Send off rule.

[Twodogs]

Predictibly sections of the the meeja have gone reactionary over the Hall incident and are calling for a send off rule in the AFL.


Personally I'm strongly against it. We seperate the policing and judicial systems for a good reason and giving an umpire these powers make them judge, jury and executioner.



I dont see how it would have made any difference on saturday night anyway because I dont think any of the field umpires saw it.

[aker39]

I dont see how it would have made any difference on saturday night anyway because I dont think any of the field umpires saw it.


Stuart Wenn reported it on the spot.

[westdog54]

Predictibly sections of the the meeja have gone reactionary over the Hall incident and are calling for a send off rule in the AFL.


Personally I'm strongly against it. We seperate the policing and judicial systems for a good reason and giving an umpire these powers make them judge, jury and executioner.



I dont see how it would have made any difference on saturday night anyway because I dont think any of the field umpires saw it.

The way I see it, it operates at every level of Australian Rules football other than in the AFL.

Pretty sure a field umpire saw it too, Twodogs. Came straight over and pulled out his book.

If you look at the NRL, they're even reluctant to send a player to the sin-bin for something that's fairly serious. It has to be ridiculously bad for a player to actually be sent from the field for the game. Punching, elbows, headbutts, kneeing etc.

[Desipura]

too much of a grey area to be introduced for mine. I can just see clubs using it as a tactic.
Say Jonathon Brown is having a day out as he often does and in a melee he lays a punch but misses. Whats to stop the opposition player going down ala soccer style. Brown would be out for the rest of the game and the opposition player may or may not be able to come back onto the ground.

[hujsh]

I can't come up with a way that won't

a) give the umpire the power to ruin a game with a bad decision

or

b) be taken advantage of by one of the teams

or

c) have little to no impact and just be useless

[LostDoggy]

Totally agree. One appalling incident and the media reacts like it is an every day happening.

The fact that he will miss half of the season should act as an adequate deterrent against another player thinking of emulating his performance.

[LostDoggy]

If a send off rule were introduced I think it would establish a 'double jeopardy' for the player sent off. First, they'd be sent off, and then they would also, presumably, have to face the Tribunal for the same offence.

Adopting a send-off rule would require serious re-adjustment of the Tribunal points weighting system, and raises questions about whether a matter should even be heard by the Tribunal if the player was sent off. What if the match review panel considers that a player should have been sent off, but wasn't? Does the match review panel then take over the umpire's role?

There is also the possibility of inconsistent penalties for the same offence. For example, say there's a bit of push and shove. An umpire could choose to send a player off, with no tribunal appearance or further punishment for such a trivial matter. Another umpire might allow the player to stay on the field but then report the incident- the player might be rubbed out for one match by the Tribunal.

In soccer the sending off is the punishment. There may also be a mandatory number of games a player then misses because of the send off- but that is the product of a formula, not a separate Tribunal hearing.

Let sleeping dogs lie- how would you expect a sleeping dog to tell the truth?

[The Underdog]

One thing I was thinking about is the effect of a send off on the contest. Wouldn't the team with 17 for ten minutes just spend those 10 minutes with 16 guys in the back half, trying to hold on until they had the 18th back on. God forbid what kind of game you'd see if someone got sent off for the whole match. Admittedly they would struggle but it would be an awful spectacle.
There's been too many dodgy send offs in soccer to even think about bringing it in.
We have a system of punishment which for all it's flaws has led to a much cleaner game, there's no need to mess with it due to one incident, which will be punished anyway.

[LostDoggy]

The Barry Hall was an obvious one. How was he allowed to play the rest of the game just other knocking an opposition player out for the match? What stopping players from doing in important games and influencing the result?
The umpires are there to administer the rules. If the rules allow sendings off then why shouldn't the umps be allowed to do it? They report players now don't they?
Its not like soccer anyway, its just 1 less on the interchange, just like what has happened to the opposition.

[LostDoggy]

I dont see how it would have made any difference on saturday night anyway because I dont think any of the field umpires saw it.
I think he was reported on the spot. Nothing wrong with a video ref at the end of the first quarter or half saying no thats a red card.
It would have made a heap of difference say if Hall knocked out Judd in the 06 GF in the first quarter.

[The Underdog]

I think he was reported on the spot. Nothing wrong with a video ref at the end of the first quarter or half saying no thats a red card.
It would have made a heap of difference say if Hall knocked out Judd in the 06 GF in the first quarter.

And Hall would have missed the first 10 weeks of 07 and forfeited match payments equalling a large amount. Don't forget that this is their job and they lose a fair whack of money by not playing. Also would have been labelled a thug and had many many penalty points hanging over his head.

I just don't see the need for it and the penalty is too great if the umpire gets it wrong. We got through the years where this was a weekly occurence without it and now that this kind of incident happens once every 5 years I don't see why we'd need it know.

