Here's what I wish happened with Gaff/Brayshaw.

[mjp]

First off, let me say that I hope he gets suspended for 10+ weeks.

Now that's out of the way, here's what I wish Gaff said after the game:

"Really sorry for my actions but I just snapped. I've had these blokes hanging off me for 3 years and, well, you all saw it. We had the footy and were kicking it forward - I tried to run and get to the contest but he was illegally blocking my run more than 25m away from the ball...sure, I didn't meant to hit him in the head but I meant to hit him...what else can I do? I run out every weekend and just get held and blocked and scragged illegally all over the ground...and no-one ever does a thing about it."

He shouldn't have hit him in the head. He shouldn't. But watching Martin get scragged in full view of 3-umpires on Friday night it is clear they aren't offering any protection...so the players are taking the law into their own hands (which I think we all applaud) but when it goes wrong, this is the outcome.

Lyon's comments about him being an 18year old 'kid' by the way...well, that may be so - so don't send him to the lions and get him to physically engage with a 26yo then - or SHUT UP.

[bornadog]

Blocking, holding scragging has been part of the game for ever, and I hate it, it is almost cheating as far as I am concerned, however, as you say, Gaff must get 10 plus weeks. The AFL needs to sort this bullshit hitting players in the chest, or guts, or arm etc as we see when it goes wrong, it really does go wrong.

[Happy Days]

Isn't it just an amazing coincidence that he happened to belt an 18 year old kid and not a more senior player.

I for one am amazed by it.

[Bulldog Joe]

Isn't it just an amazing coincidence that he happened to belt an 18 year old kid and not a more senior player.

I for one am amazed by it.

It is no coincidence. It is the result of tactics employed by (in this case) Ross Lyon, to try and negate the run of an elite player, by utilising said 18 yo kid as the scragger.

[Jeanette54]

The replay of the Gaff incident appears to show him being continually being body punched by Brayshaw in the lead up. Not sure how long anyone should have to put up with that. Surely we have enough umpires on the field to stop these kind of incidents before they happen. A timely free to Gaff might well of avoided him taking the law into his own hands.

Also can't help thinking about the hypocritical media stance. This weekend we were treated to a plethora of big hits and incidents from past Hawthorn/Essendon games, in the good old days. But then we get the sickening moralising with regard to this incident.

[jeemak]

The replay of the Gaff incident appears to show him being continually being body punched by Brayshaw in the lead up. Not sure how long anyone should have to put up with that. Surely we have enough umpires on the field to stop these kind of incidents before they happen. A timely free to Gaff might well of avoided him taking the law into his own hands.

Also can't help thinking about the hypocritical media stance. This weekend we were treated to a plethora of big hits and incidents from past Hawthorn/Essendon games, in the good old days. But then we get the sickening moralising with regard to this incident.

We're watching a different replay J54. The one I see shows him blocking Gaff's run and using his arms only slightly to do so.

Agree the media is hypocritical in its approach to on field violence.

[jeemak]

It is no coincidence. It is the result of tactics employed by (in this case) Ross Lyon, to try and negate the run of an elite player, by utilising said 18 yo kid as the scragger.

Ross Lyon's fault? I'm no Lyon fan but taking any of the blame away from Gaff is completely ridiculous, and I am really confident he wouldn't have done something similar if it was Mitch Robinson blocking him like Brayshaw was.

[Happy Days]

It is no coincidence. It is the result of tactics employed by (in this case) Ross Lyon, to try and negate the run of an elite player, by utilising said 18 yo kid as the scragger.

Hmmm nope it's a result of Andrew Gaff having the temperament of a small child and deciding to king hit someone 100m off the ball because he believes that's an appropriate reaction to having his "run blocked" or whatever.

[Bulldog Joe]

Ross Lyon's fault? I'm no Lyon fan but taking any of the blame away from Gaff is completely ridiculous, and I am really confident he wouldn't have done something similar if it was Mitch Robinson blocking him like Brayshaw was.
I am not apportioning blame to Lyon, more to the tactic applied by many coaches of utilising the scragging tactics, and often with the least experienced/youngest players given the task. He can't then bemoan an 18 yo being in the firing line if he sent him there.

I don't believe Gaff would have had a different intent regardless of who the tagger was.

I know you are firmly convinced that Gaff intended to hit me high, but I differ on that.

Because the AFL has tolerated body punching, it has been seen as a legitimate tactic to put off an opponnent. I believe strongly that Gaff had that intention only.


Hmmm nope it's a result of Andrew Gaff having the temperament of a small child and deciding to king hit someone 100m off the ball because he believes that's an appropriate reaction to having his "run blocked" or whatever.

Gaff has never shown malicious intent throughout his career. I simply do not believe that he struck out because the opponent was a first year player.

If the tactics of blocking and scragging were suitably penalised the tactics would not be so prevalent.

