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

[jackcass]

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.

I disagree. It's a system and I've never seen one that didn't have the potential to go wrong. I'm happy that the club should do the right thing, much as we did with John Burke. Weagles should by rights looked to have done the same with Gaff given the treatment he got exposed to and the apparent distress he showed following it. That's on them then if they choose not to exercise that option.

 

[CFC2010]

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.

Jackcass you went on a tangent there...

Cameron = Charged with intent = 5 weeks.

Gaff = Charged with intent = ? weeks.

Not sure why you are accusing me of a knee jerk reaction?

Those two incidents are very Black & White to me......no grey area at all but then again I can read minds remember

 

[Mooresome]

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.

In fairness and although deserved ,this is intentional and looks high as well so do both of them get red carded as well
?

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Poll added

Thanks babe

 

[Cold Sober]

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

An eye for an eye, do your homework.

 

[peter9789]

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?

I agree the Lockett / Caven clash was malicious - no doubt. But it was in play, Craven had the ball and lockett was steaming in with a raised forearm. Terrible incident, but you introduce too many grey areas such as "intent" for example. How can you establish 'intent' within the time frame on the footy field? It becomes too subjective and end up with players being red carded only to be found not guilty at the tribunal.

The more recent incident of Jeremy Cameron and his hit on Harriss Andrews, I see as an in play incident and therefore should not be the subject of a red card. Tje right process was to send him to the tribunal to be suspended.

The red card should only be for the king hits behind play which are very rare these days. Otherwise it becomes simply too subjective.

 

[ppoiter]

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.

You can get red carded in league and rugby and there isn't rampant diving. Wouldn't happen in this code either I don't think

 

[BringouttheGimp]

We can't introduce an emergency rule (player on standby should another player come off with concussion) for concussion incidents.. unless we have an Independent doctor have a look at him.

But say one of our own.. concussed one of our players by accident.. we bring on fresh legs in the last.. and that made the difference.

It's all ****ed re.

Keep the damn thing simple.. if a rule is exploitable.. it shouldn't be there.

Soccer doesn't have an issue with its rules.. it's a piece of piss really re.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

An eye for an eye, do your homework.

I just twigged, you follow Essendon...the rules don't mean that much to you

 

[jackcass]

Jackcass you went on a tangent there...

Cameron = Charged with intent = 5 weeks.

Gaff = Charged with intent = ? weeks.

Not sure why you are accusing me of a knee jerk reaction?

Those two incidents are very Black & White to me......no grey area at all but then again I can read minds remember

Hardly a tangent, you say you know what their intentions were, I say not.

And I disagree. Clearly where such disagreement exists then nothing can be said to be black and white. Just taking a poll between you and me we're locked at 50/50.

Clearly, sending Cameron off for that incident in a marking contest is nothing less than a knee jerk emotive reaction (to my way of thinking). Something that even in the cold light of day you haven't been able to distance yourself from. I'll leave it there.

 

[Cold Sober]

I just twigged, you follow Essendon...the rules don't mean that much to you

Sorry, I just twigged, Collingwood, homework ...silly me, words me nothing to you

 

[76woodenspooners]

No thanks.

This game operates in 360 degrees on an oval shaped ground. Having one less player would create havoc with structures.

Not if you’re playing against Carlton

At least in soccer you can re-structure a little to account for the player loss.

AFL would figure out a way and adapt if it had to. Of course the team with 17 would be severely disadvantaged, but that’s the point.

 

[76woodenspooners]

An eye for an eye, do your homework.

Yeah, year 7 history, Hammerabi, leader in ancient Mesopotamia, established a judicial system based on some sense of fairness.

Under the “eye for an eye” doctrine, what should happen (or have happened) to Gaff?

 

[Cold Sober]

Yeah, year 7 history, Hammerabi, leader in ancient Mesopotamia, established a judicial system based on some sense of fairness.

Under the “eye for an eye” doctrine, what should happen (or have happened) to Gaff?

Send him to Essendon
PS. You can't possibly barrack for Collingwood. lol.

 

[sideswipe]

Sorry, I just twigged, Collingwood, homework ...silly me, words me nothing to you

Homework is what we call sitting in a stolen car on the street outside your house waiting for you to leave so we can go inside and pinch stuff.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Send him to Essendon
PS. You can't possibly barrack for Collingwood. lol.

Haha, yeah, I learnt that when I was at Essendon Grammar (True )

 

[Mukesh]

This is slightly tangential. Has anyone seen what was going on in the 10 minutes before Gaff belted the guy ? I haven’t, but there must be a reason for why he lashed out...

 

[76woodenspooners]

This is slightly tangential. Has anyone seen what was going on in the 10 minutes before Gaff belted the guy ? I haven’t, but there must be a reason for why he lashed out...

Nah, but apparently they played golf together in the days beforehand which opens up a whole world of possible reasons.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Nah, but apparently they played golf together in the days beforehand which opens up a whole world of possible reasons.

which has been refuted by many at Freo

 

[Collingwoodity]

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.

This is exactly what I think occurred.

Gaff's character will be tested over the next 6 - 12 months. He will cop a large penalty, likely to carry over to next season. I think he will serve his time after doing his crime, much like the way De Gooey did this pre-season, and I expect he, like De Gooey, to come out the other side.

 

[Horaceg]

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.

It was intentional because he led with his forearm, did he mean to, not sure?

 

[SpongePie]

I'm on the "no" side. This isnt part of our sport (just like the sub rule, but I digress), and not "who we are".

That said, i do think the AFL should do better at stamping this out. Start with all the jumper and throat punches, etc. Start hading out 1+ week on those and perhaps we will see less of this happen.

 

[76woodenspooners]

which has been refuted by many at Freo

The way WCE have dealt with this (Simpson and Nesbitt pressers) has been very poor.

Compare with how Collingwood dealt with JDG DUI and H.Shaw gambling issues - yeah, they weren’t MRP issues like Gaff, but my point is that CFC seem to recognise that (whether they like it or not) they have a community leadership responsibility, whereas WCE clearly do not recognise that.

All the more disappointing of WCE given the incident happened at a derby game in a two team town.

 

[Horaceg]

I hope this stops the ridiculous off the ball punches, a punch is a punch, just play football, be tough be aggressive, punching anyone is not OK, even if it was meant for the chest!

 

[BringouttheGimp]

The AFL know they can't get their rules right.. why on earth would they implement a red card system when it will expose flaws in their rules anyhow.

I'm sure they want supporters out on the ground screaming and yelling.. 'hey where's the ****ing red card for that you maggot'. You don't implement it.. you won't get that re.. and you won't get these so called experts criticizing the system every Monday.