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

[jackcass]

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.

Agree. For me the truly malicious acts are the Yeats coming off the back of the square to clean up Brereton type acts, not these split second reactionary type acts. They're deliberate and targeted.

 

[Schraderbrau]

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?

Yeah the video. Flabbergasted that you don't think that any of them had a 'malicious intent'. I mean what else were they trying to do

 

[jackcass]

Yeah the video. Flabbergasted that you don't think that any of them had a 'malicious intent'. I mean what else were they trying to do

Yeah see, I'm just not a mind reader so I like to avoid jumping to conclusions about what someone might be thinking. But that's just me. People by nature interpret what they see very differently. You feel free to jump any which way you like. Until you can provide me with some record of interview where these individuals have confessed that that was there intent when they ran out on the ground then I'm more than happy to accord them the benefit of the doubt. You know, proof, rather than just your opinion. Until then, flabbergast away.

 

[Schraderbrau]

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.

You bolded the wrong bits. The bit that needed to be bolded was the part about self defence needing to be a reasonable response in the circumstances.

Don't think I'm being silly fwiw and hard to believe it isn't a 'real life situation' when you have a young kid in hospital requiring surgery for a broken jaw and years of painful and expensive dental work ahead. Gaff probably is a good bloke but it's illogical that a white line should protect anybody from actions that would otherwise likely see imprisonment in any other circumstances.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Yeah see, I'm just not a mind reader so I like to avoid jumping to conclusions about someone might be thinking. But that's just me. People by nature interpret what they see very differently. You feel free to jump any which way you like. Until you can provide me with some record of interview where these individuals have confessed that that was there intent when they ran out on the ground then I'm more than happy to accord them the benefit of the doubt. You know, proof, rather than just your opinion. Until then, flabbergast away.

So you honestly believe that there is a chance that Barry Hall wasn't trying to hurt Staker

I've reread your post and don't understand why you think they need to have formed an intent to hurt someone before they've run out onto the ground. It may make it worse but I don't see how you can excuse Hall, Bugg, Gaff because there wasn't a level of premeditation in their actions. The intent is still malicious regardless of whether it was premeditated or not.

 

[jackcass]

So you honestly believe that there is a chance that Barry Hall wasn't trying to hurt Staker

There are literally 1,000's of punches thrown in AFL every year. Why do you assume his intent was any different to that of any other player who throws a punch? Why does it specifically become malicious when all those other punches aren't? Do you honestly think Gaff was trying to knock Brayshaw's teeth out and break his jaw because that's essentially what you're suggesting via your judgement. If not then how does it then become malicious in your opinion? I don't know Gaff and can't speak to the character of the man, you obviously feel you can. I'll leave it there.

 

[CasuallyDressed]

The impact it would have on the team is quite large.

You would be letting your teammates down if you allowed yourself to be removed from the game... so yes, I would say it should be brought in for incidents like Gaff and Hall.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

No. But the AFL needs to take these incidents more seriously and force the Tribunal to dish out more appropriate penalties.

This was a malicious, deliberate assault to the head that Bradshaw may never fully recover from. 14 weeks should've been a starting point.

 

[jathanas]

No. But the AFL needs to take these incidents more seriously and force the Tribunal to dish out more appropriate penalties.

This was a malicious, deliberate assault to the head that Bradshaw may never fully recover from. 14 weeks should've been a starting point.

Agree. Make a real commitment to ridding the game of this blight once and for all.

 

[noideaatall]

There are literally 1,000's of punches thrown in AFL every year. Why do you assume his intent was any different to that of any other player who throws a punch? Why does it specifically become malicious when all those other punches aren't? Do you honestly think Gaff was trying to knock Brayshaw's teeth out and break his jaw because that's essentially what you're suggesting via your judgement. If not then how does it then become malicious in your opinion? I don't know Gaff and can't speak to the character of the man, you obviously feel you can. I'll leave it there.

Here lies the essence of the problem. Gaff through a punch like the other 1,000's thrown but it connected in a place he didn't intend and with a momentum he didn't expect. Different from the Barry Hall incident as he very clearly landed the punch where intended. Gaff is being punished for the outcome, not the intention. The underlying moral being get better at punching rather than not punch at all. So the AFL hasn't really done a thing to prevent this happening, just setting precedents on what the punishment will be. Over the years one of those 1000's of punches is likely to go wrong. Outlaw punches including air shots, except when directed at the ball.

 

[jackcass]

Here lies the essence of the problem. Gaff through a punch like the other 1,000's thrown but it connected in a place he didn't intend and with a momentum he didn't expect. Different from the Barry Hall incident as he very clearly landed the punch where intended. Gaff is being punished for the outcome, not the intention. The underlying moral being get better at punching rather than not punch at all. So the AFL hasn't really done a thing to prevent this happening, just setting precedents on what the punishment will be. Over the years one of those 1000's of punches is likely to go wrong. Outlaw punches including air shots, except when directed at the ball.

Hear hear. If appropriate penalties were being handed out for the jumper punches and those sly wacks to the solar plexus, then players would soon learn that no punching is appropriate irrespective of the outcome.

It's a bit like all the other niggle and shows of bravado. If the umpires paid the free kicks that would soon stop it. Instead they don't which only encourages the nigglers to continue or become even more daring.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Here lies the essence of the problem. Gaff through a punch like the other 1,000's thrown but it connected in a place he didn't intend and with a momentum he didn't expect. Different from the Barry Hall incident as he very clearly landed the punch where intended. Gaff is being punished for the outcome, not the intention. The underlying moral being get better at punching rather than not punch at all. So the AFL hasn't really done a thing to prevent this happening, just setting precedents on what the punishment will be. Over the years one of those 1000's of punches is likely to go wrong. Outlaw punches including air shots, except when directed at the ball.

