Don't want, (or need) to start a new thread - still want to post it though

[sideswipe]

That's a fair concern. It would be hard to implement in a perfectly consistent manner. Umps are human.

The idea of a grand final being decided by a thug-act is a terrible scenario for the game.

Other footy leagues in the country give the umps send-off power as well as other sporting codes around the world.

Unlike many of the ridiculous rule changes that have been implemented I believe it is a change that would be looked upon favourably, especially by parents.

Alright my emotional little snowflake. Give me the rule and standard for sending off?

My view on lower leagues is that where a send-off rule is in place, it gets used (usually rightly) far more than we would want it to be used in the AFL. So the threshold would need to be higher?

Does the standard require an intentional act? Tom Stewart's act was deemed reckless (which I thought was a crazy assessment) but you wanted that to be a send off offence?

 

[Markfs]

players going past the ball to hit is the trigger.....it separates intention from accident.... richmond was disadvantaged....fairness requires something to be done

 

[gerryg400]

well i'm not marrying her muuuummm..... you must know the story about catholic girls...maybe you have to be catholic to know that...

let me give you the science of it... the perfect woman for catholics is mary. Mary is both a mother and a virgin - a very hard thing to do until very recently, and there's not many women going down that path anyway..

so the impossibility of attaining the heights of Mary, there were two choices. One was to buckle and get to the sink and wash the dishes.
The other choice was to rebel and be ...how can i say delicately? - be open to sexual experiences...

You can imagine Sarah's choice. She doesnt do dishes..

So basically you're s**t-shaming Josephine Cochrane now...

 

[sideswipe]

players going past the ball to hit is the trigger.....it separates intention from accident.... richmond was disadvantaged....fairness requires something to be done

Need a rule. Use your words Mark. Going "past the ball" isn't easy to define.

 

[Markfs]

So basically you're s**t-shaming Josephine Cochrane now...

Josie wasn't a Mic....rule doesnt apply

 

[Markfs]

Need a rule. Use your words Mark. Going "past the ball" isn't easy to define.

You know what I mean wipey and I'm not wanting to construct a legal definition this early in the day....and its cold here too. He went past the ball to hit.....richmond was disadvantaged. No one can argue with that. This wasnt a love tap...

if players are getting sent off for something in junior footy, it is for something other than what happened to prestia.

 

[Markfs]

rule - player 1 goes past ball and hits player 2 in head. if player 2 is subbed out....player 1 is also subbed out. if player 2 is not subbed out player 1 stays. if team thinks strategically and convinces their doctor to act unethically to sub out player 2 merely to get player 1 subbed out..... then fair cop for player 1. I'd wear that.

 

[sideswipe]

You know what I mean wipey and I'm not wanting to construct a legal definition this early in the day....and its cold here too. He went past the ball to hit.....richmond was disadvantaged. No one can argue with that. This wasnt a love tap...

if players are getting sent off for something in junior footy, it is for something other than what happened to prestia.

That's the problem - yeah it was a crappy hit, but it wasn't even assessed as intentional. I am not sure what the threshold should be?

Once again, if the Stewart hit should have been a send-off, should Maynard's have been also?

 

[sideswipe]

rule - player 1 goes past ball and hits player 2 in head. if player 2 is subbed out....player 1 is also subbed out. if player 2 is not subbed out player 1 stays. if team thinks strategically and convinces their doctor to act unethically to sub out player 2 merely to get player 1 subbed out..... then fair cop for player 1. I'd wear that.

A bag of uncertainty. The extension of that suggestion is maybe suggesting something like, if a player commits a reportable offence which results in an opposition player being subbed out of the game under concussion protocols, then that player will also be subbed out.

Tough rule though.

 

[Markfs]

A bag of uncertainty. The extension of that suggestion is maybe suggesting something like, if a player commits a reportable offence which results in an opposition player being subbed out of the game under concussion protocols, then that player will also be subbed out.

Tough rule though.

wipey i'm not trying to cover the field ....i'm trying to deal with a very particular event. The player who runs past the ball to engage an opponent, hits them in the head and puts them out of the game...

world poverty can be addressed by other means. This event was patently unfair to richmond. blindingly unfair.....ridiculously unfair. Surely we can deal with the times similar events happen. World poverty can wait for the rich to give up some of their money or when it starts raining gold

 

[sideswipe]

wipey i'm not trying to cover the field ....i'm trying to deal with a very particular event. The player who runs past the ball to engage an opponent, hits them in the head and puts them out of the game...

world poverty can be addressed by other means. This event was patently unfair to richmond. blindingly unfair.....ridiculously unfair. Surely we can deal with the times similar events happen. World poverty can wait for the rich to give up some of their money or when it starts raining gold

You actually do need to cover the field if you are trying to deal with a very particular event. Your proposed solution doesn't seem to address a king hit off the ball. Wouldn't you want a send off for that too?

 

[jathanas]

Alright my emotional little snowflake. Give me the rule and standard for sending off?

My view on lower leagues is that where a send-off rule is in place, it gets used (usually rightly) far more than we would want it to be used in the AFL. So the threshold would need to be higher?

Does the standard require an intentional act? Tom Stewart's act was deemed reckless (which I thought was a crazy assessment) but you wanted that to be a send off offence?

Being emotional is in my DNA and yes when things get heated I move my hands while talking... it's a Greek thing.

