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

[Schraderbrau]

I think the emotive AFL 360 Gerrard and Robbo hanging crew has whipped the crowd into a frenzy...get pitch forks..kill the beast.

Need to keep in mind Gerred is against all things physical he'd ask for weeks in the womAFL if they broke a nail.
The guy is a wimp (almost effeminite) and Robbo is a hypocritical sook that looks for headlines, knowing the nanny state that pervades this country this would of had him looking like that south park gif we often see on here.

But yes it does deserve 6 on the sidelines because regardless of intent he chose to strike.

If he were charged by the police it would probably be grievous bodily harm which 9 times out of 10 sees a sentence of imprisonment. 6 weeks doesn't cut the mustard when you consider the injuries sustained. Whether he intended to hit him in the head or not is not that important, what is important is that he intended to throw a punch and the injuries sustained were serious. The landscape in terms of hits to the head has changed dramatically since the Hall hit, and even substantially since the Bugg incident last year. A significant deterrent needs to be set so that we never see this happen again. 8 weeks is the absolute minimum for me.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Haven’t read the whole thread. Assume someone has noted this already.
The Gaff punch was not seen by the umpires.
So how do they hand out a red card?
Ludicrous.

if it were introduced then I doubt field umpires would have any role. It would be a 3rd umpire situation.

 

[Schraderbrau]

I dont understand the 'Good Character' defence, like it carries weight into somewhat forgiving the act itself - which could physically and emotionally have caused permanent damage to an 18 year-old kid.

Doesn't fly with me.

Its about trying to convince the tribunal accept that it is not in his character to strike in the head and that his previous good character supports the assertion he intended to hit him in the body. Also matters when they consider punishing him because a tribunal is going to give someone a bigger whack who has a history of similar indiscretions as opposed to someone with an unblemished record.

 

[jathanas]

Can't believe that people are saying no because it would be too hard to get every decision right. I'd flip that argument and suggest that if we got most decisions right we'd be much better off than we are right now. Leaving Gaff on the field after that incident was a blight on the game and also dangerous for Gaff.

Implement a system that uses simple criteria as per DaVe86 suggested. Use a 3rd umpire and the camera re-play to confirm. No decision when the evidence is inconclusive.

 

[jathanas]

I think the one thing that should be overhauled about the game, Touch nothing else, but strive to make the Tribunal dole out firstly adequate, but more importantly, consistent and fearless penalties.

Barry Hall is the perfect example.
His hit on Staker, should have ended his career...not because it should have been 8 weeks and he should have never been able to sully the AFL by playing in a GF, but because his already accrued numerous suspensions which should have ended his career.

Cowards at AFL house were simply to weak at the time.

I am not saying Gaff's hit deserves his career, 8 weeks is appropriate.

Hall is still running around punching players behind the play in the QAFL.

Great post.

 

[domin8tors]

Does Buggs incident last year make it 2 out of 100?

no 2 out of 200

 

[domin8tors]

Does Buggs incident last year make it 2 out of 100?

So purely playing devils advocate here and drawing out a hypothetical ( which is dangerous because no doubt you will throw one back at me ) but for purely a topical discussion.

Firstly needs to be said if missed in my other posts I don't condone the punching just don't think a red card system will work because it blurs the lines. eg) the 3rd umpire believes in the corner of his eye he sees Player (A) punch the lights out of Player (B) during the game.

They stop play for let's call it 5 min to check the footage * which isn't great in itself. Now moments before Player ( A ) knocked out player ( B) they actually saw player (B) give a pretty decent tummy punch which is why player (A) retaliated. so do the umpires now red Card player ( A ) but retrospectively give a free kick to Player (A's) team because the umpires missed the free kick . I would say not. and this is why I think you end up creating more problems for something that happens 1 out of 100 times or 2 out of 200 times lol .

the laws of the game are what will ultimately outlaw these things within the tribunal system, you look at where the game was from a thuggery perspective and it's improved 1000%

 

[Baltimore Jack]

So purely playing devils advocate here and drawing out a hypothetical ( which is dangerous because no doubt you will throw one back at me ) but for purely a topical discussion.

