Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,987
- 12,682
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Maybe that should be his job - better an ump does it than the MRP (imo).
Hot Topic Send Off Rule
- Thread starter thylacine60
- Start date
- Tagged users None
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #27
one day when I can be bothered I will list everything the umpire has to do from start to finish of a game.........cue "just make the right decisions" incoming...........
Blue and Silver
Brownlow Medallist
Umpires already place players on report.
Send off is automatic upon report. As I suggested a yellow/red card system can be used to determine length.
If your a big name player and you do something stupid and get a red, even if you get off at the tribunal, your coach is still going to be livid with you getting sent off.
Real disincentive to play too close to the line
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
Send off is automatic upon report. As I suggested a yellow/red card system can be used to determine length.
If your a big name player and you do something stupid and get a red, even if you get off at the tribunal, your coach is still going to be livid with you getting sent off.
Real disincentive to play too close to the line
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #29
can I suggest we are heading into a whole new world where a 4 week suspension will trigger a sport-wide outcry of disbelief........
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,987
- 12,682
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The standby ump? What does he do? (and yes, proposal falls apart if he needs to be called upon to cover an injured ump)
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #31
nope - the field umpies.......if you think it's just blow the whistle a few times.............
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,987
- 12,682
- AFL Club
- Carlton
For sure, wasn't suggesting the field umps make the call (though perhaps others were).
With Dimma and Clarko, it would be great to let them celebrate, sing the club song, and then tell them just before the press conference.
Best reality TV ever...
Last edited:
Some thoughts in no particular order:
- I don't think the AFL has a major problem with people doing this sort of thing with premeditated, cynical intent. When it happens it most often seems to be due to a rush of blood, or else a poorly judged challenge combined with some degree of unfortunate luck. Not that that excuses anything, but it's useful to define the problem you're trying to solve.
- What do we want to achieve with a sendoff? To discourage that behaviour at the AFL level? Given that such behaviour is neither common nor encouraged now, that seems unnecessary, and in any case there are other ways to do it. To equalise the game situation in response to the injury suffered by the victim, as far as possible? That seems like a better reason, but that could apply to a range of situations well beyond what a sendoff would normally be used for. To make a statement about what the AFL considers acceptable, and to discourage that behaviour at lower and especially junior levels? There may be some value there, even though such rules already exist at some other levels, in that it's not a bad thing to have some consistency in this area across the code. To placate the immediate emotional reactions of people watching? Probably the biggest real reason, although nobody will put it that way, and tbh it's not an entirely bad reason, although it's not an entirely good one either.
- A sendoff rule in AFL could work in a couple of different ways. One is that you have one less on the field for the rest of the game, like in soccer. A milder version is that that player is out as if they too were injured, so it effectively translates to one less on the bench. Could optionally prohibit use of the sub in that second scenario.
- There will inevitably be an element of judgement to the decision, which all but guarantees there'll be a grey area around wherever the line is said to be. Grey areas always translate to contentiousness whenever the call is close. No way to avoid it.
- Related to the previous point: once a rule exists, however narrowly drawn, there will inevitably be some people who want to expand the boundaries of what constitutes a sendoff. Not that that's necessarily a reason to avoid having the rule, but at times the topic will certainly become a media football (yes, I know, sorry).
- I seem to recall Gaff tried playing on for a while after his hit on Brayshaw but he was eventually benched by the coach, at least partly because he knew the magnitude of what he'd done and his head wasn't in the game any more. Not sure if that's an argument for or against a sendoff rule, it could probably be spun either way, but it's an interesting data point nonetheless.
- All in all I'm somewhat sceptical about the idea, although I can see there might be something to be said for having an option available for those most egregious cases. Would certainly want the off-field umpires to have the final call, and would prefer the penalty be one less on the bench, not one less on the field.
- I don't think the AFL has a major problem with people doing this sort of thing with premeditated, cynical intent. When it happens it most often seems to be due to a rush of blood, or else a poorly judged challenge combined with some degree of unfortunate luck. Not that that excuses anything, but it's useful to define the problem you're trying to solve.
- What do we want to achieve with a sendoff? To discourage that behaviour at the AFL level? Given that such behaviour is neither common nor encouraged now, that seems unnecessary, and in any case there are other ways to do it. To equalise the game situation in response to the injury suffered by the victim, as far as possible? That seems like a better reason, but that could apply to a range of situations well beyond what a sendoff would normally be used for. To make a statement about what the AFL considers acceptable, and to discourage that behaviour at lower and especially junior levels? There may be some value there, even though such rules already exist at some other levels, in that it's not a bad thing to have some consistency in this area across the code. To placate the immediate emotional reactions of people watching? Probably the biggest real reason, although nobody will put it that way, and tbh it's not an entirely bad reason, although it's not an entirely good one either.