And Ernie, I can't believe you're advocating giving the umpires more authority to mess up...:)

[LostDoggy]

too much of a grey area to be introduced for mine. I can just see clubs using it as a tactic.
Say Jonathon Brown is having a day out as he often does and in a melee he lays a punch but misses. Whats to stop the opposition player going down ala soccer style. Brown would be out for the rest of the game and the opposition player may or may not be able to come back onto the ground.

Agreed.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Strongly against it.

The vast majority of reports come from the video on Monday, so sometimes you're going to get off?

I would like to see one week of any suspension held over until the next time the two sides play so at least the side offended against gets some benefit of the suspension.

[westdog54]

If a send off rule were introduced I think it would establish a 'double jeopardy' for the player sent off. First, they'd be sent off, and then they would also, presumably, have to face the Tribunal for the same offence.

So? If the offence they've committed is bad enough for them to be sent from the field, its their own bloody bad luck!!


Adopting a send-off rule would require serious re-adjustment of the Tribunal points weighting system

Rubbish. The MRP/Tribunal operate independently from the umpires. Some incidents reported by the umpire are dismissed by the MRP. A send-off would be no different.

What if the match review panel considers that a player should have been sent off, but wasn't? Does the match review panel then take over the umpire's role?

No. They continue to do their own job, as do the umpires.


There is also the possibility of inconsistent penalties for the same offence. For example, say there's a bit of push and shove. An umpire could choose to send a player off, with no tribunal appearance or further punishment for such a trivial matter. Another umpire might allow the player to stay on the field but then report the incident- the player might be rubbed out for one match by the Tribunal.

Give the umpires some credit!! They're not going to send players off for push and shove. If they did they'd have no place being a top level umpire, simple as that. And as for inconsistencies between officials, well Christ, that's happened for decades in every sport known to man.


In soccer the sending off is the punishment. There may also be a mandatory number of games a player then misses because of the send off- but that is the product of a formula, not a separate Tribunal hearing.

That in itself is an issue that Soccer is still yet to confront.

Posts like this one sum up the hysteria that is started whenever any sort of change to the umpires role or umpiring in general is suggested. Quite frankly it makes me sick.

[LostDoggy]

So? If the offence they've committed is bad enough for them to be sent from the field, its their own bloody bad luck!!

And how, then, does the Tribunal rule on something that is outside their jurisdiction, if it is the umpires that are doing the sending off? Remember- the umpires are dishing out a punishment, not simply making a report for the MRP to look at later. Back to the same point about double jeopardy.

Rubbish. The MRP/Tribunal operate independently from the umpires. Some incidents reported by the umpire are dismissed by the MRP. A send-off would be no different.

A send off is not a report. It is the meting out of a punishment, and therefore alleviates the need for any kind of 'report'.

No. They continue to do their own job, as do the umpires.


Of course.

Give the umpires some credit!! They're not going to send players off for push and shove. If they did they'd have no place being a top level umpire, simple as that. And as for inconsistencies between officials, well Christ, that's happened for decades in every sport known to man.


I agree, but push and shove was just an example (first one I could think of) of what would attract only a minimal suspension. Perhaps there are better examples. As for inconsistencies, of course there are inconsistencies between umpires, and between tribunal members and results, but that's not what I was talking about. I was referring to separate processes being applied to the same set of facts, and between two entirely different types of officials. Umpires and panel members are not just generic 'officials' as you seem to think. They are independent of each other, as you have acknowledged elsewhere, which is why their respective roles need to be clarified.

That in itself is an issue that Soccer is still yet to confront.

Posts like this one sum up the hysteria that is started whenever any sort of change to the umpires role or umpiring in general is suggested. Quite frankly it makes me sick.

Sheesh! I was just throwing in a few ideas about process. Feel free to disagree, as you have. Your comments are valuable. It's just that I would have thought you'd be hard pressed to detect any 'hysteria' in the post- it certainly wasn't posted with any particular axe to grind. I think you were looking for a red rag, and if that's the kind of thing that make you sick, then your boundaries obviously need a sterner test.

[westdog54]

Sheesh! I was just throwing in a few ideas about process. Feel free to disagree, as you have. Your comments are valuable. It's just that I would have thought you'd be hard pressed to detect any 'hysteria' in the post- it certainly wasn't posted with any particular axe to grind. I think you were looking for a red rag, and if that's the kind of thing that make you sick, then your boundaries obviously need a sterner test.

I was certainly not looking for a red rag. I happen to believe that too often the umpires are made a scapegoat for problems that exist in our game, and that they are under enough pressure without the public/media scrutiny they receive.