Firstly needs to be said if missed in my other posts I don't condone the punching just don't think a red card system will work because it blurs the lines. eg) the 3rd umpire believes in the corner of his eye he sees Player (A) punch the lights out of Player (B) during the game.

They stop play for let's call it 5 min to check the footage * which isn't great in itself. Now moments before Player ( A ) knocked out player ( B) they actually saw player (B) give a pretty decent tummy punch which is why player (A) retaliated. so do the umpires now red Card player ( A ) but retrospectively give a free kick to Player (A's) team because the umpires missed the free kick . I would say not. and this is why I think you end up creating more problems for something that happens 1 out of 100 times or 2 out of 200 times lol .

the laws of the game are what will ultimately outlaw these things within the tribunal system, you look at where the game was from a thuggery perspective and it's improved 1000%

Why do they need to stop play?

And if a player has been knocked out, play would probably stop anyway

 

[noideaatall]

Spot on. I hope he recovers well.

Why not eliminate the punch all together.. are players intimidated by the chest punch? Watching De Goey.. players are just intimidated by his size.. skill.. the way it should be.

Spot on. The send off will deal with the issues arising from an incident like this at the time but doesn't tackle the underlying motivation the led to the punch. Gaff's defense was he was trying to punch but not on the jaw. Any clenched fist punch that is not directed at the ball should see suspensions or fines. Get rid of the scragging in our game, it does nothing for the spectacle.

 

[domin8tors]

Why do they need to stop play?

And if a player has been knocked out, play would probably stop anyway

1) to watch the footage; otherwise scores might be level in the last qtr with 10 min to play they player who you wish to red card might play the last 10 minutes before the 3rd umpire has time to review the footage and kicks the winning goal.

2) so do you only need to knock someone out to get Red carded ? what happens if the player has a harder head ?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

1) to watch the footage; otherwise scores might be level in the last qtr with 10 min to play they player who you wish to red card might play the last 10 minutes before the 3rd umpire has time to review the footage and kicks the winning goal.

2) so do you only need to knock someone out to get Red carded ? what happens if the player has a harder head ?

1. The time taken to watch any footage would take less than a minute as it does now with score reviews, there would be no need to stop the game but even if there was a need, it would be no different than what happens now

2. The criterion around a red card is still open for discussion, but what happens if a player has a softer head?

 

[TimothyJ23]

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

Is there another code that has an eye in the sky handing out red cards some time after the event has occurred because that seems to be what is being contemplated here?

Rugby league and soccer both have VAR/Bunker systems which review potential incidents like that and can advise the on-field officials to take further action.

 

[jackcass]

not sure if sirious

You've got evidence that proves Gaff went out onto the footy field with the intent to smash Brayshaw in the face? What about Hall? What about Bugg?

 

[sideswipe]

1. The time taken to watch any footage would take less than a minute as it does now with score reviews, there would be no need to stop the game but even if there was a need, it would be no different than what happens now

2. The criterion around a red card is still open for discussion, but what happens if a player has a softer head?

Go with the eggshell skull rule. You take your victim as you find them.

 

[sideswipe]

People keep throwing around these emotive terms but isn't the maliciousness or cruelty of an action directly linked to the intent of the individual? Doesn't it presume some level of preconception? How is an umpire meant to know what that intent is in an in-game situation. There's 3 instances which I think you can make a case for a send-off, the Hall case, the Bugg case, and this instance. In each of them though I challenge anyone to prove there was any preconceived malicious or cruel intent. You certainly can't assess that purely by looking at the outcomes. I don't know any of those blokes so I can't attest to their characters but sometime good people just do stupid things. This isn't a John Greening type scenario where a player was (allegedly) directed to take someone out, these were all spontaneous actions.

