ones. To our credit our code has not seen many of those incidents.

Tend to agree there.. but how would you treat that hit on Higgins from North?

That's where it gets grey. And the amt of time to assess incidents like that.. well what are we looking at mins and mins of our time delayed trying to figure out whether it warrants a red card or not.

And what are we actually doing here.. creating a rule for gaff Barry Hall type incidents.. that shit that happens once a blue moon.

The crux of the whole thing is this.. the rules are always changing.. never stable.. probably the only sport that changes its rules so regularly.. and there's still so much to sort out.. get the rules right on the other hand.. and I might be all for a red card system.

 

[Anzacday]

I’d be more keen on a poll Anzacday with

Should a red card be introduced

Yes

No

I’m in the no camp

Ideally I'd have 3 polls; yes/no, who issues it and what constitutes it.
Unfortunately I can't so I had to pick one and the rest can be discussed.

 

[Anzacday]

Should be able to choose more than one Anzacday

Fixed

 

[sideswipe]

I watched Cameron's live on TV and contest or not that was unnecessary...…….he could have killed the kid.

Duty of care on his part was non existent.

How many weeks did he get again?

Not arguing that Cameron's wasn't a shocker - just exploring how the system might work. Cameron was late, but it was still linked to that marking contest. And once they are included, you are on a prickly path. If Cameron's is a red card, then I can't see where the line can be effectively drawn between that and any illegal contact in a marking contest that results in a player missing the rest of a game?

 

[CFC2010]

Tend to agree there.. but how would you treat that hit on Higgins from North?

That's where it gets grey.

And what are we actually doing here.. creating a rule for gaff Barry Hall type incidents.. that shit that happens once a blue moon.

I had no issue with the Higgins one to be honest...….AFL saw it the same way.

What if that Blue Moon is a Grand Final Levendi against our team?

 

[CFC2010]

Not arguing that Cameron's wasn't a shocker - just exploring how the system might work. Cameron was late, but it was still linked to that marking contest. And once they are included, you are on a prickly path. If Cameron's is a red card, then I can't see where the line can be effectively drawn between that and any illegal contact in a marking contest that results in a player missing the rest of a game?

An elbow to someone's face running at full pace is not grey in my books.

Cloke knocking out Edwards in the 2002 Prelim is a grey area and I wouldn't include that.

I get your concern about the grey area and opening pandora's box but the obvious ones are obvious IMO...….like GAFF and CAMERON.

 

[CFC2010]

Just on the Gaff hysteria is Neville Bruns serious asking for a 12 month suspension??

It was a brain fade......Gaff doesn't have priors.

It will happen again in our sport guaranteed...…...suspending him 8 or 15 weeks will not change that.

 

[Mooresome]

Also have a yellow card for hitting richmond players ,where if you hit any player its a yellow card but if you then hit cotchin or martin in the same quarter
cards removed and all is good again.

 

[sideswipe]

An elbow to someone's face running at full pace is not grey in my books.

Cloke knocking out Edwards in the 2002 Prelim is a grey area and I wouldn't include that.

I get your concern about the grey area and opening pandora's box but the obvious ones are obvious IMO...….like GAFF and CAMERON.

OK, now we have a grey area. Just need an adequate piece of wording around the prohibited contact that will guide the eye in the sky please? And I don't think that is feasible unless you remove Cameron/Cloke (not forgetting Cameron Cloke in 02) marking contests completely from red card consideration.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Just of the Gaff hysteria is Neville Bruns serious asking for a 12 month suspension??

It was a brain fade......Gaff doesn't have priors.

It will happen again in our sport guaranteed...…...suspending him 8 or 15 weeks will not change that.

As someone said yesterday "The number of weeks Gaff get's has to start with a 1"
I kind of think it might be 10

 

[CFC2010]

OK, now we have a grey area. Just need an adequate piece of wording around the prohibited contact that will guide the eye in the sky please? And I don't think that is feasible unless you remove Cameron/Cloke (not forgetting Cameron Cloke in 02) marking contests completely from red card consideration.

Adjudicated our sport is a grey area IMO...….lets let the legal eagles dot the I's and cross the T's.

They main thing for me is the need for the aggressor (Gaff) to get punished IN game. They shouldn't get an advantage for such an act.

 

[sideswipe]

As someone said yesterday "The number of weeks Gaff get's has to start with a 1"
I kind of think it might be 10

Think you might be about right. Taking it a step further, if the Tribunal decides to set a really big number, say 12 weeks, there might be thoughts around an appeal against such a large number. But West Coast might say to Gaff, mate if you are about to go, we aren't going to appeal, but if you are sticking around we appeal. A little far-fetched as Gaff/West Coast will probably want to be seen to be copping their right whack, but you never know if the sentence is big enough...

 

[ZEV]

Let's be realistic here, the umpiring and AFL systems are still incapable of determining whether or not a ball hit a post.... with 40,000 people watching. What chance have they got of getting red cards right based on grainy down the ground footage....

 

[Cold Sober]

Bring in a red card and we'll have 'Rance Diving Schools' opening all over the place.
Go back to an eye for an eye.

 

[sideswipe]

Adjudicated our sport is a grey area IMO...….lets let the legal eagles dot the I's and cross the T's.

They main thing for me is the need for the aggressor (Gaff) to get punished IN game. They shouldn't get an advantage for such an act.

That sounds fair enough, but if you are proposing a rule, there needs to be a rule, a line of demarcation between red card and non-red card offences.

If that line is drawn at out of play incidents, then so be it. But Cameron gets to stay on and kick his 3 goals against Brisbane.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Bring in a red card and we'll have 'Rance Diving Schools' opening all over the place.
Go back to an eye for an eye.

Do you mean someone should have punched Gaff in the mouth?

 

[sideswipe]

One more thing against red cards. Robbo is in favor of them.

 

[jackcass]

Na just give them longer suspension ,for hits that break bones like Gaffs give them 10 weeks min, very ugly hit
anyone who would punch a kid like that is a flog .

I doubt Gaff's intent was to hit him in the face. Just not in his make-up. More likely aiming for shoulder or chest and things went wrong.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

That sounds fair enough, but if you are proposing a rule, there needs to be a rule, a line of demarcation between red card and non-red card offences.

If that line is drawn at out of play incidents, then so be it. But Cameron gets to stay on and kick his 3 goals against Brisbane.

Just a really quick thought bubble

Intentional
Serious Injury
Behind Play
Head High Contact

 

[Unknown Identity]

Big no for me, purely as it's open for interpretation which as we know can lead to jubious decisions.