- A sendoff rule in AFL could work in a couple of different ways. One is that you have one less on the field for the rest of the game, like in soccer. A milder version is that that player is out as if they too were injured, so it effectively translates to one less on the bench. Could optionally prohibit use of the sub in that second scenario.
- There will inevitably be an element of judgement to the decision, which all but guarantees there'll be a grey area around wherever the line is said to be. Grey areas always translate to contentiousness whenever the call is close. No way to avoid it.
- Related to the previous point: once a rule exists, however narrowly drawn, there will inevitably be some people who want to expand the boundaries of what constitutes a sendoff. Not that that's necessarily a reason to avoid having the rule, but at times the topic will certainly become a media football (yes, I know, sorry).
- I seem to recall Gaff tried playing on for a while after his hit on Brayshaw but he was eventually benched by the coach, at least partly because he knew the magnitude of what he'd done and his head wasn't in the game any more. Not sure if that's an argument for or against a sendoff rule, it could probably be spun either way, but it's an interesting data point nonetheless.
- All in all I'm somewhat sceptical about the idea, although I can see there might be something to be said for having an option available for those most egregious cases. Would certainly want the off-field umpires to have the final call, and would prefer the penalty be one less on the bench, not one less on the field.
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #35
there is the "what do we want to achieve" thingie of someone not ending up in a wheelchair or box......
Indeed, which to my mind is rather similar to the 'discourage that behaviour' goal with an additional explanation of why.
Still in the undecided camp of a send off rule. I could be convinced in favour, but there are so many variations from other codes we could use.
Do we send the player off and they can be replaced by the usual subs? Or like soccer and they are down a player? Short period send off or rest of match? Different colour cards for severity?
Does an on field ump control or send straight to the ARC?
I do think the Webster incident should be a severe penalty at the tribunal though. 8-10 weeks.
Can definitely understand the grievances of the victim's club on the day - down a player due to concussion but the guilty party isn't punished until after the fact and other opposition teams benefit.
Do we send the player off and they can be replaced by the usual subs? Or like soccer and they are down a player? Short period send off or rest of match? Different colour cards for severity?
Does an on field ump control or send straight to the ARC?
I do think the Webster incident should be a severe penalty at the tribunal though. 8-10 weeks.
Can definitely understand the grievances of the victim's club on the day - down a player due to concussion but the guilty party isn't punished until after the fact and other opposition teams benefit.
Happy to be corrected, but the AFL is the only professional 'contact' sport ON THE PLANET that has no send off rule/time out/card system; ffs even the NRL sends off thugs!
Are we the only game that that won't penalise the team on the day and we're right? Or is everyone else correct and heaven forbid the AFL is wrong?
In the days of CTE, with former players like Danny Frawley and Shane Tuck completing suicide with brains that resembled mush, how can the AFL even contemplate going soft on anything to do with concussion? Someone mentioned a line in the sand, this is that time, surely a persons future is more important than four bloody points........
Are we the only game that that won't penalise the team on the day and we're right? Or is everyone else correct and heaven forbid the AFL is wrong?
In the days of CTE, with former players like Danny Frawley and Shane Tuck completing suicide with brains that resembled mush, how can the AFL even contemplate going soft on anything to do with concussion? Someone mentioned a line in the sand, this is that time, surely a persons future is more important than four bloody points........
I agree that we often lament the judiciary and the resultant penalties or lack there of, but I do think the threat of a red card may have a significant impact on players decision making.
Won’t really know the answer to that question until or if it is implemented though.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Apr 21, 2018
- 19,011
- 24,493
- AFL Club
- Carlton
No send off imo. Increase penalties to player lost income. 8 weeks iff they really want to move to a stamp out. Imo
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
ITCHY EYEBALLS
I see you watching me watching you
Can’t get Wellingham on Simmo out of my mind now…thanks Thy.
I think it could work IF….the umpires took a step back a few years and actually started reporting players on game day.
If something untoward happens, (and I hate using ideas from other sports) yellow card a player which means he’s off for 5-10 mins, while the officials? Reserve ump? Review the footage.
In Webster’s case it’s straightforward, red card, done for the game.
In PP’s case, let the tribunal deal with it.
you know if it is the hands of the umps they'll be trigger happy to use it.