[Happy Days]

BJ, he broke his jaw and caved in his 4 front teeth. If he wasn't trying to hit him high (he was) then what exactly was he trying to do to him? There is no way that punch is thrown with anything less than ill will and an intention to badly hurt.

Also that malicious intent argument only washes until they do show malicious intent. It's why this argument about him being of good character is so rubbish, because this is the action of a person of bad character, and demonstrates him to be a person of bad character.

[Ozza]

BJ, he broke his jaw and caved in his 4 front teeth. If he wasn't trying to hit him high (he was) then what exactly was he trying to do to him? There is no way that punch is thrown with anything less than ill will and an intention to badly hurt.

Also that malicious intent argument only washes until they do show malicious intent. It's why this argument about him being of good character is so rubbish, because this is the action of a person of bad character, and demonstrates him to be a person of bad character.

So everyone that has ever thrown a punch in any circumstance is a person of bad character? Get real.

[Happy Days]

So everyone that has ever thrown a punch in any circumstance is a person of bad character? Get real.

That's a bit of a strawman argument and pays no regard to the circumstances that have played out here to be honest.

[Bulldog Joe]

BJ, he broke his jaw and caved in his 4 front teeth. If he wasn't trying to hit him high (he was) then what exactly was he trying to do to him? There is no way that punch is thrown with anything less than ill will and an intention to badly hurt.

Also that malicious intent argument only washes until they do show malicious intent. It's why this argument about him being of good character is so rubbish, because this is the action of a person of bad character, and demonstrates him to be a person of bad character.

I have looked at the video and I am convinced that he was attempting to hit him in the body (something that has been condoned, particularly for players and teams in contention).

The punch went horribly wrong and he has to take and live with the consequences. I do not accept that he had an intention to badly injure Brayshaw.

The consequences are serious, but it does not automatically follow that his intention was malicious.

I suspect that Gaff (and many others) have delivered body punches with no serious consequences on numerous occasions.

The incident with Toby Greene on Luke Dahlhaus in 2017 was done with significantly greater malicious intent.

[Go_Dogs]

When someone throws a coward punch outside a nightclub, I don't believe they intend (some perhaps do) for the victim to fall and hit their head on the concrete and die, however as soon as they throw that punch I feel they lose the right to claim lack of intent. Others may have a different view, however I find that to be analogous to the Gaff situation.

Back on topic, will be interesting to see what Gaff says in mitigation tonight (if anything) and mjp could be on the money.

[Topdog]

They are arguing it mjp.

[Rocket Science]

Camp Gaff is arguing everything you'd expect them to ...

The defendant's a model citizen going back to school-age competition, replete with character referees stretching back to his high school principal. Claims was also subject to constant unpenalised, off-the-ball attention from the Dockers and that he didn't mean to contact Brayshaw's face but rather his chest in an effort to create separation and space.

Interestingly, he claims he also sought club permission to speak publicly (interview with David King) post-game to express his concern and remorse.

That may all be the case but I don't think it matters much what they posit, he's getting serious time.

[Topdog]

Yeah he will get a right whack which is the right thing to do but I'm glad they are bringing up that the players we pay money to see are being held and hit illegally off the ball

[Twodogs]

I have looked at the video and I am convinced that he was attempting to hit him in the body (something that has been condoned, particularly for players and teams in contention).

The punch went horribly wrong and he has to take and live with the consequences. I do not accept that he had an intention to badly injure Brayshaw.

The consequences are serious, but it does not automatically follow that his intention was malicious.

I suspect that Gaff (and many others) have delivered body punches with no serious consequences on numerous occasions.

The incident with Toby Greene on Luke Dahlhaus in 2017 was done with significantly greater malicious intent.


Watching it again I tend to agree that it's a body punch gone wrong but Gaff threw it so he has to deal with the consequences.

[bornadog]

8 Weeks is the penalty

[Scraggers]

It is no coincidence. It is the result of tactics employed by (in this case) Ross Lyon, to try and negate the run of an elite player, by utilising said 18 yo kid as the scragger.

Sorry ... Did you want me ?? :p

[jeemak]

I have looked at the video and I am convinced that he was attempting to hit him in the body (something that has been condoned, particularly for players and teams in contention).

The punch went horribly wrong and he has to take and live with the consequences. I do not accept that he had an intention to badly injure Brayshaw.

The consequences are serious, but it does not automatically follow that his intention was malicious.

I suspect that Gaff (and many others) have delivered body punches with no serious consequences on numerous occasions.

The incident with Toby Greene on Luke Dahlhaus in 2017 was done with significantly greater malicious intent.

It's interesting that we can among ourselves conclude that Toby Green is capable of landing a look-away flying kick to Dahl's face intentionally, but think that Gaff's swinging round arm from a square position and in full view of Brayshaw unluckily missed its target and hit him flush in the upper jaw (10cm-15cm away from the apparent intended target).

Is it the person committing the act, or the act being committed that drives this? Not a crack, a genuine question on how we perceive things.

You have to commit an act for it to form some part of your character. This act is now in character for Gaff, and even if it is only a small portion of his character, it's part of it nonetheless.