Intent in a tribunal sense relates to the conduct, not the impact, ie. Gaff wasn't found to have intentionally busted Brayshaw's jaw, but rather his conduct to strike him was an intentional act. So it doesn't matter whether there was "preconceived malice" - different in criminal law.

This was the misconception that many people were under with Gaff. They were arguing that if Gaff had intended to strike Brayshaw in the chest, then it wasn't an intentional strike to the jaw. This is wrong. Gaff's conduct was to intentionally strike Brayshaw.

Where it lands is considered under the question of contact - high/body/groin.

Further Tribunal guidelines specifically state that the fact that an act of striking that occurs behind the play, during a break or with a raised forearm or elbow is usually conclusive that the strike was intentional. I am no fan of the red card, but if they put a blanket rule around off the play/during a break incidents, you could maybe remove the difficulty around assessing intent in real time.

 

[jackcass]

Intent in a tribunal sense relates to the conduct, not the impact, ie. Gaff wasn't found to have intentionally busted Brayshaw's jaw, but rather his conduct to strike him was an intentional act. So it doesn't matter whether there was "preconceived malice" - different in criminal law.

This was the misconception that many people were under with Gaff. They were arguing that if Gaff had intended to strike Brayshaw in the chest, then it wasn't an intentional strike to the jaw. This is wrong. Gaff's conduct was to intentionally strike Brayshaw.

Where it lands is considered under the question of contact - high/body/groin.

Further Tribunal guidelines specifically state that the fact that an act of striking that occurs behind the play, during a break or with a raised forearm or elbow is usually conclusive that the strike was intentional. I am no fan of the red card, but if they put a blanket rule around off the play/during a break incidents, you could maybe remove the difficulty around assessing intent in real time.

I think you've missed my point.

 

[sideswipe]

I think you've missed my point.

Maybe - but you asked this question, "isn't the maliciousness or cruelty of an action directly linked to the intent of the individual?".

The answer to that as far as an umpire or the tribunal is concerned is no. They are concerned with intentional acts, not intended consequences of the act. They are not required to assess malice aforethought or anything else along those lines.

 

[jackcass]

Maybe - but you asked this question, "isn't the maliciousness or cruelty of an action directly linked to the intent of the individual?".

The answer to that as far as an umpire or the tribunal is concerned is no. They are concerned with intentional acts, not intended consequences of the act. They are not required to assess malice aforethought or anything else along those lines.

No, I asked this question:

People keep throwing around these emotive terms but isn't the maliciousness or cruelty of an action directly linked to the intent of the individual?

Specifically highlighted the terms used in the post I quoted.

Context.

 

[domin8tors]

1. The time taken to watch any footage would take less than a minute as it does now with score reviews, there would be no need to stop the game but even if there was a need, it would be no different than what happens now

2. The criterion around a red card is still open for discussion, but what happens if a player has a softer head?

1) takes them longer then a minute and if your sending off one of my teams players i'd want the 3rd umpire to be damn sure, as my initial post suggested often* it's the retaliator that gets caught so i'd want the 3rd umpire to review more then 30 seconds worth of video.

2) they get knocked out which you already highlighted

 

[sideswipe]

No, I asked this question:

People keep throwing around these emotive terms but isn't the maliciousness or cruelty of an action directly linked to the intent of the individual?

Specifically highlighted the terms used in the post I quoted.

Context.

Ok - I was just trying to answer your question around asking whether an umpire can be expected to assess whether there was any "preconceived malice or cruel intent" by saying that is something umpires and tribunals are never asked to assess when grading a reportable offence.
Edit: although if there was a deliberate "take out" of a player done under instruction, that would likely be considered as an exceptional circumstance for the tribunal to consider when setting a higher penalty, ie. after the offence had been proven.

 

[MyManLynch]

Ok - I was just trying to answer your question around asking whether an umpire can be expected to assess whether there was any "preconceived malice or cruel intent" by saying that is something umpires and tribunals are never asked to assess when grading a reportable offence.
Edit: although if there was a deliberate "take out" of a player done under instruction, that would likely be considered as an exceptional circumstance for the tribunal to consider when setting a higher penalty, ie. after the offence had been proven.