If it was a video review situation, even if it takes 5 minutes as play continues, a decision is made. It should be reseved for when a player is genuinally injured / ko'd, i.e. a direct to tribunal offense.
Player is then red carded (no yellow) and is benched, but can be replaced on the ground.
If it was a video review situation, even if it takes 5 minutes as play continues, a decision is made. It should be reseved for when a player is genuinally injured / ko'd, i.e. a direct to tribunal offense.
Player is then red carded (no yellow) and is benched, but can be replaced on the ground.
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #43
huh?
Sorry just a smooth brained footy fan, not particularly articulate.
Trying to say that if it left solely in the hand of the on field umpires they may use it in the wrong situation just because they think they need to use it i.e marking contest and player gets fairly / accidently knocked out, add crowd anger/affirmation = Red Card. .
Disguised Bread
Premium Platinum
- Feb 13, 2024
- 55
- 70
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #45
I can't trust the umps to get this correct or remove emotion from the situation, whether that's on field or upon review. The tribunal doesn't get it right far too often, I don't see how we could expect the correct or just decision to be made during a game, with time constraints in play. I feel like this would only heighten the bigger the occassion.
What we have is imperfect, but I am against changing it. I'd rather something be in place like if the offending team is deemed guilty of a serious, cardinal offense in the cold light of day, they have their rights to use a sub taken off them next time they play that team. Something like that, but no send offs.
What we have is imperfect, but I am against changing it. I'd rather something be in place like if the offending team is deemed guilty of a serious, cardinal offense in the cold light of day, they have their rights to use a sub taken off them next time they play that team. Something like that, but no send offs.
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,319
- 21,334
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
I find the idea that a send off rule can’t work strange, considering most sports already have these rules and things in place to minimise mistakes.
I’m a supporter of a send off rule but only for serious incidents, off the top of my head, Gaffs hit on Brayshaw, Houlis hit on Lamb, Bugg on Mills, Hall on Staker and Webster on Simpkin, I’m sure there’s more but I’m sure you get me threshold on where I think a send off should apply.
I don’t think there is any doubt on the above incidents that the player would get a decent suspension and the victim in each case was left unconscious, leaving their team disadvantaged due to a non football act, I know it’s worst case but one day an incident like this will happen to a star player in a GF and crap will hit the fan.
Any introduction of a send off rule doesn’t have to fall on the umpires and doesn’t have to happen the moment the incident happens, it also doesn’t have to stop the game.
An incident could be assessed by an official in the arc or whatever we call it, they could even have someone they call for advice on the incident, they could then decide whether to send the player off and it happens at the next break.
All the cons I see for why a send off rule shouldn’t happen, seem to be easily fixed, just like the drawn GF rule, it will take a serious incident for anything to happen.
Was thinking further about this, but no doubt that there will be a situation where IF there was a send off 5 minutes after the incident, but in that time the player under scrutiny makes a play that results in a goal, and the team ends up winning by less than a goal.. the talking heads will have a squeal-fest about it.
Blue and Silver
Brownlow Medallist
I think Umpires in general are fairly reluctant to report.
Match Review Officer does most of them these days.
So presumably the same would extend to the send off
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
Match Review Officer does most of them these days.
So presumably the same would extend to the send off
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
Well, the game got by without in when it was a whole lot more brutal.
If you asked me this question in the 70's or 80's I would have said yes.
Not that many of those incidents now so could we say the game already has enough in place?
But when a team is a man down from some malicious loose arm it really is unfair on the team and any punishment from the tribunal doesn't help the team that loses by losing a top player on the day.
Toss a coin maybe.
If you asked me this question in the 70's or 80's I would have said yes.
Not that many of those incidents now so could we say the game already has enough in place?
But when a team is a man down from some malicious loose arm it really is unfair on the team and any punishment from the tribunal doesn't help the team that loses by losing a top player on the day.
Toss a coin maybe.
Gethelred
Moderator
- May 1, 2016
- 31,301
- 60,364
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #50
If it was taken out of the hands of the on field ups and given to a third ump, absolutely.
I can't remember the person, but there was a match between Melbourne and WC in Perth around 2018-2019. There was a bit of pushing and shoving, and Oliver got in someone's face only for them to take a swing; they didn't hit him, but Oliver took a massive dive.
Ump saw it, and immediately reported that player on a striking charge.
While I appreciate the onfield view, only through clear review of the footage would a red card not be taken advantage of by astute coaches. Trying to game the rules is already prolific within our game; we need to find ways to reduce that burden on umpires, instead of adding more for them to do.