The 'hysteria' I suggested refers to the general reaction that this topic has received in the main. I chose your post to make light of it when it was only one example of the reaction and I apologise for that.

Yes, a send off is a punishment, but, in reality, so is a free kick or a 50 metre penalty. I'd like to think that if the AFL adopted a yellow/red card style system, that the red would only be produced in extreme circumstances, such as Saturday nights. Its very rare in most codes that a straight red needs to be produced, and in almost all cases its perfectly warranted.

I just think that some of the opposition to a send off rule has been an over-reaction.

OT: Its great to see a 'Rookie List' poster engaging in measured, respectful and constructive debate. Respect:)

[whythelongface]

Its not like soccer anyway, its just 1 less on the interchange, just like what has happened to the opposition.

Who's to say that would be the case. For instance in the NRL they have interchange as well (albeit a limited interchange) and if a player is sent off the team plays with 12 players on the field still with 4 players on the interchange bench. If the AFL were to introduce sendings off would they not follow the same principle? ie. have 17 players on the field at anyone time with 4 interchange players. I doubt they would have a sending off policy that would allow a team to have 18 players on the field and only reducing the no. of players on the interchange bench to 3.

[westdog54]

Who's to say that would be the case. For instance in the NRL they have interchange as well (albeit a limited interchange) and if a player is sent off the team plays with 12 players on the field still with 4 players on the interchange bench. If the AFL were to introduce sendings off would they not follow the same principle? ie. have 17 players on the field at anyone time with 4 interchange players. I doubt they would have a sending off policy that would allow a team to have 18 players on the field and only reducing the no. of players on the interchange bench to 3.

The AFL can have the rule however they want to have it. If it means sending off the player in question for the match but allowing him to be replaced I'd have no problem with that.

[LostDoggy]

No. Stop changing the rules

[whythelongface]

The AFL can have the rule however they want to have it. If it means sending off the player in question for the match but allowing him to be replaced I'd have no problem with that.

What would be the point of having a sending off rule then? Surely you need to penalise the team as well as the player?

[Mantis]

What would be the point of having a sending off rule then? Surely you need to penalise the team as well as the player?

You certainly do.

[LostDoggy]

And Hall would have missed the first 10 weeks of 07 and forfeited match payments equalling a large amount. Don't forget that this is their job and they lose a fair whack of money by not playing. Also would have been labelled a thug and had many many penalty points hanging over his head.

Big deal he just won 2 premeirships in a row. I'd cop 10 weeks off and match payments for a premiership. He would have the keys to Sydney and be idolized by Swans fans. He is labelled a thug away.


And Ernie, I can't believe you're advocating giving the umpires more authority to mess up...:)
Umps are a necessary parts of the game. Its the rules and interpretations that stuff them up.

[LostDoggy]

In soccer the sending off is not the only punishment. At the very least its a punishment when the offence occured and against the team most likely effected.
You automatically get a week off next week. Severe incidents are dealt with by the judicary and given more punishment.

[LostDoggy]

Who's to say that would be the case. For instance in the NRL they have interchange as well (albeit a limited interchange) and if a player is sent off the team plays with 12 players on the field still with 4 players on the interchange bench. If the AFL were to introduce sendings off would they not follow the same principle? ie. have 17 players on the field at anyone time with 4 interchange players. I doubt they would have a sending off policy that would allow a team to have 18 players on the field and only reducing the no. of players on the interchange bench to 3.

Fair enough.
I'm basically saying Barry Hall shouldn't have been allowed to continue playing the game on Saturday night but could have been replaced.
No less men on the field.

[LostDoggy]

No. Stop changing the rules

Ok leave these loop holes then.

[LostDoggy]

What would be the point of having a sending off rule then? Surely you need to penalise the team as well as the player?

With rotations these days the penalty is harsh. 1 less man on the bench is as tit for tat as you can get, given he has ruled an opposition player out.

[LostDoggy]

Don't like it.

Yet another thing that makes our great game unique.

Sending off would create more problems than it fixes and have too much of an impact on the result.

[LostDoggy]

Don't like it.

Yet another thing that makes our great game unique.

Sending off would create more problems than it fixes and have too much of an impact on the result.
Yes Knocking someone out doesn't change the result.

An unlevel playing field makes our game unique. Its great how you can bend the rules/use a loop hole to win games.

[whythelongface]

With rotations these days the penalty is harsh. 1 less man on the bench is as tit for tat as you can get, given he has ruled an opposition player out.

Why should it be tit for tat. Shouldn't the offender's team be punished more so than that of the defender. Thus, the offending team should be penalised more by having one less player on the field.

In theory the current AFL system is flawed as it allows for a lesser player to take out a superstar. The only punishment that is dealt to the offending team is that the player is reported, whilst the opposition may well lose their star player for the whole game (and perhaps longer). However, in practice it seems to have worked pretty well. Why is this the case? Why is there not more instances where star players are taken out by other players - especially during finals and in the GF.