This is just the wrong way around.

Gaff deliberately punched Brayshaw, regardless of whether we believe him that he didn't land the punch where he wanted. He didn't accidentally punch him. He even admits to trying to punch Bradshaw really hard.

The argument should be, if you deliberately punch someone, you are lucky if they don't get injured, because you are getting away without any consequences after doing the wrong thing. It is reasonable to expect that if you punch a bloke, you might hurt him.

To argue that if you deliberately punch someone, you are unlucky if they get injured, is nonsense in my opinion.

 

[Pie eyed]

One year.

That would say simply no place in the game for such things.

Thomas and Keefe got 2 years to appease ideological storm troopers at ASADA.
So I agree with you.
Using a recreational drug is not even remotely comparable to breaking someone else's jaw.

Thomas and Keefe should both get an apology from the AFL and compensation.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Thomas and Keefe got 2 years to appease ideological storm troopers at ASADA.
So I agree with you.
Using a recreational drug is not even remotely comparable to breaking someone else's jaw.

Thomas and Keefe should both get an apology from the AFL and compensation.

Amen.

Your post is so good, take a bow.

Spot on!

 

[noideaatall]

This is just the wrong way around.

Gaff deliberately punched Brayshaw, regardless of whether we believe him that he didn't land the punch where he wanted. He didn't accidentally punch him. He even admits to trying to punch Bradshaw really hard.

The argument should be, if you deliberately punch someone, you are lucky if they don't get injured, because you are getting away without any consequences after doing the wrong thing. It is reasonable to expect that if you punch a bloke, you might hurt him.

To argue that if you deliberately punch someone, you are unlucky if they get injured, is nonsense in my opinion.

I totally agree. The AFL it seems doesn't, otherwise Gaff would have been pinged for the first punch 10 secs or so before, which was apparently part of his defense. That is the point of my post.[/QUOTE]

 

[Saintly Viewed]

This is just the wrong way around.

Gaff deliberately punched Brayshaw, regardless of whether we believe him that he didn't land the punch where he wanted. He didn't accidentally punch him. He even admits to trying to punch Bradshaw really hard.

The argument should be, if you deliberately punch someone, you are lucky if they don't get injured, because you are getting away without any consequences after doing the wrong thing. It is reasonable to expect that if you punch a bloke, you might hurt him.

To argue that if you deliberately punch someone, you are unlucky if they get injured, is nonsense in my opinion.

Correct.

A clenched fist is usually a give away.

It’s not natural to run around with clenched fists.

Typical AFL lots of noise about things, causes etc
But when push comes to shove comes to punch....

Weak!

 

[Saintly Viewed]

So Grundy gets 2 weeks for a fair tackle that caused concussion.
He has a duty of care.

Break someone’s jaw in an unfair action, that’s ok you’re a good bloke so here’s Sweet 8 for you.

Weak.

 

[jonbe54]

Look apart from the broken jaw some of Brayshaws front teeth are simply dead.

That isn't a random punch - it takes a lot of force to do that.

Penalty too soft - sure he didn't kill anyone but we - of all clubs - should know just what that sort of a king hit can do to a player's career.

Clamp down on it AFL or GTFO.

 

[jathanas]

This is just the wrong way around.

Gaff deliberately punched Brayshaw, regardless of whether we believe him that he didn't land the punch where he wanted. He didn't accidentally punch him. He even admits to trying to punch Bradshaw really hard.

The argument should be, if you deliberately punch someone, you are lucky if they don't get injured, because you are getting away without any consequences after doing the wrong thing. It is reasonable to expect that if you punch a bloke, you might hurt him.

To argue that if you deliberately punch someone, you are unlucky if they get injured, is nonsense in my opinion.

Brilliant post.

The "it's too grey an area, can't be consistently enforced" argument is also piss-weak.

Doing nothing is the worst thing we can do.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

So Grundy gets 2 weeks for a fair tackle that caused concussion.
He has a duty of care.

Break someone’s jaw in an unfair action, that’s ok you’re a good bloke so here’s Sweet 8 for you.

Weak.

This "good bloke" footy speak nonsense drives me up the wall. I don't care what his character references say.

He is not a "good bloke". He punched an 18 year old kid in the head and rearranged his face, potentially causing permanent damage. This is footy, not boxing.

 

[Seedsfan]

Definitely need a red card for such an incident.

3rd Umpire to adjudicate.

Then the game will become like rugby we’re they stop it every 5 minuets to check something. It will turn the game in to a snooze fest

 

[CFC2010]

Then the game will become like rugby we’re they stop it every 5 minuets to check something. It will turn the game in to a snooze fest

How many Gaff incidents have we had this year?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Then the game will become like rugby we’re they stop it every 5 minuets to check something. It will turn the game in to a snooze fest

Do you think there will be multiple punching incidents several times in every game?

If a red card was introduced there would be 1 or 2 per year

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Looks like the West Coast Eagles hierarchy are dilligaf'd about it all.

 

[DaVe86]

Then the game will become like rugby we’re they stop it every 5 minuets to check something. It will turn the game in to a snooze fest

I don't think that's how it would have to work.

The play can go on while the Third Umpire checks footage. The decision can be made once the full review has been made, but doesn't necessarily need to hold up play.