Not all that emotional about this.

The principle of punishing thug acts with an immediate send-off has merit and exists in other sports.

I don't believe that we should allow something this wrong to continue because an acceptable solution is in the "too-hard" basket.

How Stewart's act was deemed reckless is one of the biggest WTFs of the season. There was no point during that contest where Stewart looked like he was even remotely interested in the ball. He lined Prestia up and took him out. I think there's your exhibit A and blueprint for defining an adjudication framework for the umps.

 

[Markfs]

You actually do need to cover the field if you are trying to deal with a very particular event. Your proposed solution doesn't seem to address a king hit off the ball. Wouldn't you want a send off for that too?

well i think barry hall's thing was one of the most gutless things i've seen in sport. I'd be happy to see him taken from the field and dropped off the list ...and precluded from appearing in any shows with an afl theme...

but i'm happy to see tom stewart back in 5 weeks

and both should have been sent off

 

[sideswipe]

Being emotional is in my DNA and yes when things get heated I move my hands while talking... it's a Greek thing.

Not all that emotional about this.

The principle of punishing thug acts with an immediate send-off has merit and exists in other sports.

I don't believe that we should allow something this wrong to continue because an acceptable solution is in the "too-hard" basket.

How Stewart's act was deemed reckless is one of the biggest WTFs of the season. There was no point during that contest where Stewart looked like he was even remotely interested in the ball. He lined Prestia up and took him out. I think there's your exhibit A and blueprint for defining an adjudication framework for the umps.

Agree on Stewart not being judged as intentional as a joke.

Still need a rule though, not case studies.

 

[Markfs]

to tell you the truth, i have no idea how to make a distinction between intentional and careless. Are we into reading minds? I have completely ignored that debate because i think it's nonsense.....it's either an accident or the result of a decision. I'm sure laywers have worked out how to read minds though.

 

[sideswipe]

to tell you the truth, i have no idea how to make a distinction between intentional and careless. Are we into reading minds? I have completely ignored that debate because i think it's nonsense.....it's either an accident or the result of a decision. I'm sure laywers have worked out how to read minds though.

Tend to agree.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Markfs]

and wipey, if a send off rule had to cover the field perfectly without any argument, we only have to look at the us supreme court for a template on how legal people can provide certainty

 

[Abdul_The_Bull]

The problem with a send-off rule is that the umpire becomes Judge, Jury and Executioner. IMO they already have too much influence on the game (with the rules being largely subjective). But, for the sake of argument, what happens if the player is sent off. Do they still face tribunal? Do they get a reduced sentence if found guilty because the send off was enacted? Is this so common that we need to consider it? For mine, the umpire is not the best placed to objectively hand out 'punishment'. Play on...

 

[neilk]

You actually do need to cover the field if you are trying to deal with a very particular event. Your proposed solution doesn't seem to address a king hit off the ball. Wouldn't you want a send off for that too?

Interesting discussion and I can see both sides. Would the AFL be one of the few top level sports in the world that doesn't have a send-off rule?

 

[neilk]

Agree on Stewart not being judged as intentional as a joke.

Still need a rule though, not case studies.

I believe that Stewart's decision to bump was intentional, but did he mean to hit him high and knock him out? It's like the act had two components that could be judged differently.

 

[Markfs]

Interesting discussion and I can see both sides. Would the AFL be one of the few top level sports in the world that doesn't have a send-off rule?

personally, i hear that argument about other sports a lot and it makes me puke......honestly...i'm puking now. If we want our sport to be like soccer then introduce the offside rule and really really really allow the umpires to stop all scoring in afl....

 

[sideswipe]

I believe that Stewart's decision to bump was intentional, but did he mean to hit him high and knock him out? It's like the act had two components that could be judged differently.

Yeah, the wording contemplates a "two-step" which I think is bullshit. The player needs to engage in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence (intent no. 1 - to commit the act) with the intention of committing the offence (intent no. 2).

I think that is such a piece of garbage - especially when we are talking about highly skilled sportsmen. It is almost like the tribunal is saying of Stewart, yes you did intentionally make contact to Prestia's scone with your fist whilst moving in opposite directions but you didn't intend to commit a reportable offence. What else was this conduct going to result in?

 

[Markfs]

let me pull one out of the bag..... what happened to richmond on the weekend was "unaustralian". It gave an unfair advantage to geelong.

i'll go further... there are times in the past when players were sent out on a footy field to knock someone out and cheat.....to cheat....and not having a rule to address that is......unexplainable

 

[Markfs]

I believe that Stewart's decision to bump was intentional, but did he mean to hit him high and knock him out? It's like the act had two components that could be judged differently.

i say....back luck tommy...you chose to run past the ball....i dont care what you were thinking. You put your rights into other people's hands

 

[jathanas]

I believe that Stewart's decision to bump was intentional, but did he mean to hit him high and knock him out? It's like the act had two components that could be judged differently.

The AFL has already pushed responsibility for the outcome of a bump to the player.

"Didn't mean to cause head-injury" shouldn't carry weight; if one did cause serious injury, they wear the repercussions.

Concussion can be life-altering, this is undeniable. We need to do better in protecting players like Prestia, Pendles, Bont etc

I what other sport outside the AFL would Stewart's bump be judged as reckless and not intentional? Bizarrely out of touch.