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

[jackcass]

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.

Isn't the Yes - No question the most pertinent? If the vast majority don't want it why would/should it be introduced? The current poll clearly assumes that decision is made.

 

[legendstatus]

No


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jackcass]

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.

Both players were still in the air, it was clearly in the contest. Cameron braced late which caused the head high whereas you assume that to have been his intent. It was late and a shocking incident, appropriately dealt with by the tribunal, but the fact you've chosen to include it in the types of offences you'd like to see red carded highlights exactly why the system can't be applied.

 

[CFC2010]

Both players were still in the air, it was clearly in the contest. Cameron braced late which caused the head high whereas you assume that to have been his intent. It was late and a shocking incident, appropriately dealt with by the tribuna,l but the fact you've chosen to include it in the types of offences you'd like to see red carded highlights exactly why the system can't be applied.

He could have killed him...…...red card for me everyday of the week.

 

[jackcass]

He could have killed him...…...red card for me everyday of the week.

That same contact could have occurred if Cameron had actually taken the mark. You want to ban marking contests or red card every player who takes one?

 

[sideswipe]

Just a really quick thought bubble

Intentional
Serious Injury
Behind Play
Head High Contact

Maybe but would likely need to:
- remove serious injury (because how can this be determined by a reviewer?)
- remove intentional (again, how can a reviewer be expected to determine this?).

Could potentially replace that with the requirement that if a player is removed from the game with concussion, and that incident occurred off the ball, then the opposition player involved also goes out. But note that the offender still has had the benefit of the time taken to assess the injured player. Wouldn't be too many times that this occurred in any given year, but could be close to being enforceable.

I can just see the grand final, Tigers v Pies. We bring in Blair. He goes up to Dusty and starts giving him plenty of harassment off the ball. Dusty pushes him. Blairy falls and in the motion takes it on himself to headbutt the ground HARD. Blairy gets to the sidelines, says he is seeing stars. Out he goes. And out goes Dusty. J Blair, dual premiership player and hero.

 

[CFC2010]

That same contact could have occurred if Cameron had actually taken the mark. You want to ban marking contests or red card every player who takes one?

Cameron didn't take the mark...….he destroyed someone due to negligence and copped 5 weeks.

If it was a Grand Final and Riewoldt did that to Howe...……..and then kicked the winning goal how would you feel?

 

[Yidaki]

No thanks.

This game operates in 360 degrees on an oval shaped ground. Having one less player would create havoc with structures. At least in soccer you can re-structure a little to account for the player loss.

Brayshaw going off the field still left Fremantle with the same amount of players that West Coast had. They just had less rotations. This is in the supersub territory and that was an absolute farce. Just no. Leave the game alone. Gaff's incident will be handled today and that is how they all should be.

 

[ZEV]

Cameron didn't take the mark...….he destroyed someone due to negligence and copped 5 weeks.

If it was a Grand Final and Riewoldt did that to Howe...……..and then kicked the winning goal how would you feel?

rowdy daniher cough cough

 

[CFC2010]

rowdy daniher cough cough

……….don't forget Starcevich.

 

[sideswipe]

Cameron didn't take the mark...….he destroyed someone due to negligence and copped 5 weeks.

If it was a Grand Final and Riewoldt did that to Howe...……..and then kicked the winning goal how would you feel?

It isn't about how people feel. It is about a fair and workable rule/system.

Have a try at creating one that would have seen Cameron red carded but would not catch wherever it is that your grey area starts.

 

[sideswipe]

rowdy daniher cough cough

Funnily enough, I wonder if any sort of red card system would have actually caught out Daniher. I have never seen actual footage of the hit itself and it was after the siren, so the rules of the game don't even apply at that point in time.

 

[Anzacday]

More options added - that's it, I'm done now

 

[RunByThePool]

Absolutely no. AFLHQ can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces, they would stuff this right up like everything they touch.

 

[Horaceg]

Rance might like it

 

[jackcass]

Cameron didn't take the mark...….he destroyed someone due to negligence and copped 5 weeks.

If it was a Grand Final and Riewoldt did that to Howe...……..and then kicked the winning goal how would you feel?

As I said, he was late, it was shocking, he copped his right wack.

You can't penalise someone for going for a mark or assume intent. Cameron copped his wack because he was late and there was horrendous incidental contact.

 

[CFC2010]

As I said, he was late, it was shocking, he copped his right wack.

You can't penalise someone for going for a mark or assume intent. Cameron copped his wack because he was late and there was horrendous incidental contact.

It was intentional...…...he was charged with it being intentional...….because it was.

That's like you earlier saying "Gaff didn't mean to punch him in the jaw"...….so what...…..the damage is done.