We need to have Judge Judy ajudicating via video link.
She’ll sort it out.

 

[TimothyJ23]

We need to have Judge Judy ajudicating via video link.
She’ll sort it out.

Nah, let Kyle Sandilands do it

 

[loki04]

If he were charged by the police it would probably be grievous bodily harm which 9 times out of 10 sees a sentence of imprisonment. 6 weeks doesn't cut the mustard when you consider the injuries sustained. Whether he intended to hit him in the head or not is not that important, what is important is that he intended to throw a punch and the injuries sustained were serious. The landscape in terms of hits to the head has changed dramatically since the Hall hit, and even substantially since the Bugg incident last year. A significant deterrent needs to be set so that we never see this happen again. 8 weeks is the absolute minimum for me.

Actually he could of claimed self defense if he was on the street being constantly hit into and harrassed and having his liberty to walk freely taken away...if you want to be silly and bring real life situations into it.

And given the footage he likely could successfully argue Brayshaw actions crontibuted to the hit going from body to head. Intent does play a part in any judges sentencing and GBH charge would not stick.

Here...

Under legislation, a person who successfully shows that they acted in self defence will be acquitted of the offence. Division 3 of Part 11 of the Crimes Act 1900 contains a number of provisions concerning the defence. The primary provision is section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which states:

• A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
• A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
  • to defend himself or herself or another person, or
  • to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
  • to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interfere, or
  • to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass, and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/assault/self-defence


10 seconds prior to that Gaff did a similar hit to Brayshaw except it landed on his chest...the dmg done was partly as a result of Brayshaw coming in to bump again lowering his body and pivoting forwards.

 

[domin8tors]

Actually he could of claimed self defense if he was on the street being constantly hit into and harrassed and having his liberty to walk freely taken away...if you want to be silly and bring real life situations into it.

And given the footage he likely could successfully argue Brayshaw actions crontibuted to the hit going from body to head. Intent does play a part in any judges sentencing and GBH charge would not stick.

Here...

Under legislation, a person who successfully shows that they acted in self defence will be acquitted of the offence. Division 3 of Part 11 of the Crimes Act 1900 contains a number of provisions concerning the defence. The primary provision is section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which states:

• A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
• A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
  • to defend himself or herself or another person, or
  • to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
  • to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interfere, or
  • to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass, and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/assault/self-defence


10 seconds prior to that Gaff did a similar hit to Brayshaw except it landed on his chest...the dmg done was partly as a result of Brayshaw coming in to bump again lowering his body and pivoting forwards.

Agreed.. innocent until proven guilty. and players are smart these day's. I can picture it now. Selwood has a busted arm and knows that he can't really play on and have a meaningful impact on the Final. so he goes up and antagonises pendles who retaliates , Selwood ducks as we know that he does, just enough at the knees so pendles hits him high. Selwood adds a bit of mayo to it knowing he can't really play on anyway. and Thus we are now a player short...

 

[loki04]

1. The time taken to watch any footage would take less than a minute as it does now with score reviews, there would be no need to stop the game but even if there was a need, it would be no different than what happens now

2. The criterion around a red card is still open for discussion, but what happens if a player has a softer head?

Red carding would need very strict and clear guidelines, otherwise you open it up with grey area hits like when spoiling a marking contest or go in too hard for a footy and knock heads etc.

The AFL will use it as another tool to punish incidental head contact like in bumping and tackling too hard, awww poor Johnny did a booboo. /rolls eyes. They want geAlicFL and have been steadily watering down the physical side of the game bit by bit. Everyone wants to see limpwristed tackles soft bumps more akin to blocks or body checking then actually bumping...need to also make sure that they have strong knecks muscles as to not have whiplash cause the head to make contact....also can't just bump either you need to have no other option but bump to be allowed too like wtf..

For mine it would need to be only used for malicious intended clear cut acts of violence.