On the penalty, eight weeks is probably right based on current standards. I think things need to change next year going forward.

[Bulldog Joe]

Watching it again I tend to agree that it's a body punch gone wrong but Gaff threw it so he has to deal with the consequences.

Agreed and the 8 weeks seems about right to me.

[Bulldog Joe]

It's interesting that we can among ourselves conclude that Toby Green is capable of landing a look-away flying kick to Dahl's face intentionally, but think that Gaff's swinging round arm from a square position and in full view of Brayshaw unluckily missed its target and hit him flush in the upper jaw (10cm-15cm away from the apparent intended target).

Is it the person committing the act, or the act being committed that drives this? Not a crack, a genuine question on how we perceive things.

You have to commit an act for it to form some part of your character. This act is now in character for Gaff, and even if it is only a small portion of his character, it's part of it nonetheless.

On the penalty, eight weeks is probably right based on current standards. I think things need to change next year going forward.

Well for me it is the act not the person. Sometimes it easier to recall incidents involving your own team and maybe I haven't seen enough footy over the last 2 years.

However, there are other incidents that had malicious intent and one that comes to mind is the Joel Selwood elbow to a prone Sam Mitchell at Subiaco last year. Just this week Ben Cunnington delivered a vicious blow to Dayne Beams and again avoids suspension as Selwood did last year.

Tom Mitchell went out of his way to elbow Todd Goldstein in the head earlier in the year and avoided suspension.

All of those incidents give a precedent that had Gaff believing he could body punch his opponent with impunity. The fact that it has gone wrong highlights why all these incidents require a suspension.

[jeemak]

I'm sorry but I've seen all angles again on AFL 360 just now and that isn't a punch to the chest. It just isn't.

It's a swinging arm straight to the jaw, the footage from behind Brayshaw shows well and truly that it's aimed at nothing other than where it landed. He's looking exactly where his punch landed.

[Happy Days]

Here's what I wished happened with Gaff and Brayshaw:

I wish that instead of trying to be a court of both trial and sentencing that has to reflect the aims of sentencing or community values or whatever dick-swinging holistic approach they are taking with their tribunal, they realise that the game exists in a vacuum and that being suspended with pay for eight weeks from your job that most people play for free as a hobby isn't a real punishment as compared to what the courts can dish out for reals.

Whoever allowed QCs and character evidence to be introduced to what should be a very, very simple matter of arbitration for the sake of due process is at best a moron.

[jeemak]

Here's what I wished happened with Gaff and Brayshaw:

I wish that instead of trying to be a court of both trial and sentencing that has to reflect the aims of sentencing or community values or whatever dick-swinging holistic approach they are taking with their tribunal, they realise that the game exists in a vacuum and that being suspended with pay for eight weeks from your job that most people play for free as a hobby isn't a real punishment as compared to what the courts can dish out for reals.

Whoever allowed QCs and character evidence to be introduced to what should be a very, very simple matter of arbitration for the sake of due process is at best a moron.

Don't they only do that to afford whoever is fronting the tribunal natural justice, to avoid legal challenges?

[Happy Days]

Don't they only do that to afford whoever is fronting the tribunal natural justice, to avoid legal challenges?

Very good point - at a guess it would date back to the Greg Williams challenge?

It's just incredibly annoying that it's necessary.

[jeemak]

Very good point - at a guess it would date back to the Greg Williams challenge?

It's just incredibly annoying that it's necessary.

I think so, on the back of the Dunkley decision as well.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/historic-nine-match-ban-handed-to-carlton-midfielder-greg-williams-prompted-court-case/news-story/95aa9437c852e98eb708cc28c3f05c7d?sv=854bebcc7d91a45314f84a56 a3a237f2

Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court case Williams was involved in (see article above):

Justice Hayne noted in his judgment that football was more than just a game – in the previous year the AFL’s revenue was $74 million, and then played in open court the introductory theme song from Ch9's The Footy Show

[Happy Days]

I think so, on the back of the Dunkley decision as well.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/historic-nine-match-ban-handed-to-carlton-midfielder-greg-williams-prompted-court-case/news-story/95aa9437c852e98eb708cc28c3f05c7d?sv=854bebcc7d91a45314f84a56 a3a237f2

Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court case Williams was involved in (see article above):

Justice Hayne noted in his judgment that football was more than just a game – in the previous year the AFL’s revenue was $74 million, and then played in open court the introductory theme song from Ch9's The Footy Show

That's really fascinating - you can almost feel the distain from the judges having to deal with that nonsense dripping off their words.

[jeemak]

That's really fascinating - you can almost feel the distain from the judges having to deal with that nonsense dripping off their words.

But also bringing a common element back to the process by placating everyone with music they can understand.

[Twodogs]

Adrian Anderson wrote most of the AFL tribunal laws. His big thing was to get rid of precedent.

Yep, he's a lawyer and he wanted to do away with precedent!