 

[4tone]

Funny all huff and puff and stamping feet and arm waving, we don't have to follow other codes, were not Americans, were not Soccer were not NRL, Thing is The AFL ATM is as dysfunctional body as I have seen anywhere in the world including FIFA. Clean the decks get rid of McLaughlin, if people haven't figured it out yet, the bloke is Satan and that numb nut they got from Geelong can go with him. Appoint a committee, find competent professionals with no ties to club or affiliate. Rewrite the rule book, so its relevant for footy today. Throw out the MRO, appoint an independent body that has no emotion or previous ties to any club or affiliate. The fixture for once and for all get it fixed. The AFL needs to look at other countries and other codes, instil the best ideas the others have and improve the ones it already has. The AFL are so lucky they have such a loyal and giving fan base, If the AFL was a Sydney based organisation, with barely 3000k in stands every game every week I bet jokers like McLaughlin wouldn't be afforded grace after ****ing up so many critical elements of our game.

 

[sideswipe]

If the AFL was a Sydney based organisation, with barely 3000k in stands every game every week I bet jokers like McLaughlin wouldn't be afforded grace after ******* up so many critical elements of our game.

What do you think are the critical elements of the game that McLachlan has "****** up"?

 

[peter9789]

My view is we absolutely should for violent incidents off the ball. Collisions or incidents considered 'in play' might be reportable but should not be considered for a 'red card'

We are talking about thug acts like Barry Hall; Thomas Bugg, and Andrew Gaff.

My rationale is teams should not be penalised for having to play one person down after being taken out of the game, and similarly, removing the player who committed the offence from the ground will also take away the threat of retaliation.

It would be good for football

 

[HFF]

100% needed.
This type of incident is a joke that he can play out the game whilst the victim's team is handicapped.

 

[DuckToaster]

Nah, I don't trust the afl to do it properly. Plus it means the team mates don't get a chance to give a little back, within the rules of course.

 

[DaVe86]

As I said, he was late, it was shocking, he copped his right wack.

You can't penalise someone for going for a mark or assume intent. Cameron copped his wack because he was late and there was horrendous incidental contact.

Yeah I don't think we necessarily need to have it for in-play incidents. Cameron was late, but was still in play as part of a marking contest.

The criteria for me should be:

1. Off the play.
2. Overwhelming and clear video evidence of the incident (no guess-work in the decision...the evidence needs to be undeniable)
3. Intentional
4. Has caused an injury meaning the opponent is ruled out of the game
5. In all the circumstances, can be seen to bring the game into disrepute.


To be honest, you can legalise it as much as you want, but the incidents we are talking about are clear and common sense.

We are talking Bugg, Hall and Gaff here. We are not talking Cameron or Nyhuis.

I understand the argument that it could open a can of worms...but as long as the AFL doesn't extend the rules to include in-play incidents, then it should be right.

At the end of the day, the umpire should have in his kit bag the option to send a player off if the conduct is grossly wrong.

I haven't seen it happen in the modern era, but what if a player whacked an umpire, or what if it is a grand final and a player is in his last game and decides to go out in style (Alistair Lynch for eg). The option needs to be at least there for extreme circumstances to remove a player.

 

[jackcass]

It was intentional...…...he was charged with it being intentional...….because it was.

That's like you earlier saying "Gaff didn't mean to punch him in the jaw"...….so what...…..the damage is done.

Right, so you know for a fact Cameron approached that incident thinking I'm going to elbow him to the jaw. Good on you. Me, I'll remain sceptical that was his intent until such time as he declares it to be so. Had his chance to do that during the tribunal hearing, don't recall the confession. In fact he declared his intent was to spoil.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-...ned-for-five-matches-over-andrews-hit/9912184

With Gaff, I said I doubt that was his intent. Your skills in reading minds clearly better than mine, I don't actually know, just formed an opinion based on limited knowledge of Gaff the person. Maybe your the man to be doling out those red cards if the bleeding hearts actually win the fight to have the system introduced. We can be guaranteed every decision is correct with a mind reader making the calls, assuming off course your also devoid of any other biases.

It's people thinking they have a right to be judge, jury and executioner when they actually have no f$#@ing idea and chose emotive knee jerk reactive responses that should ensure that this system never gets off the ground.

 

[Chameleon75]

My view is we absolutely should for violent incidents off the ball. Collisions or incidents considered 'in play' might be reportable but should not be considered for a 'red card'

We are talking about thug acts like Barry Hall; Thomas Bugg, and Andrew Gaff.

My rationale is teams should not be penalised for having to play one person down after being taken out of the game, and similarly, removing the player who committed the offence from the ground will also take away the threat of retaliation.

It would be good for football

The Lockett caven hit was as malicious as it comes, had only one intention, but technically a late contest and would be considered in play.

I can’t see how you have a red card for behind the play and ignore the in play ones like Lockett.

For me I’d look at, is the action a reportable incident? Is the action of malicious intent? Is the hit player ruled out for the remainder of the game?