[LostDoggy]

Why should it be tit for tat. Shouldn't the offender's team be punished more so than that of the defender. Thus, the offending team should be penalised more by having one less player on the field.
He is punished more later. Its like arguing for the Johnny Howards republic. Either way is better than no way.
At least with some send off the is some pay back to the team that deserve it most
I'm not saying this send off rule should be used all the time just in cases like the Hall/Staker.


In theory the current AFL system is flawed as it allows for a lesser player to take out a superstar. The only punishment that is dealt to the offending team is that the player is reported, whilst the opposition may well lose their star player for the whole game (and perhaps longer). However, in practice it seems to have worked pretty well. Why is this the case? Why is there not more instances where star players are taken out by other players - especially during finals and in the GF.
Well the loop hole is there and it will only take one case for an important game to to be deemed a farce.

[LostDoggy]

Two minutes to go in the grand final. Scores level. Bulldogs finishing full of running. Our always trusted, creditable, all-seeing, fair-minded umpire sends of big Will for some pathetic incident.
You only have to go to the footy to know it will happen.
Pathetic incident like knocking out one of their players deliberately?
Fair enough then.
There are obvious instantances that should be red cards eg Hall/Staker and ones that aren't.

Why does this great game of ours have some much dependence on umps never getting anything right?
Can't rely on umps interpretations so that means we can't have fairer rules.

[hujsh]

Yes Knocking someone out doesn't change the result.

An unlevel playing field makes our game unique. Its great how you can bend the rules/use a loop hole to win games.

When's the last time you've seen someone taken out to win a game?

Hall wasn't trying to injure him because he's a threat. He's just a violent thug.

It's not a real problem because it never happens. That's why people were so surprised to see Hall do it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

First quarter of a grand final and Mooney gives Minson one, caught on TV, the crowd roars. The umpire turns around just in time to see Will give him one back.

Will gets sent off and we play out the game one short.

The MRP gives them 2 matches each.

Yep. Much fairer.

[westdog54]

No. Stop changing the rules

Do you only post whenever you have something negative to say?

[LostDoggy]

First quarter of a grand final and Mooney gives Minson one, caught on TV, the crowd roars. The umpire turns around just in time to see Will give him one back.

Will gets sent off and we play out the game one short.

The MRP gives them 2 matches each.

Yep. Much fairer.

The much fairer way is for both to be sent off. One by the ump, one by video at quarter time.

Doesn't sound like the Minson one would be a kinghit anyway and I don't think that should be a sending off offence anyway.

If Minson knocked him out and a red card is appropriate, to me thats fairer then the way things currently are.

[LostDoggy]

When's the last time you've seen someone taken out to win a game?
Just because it its rare doesn't mean it will never happen. As I wrote already, it only needs to happen once!


Hall wasn't trying to injure him because he's a threat. He's just a violent thug.
I'm sure that makes Staker and WC fans feel better. Fair enough Barry you left us a man short and might have broken jaw. Don't worry about it son.


It's not a real problem because it never happens. That's why people were so surprised to see Hall do it.
Incorrect - it happened.

[hujsh]

Just because it its rare doesn't mean it will never happen. As I wrote already, it only needs to happen once!


I'm sure that makes Staker and WC fans feel better. Fair enough Barry you left us a man short and might have broken jaw. Don't worry about it son.


Incorrect - it happened.

I just don't want people trying to solve problems if they aren't there.

And IMO it's not a problem. In fact, I bet we wont see a hit like that for a long time

[LostDoggy]

I just don't want people trying to solve problems if they aren't there.
And IMO it's not a problem.
So its not a problem that you are allowed to knock out blokes left right and centre and get away with on the day? :rolleyes:


In fact, I bet we wont see a hit like that for a long time
And the next time it happens be it 1,2 ,4 10, 20 years, the subject will be brought up again.
As I writtten a number of time already, it only needs to happen once.
Sweeping the problem under the carpet doesn't fix it.

If you want to join the argument, please don't go over the same things again.

[LostDoggy]

Why change the rules. We dont need players sent off, thats not our game. I disagree with most of the rule changes, especially the quick kick out from fullback after a point. People dont want to see 'fast' footy, they want to see quality contested footy.

So what if WCE were a man short, injuries happen in sport. Hall paid the price last night

[wimberga]

Im with you Ernie on this one all the way. I dont understand why it should be allowed to happen.

[The Underdog]

Big deal he just won 2 premeirships in a row. I'd cop 10 weeks off and match payments for a premiership. He would have the keys to Sydney and be idolized by Swans fans. He is labelled a thug away.


Umps are a necessary parts of the game. Its the rules and interpretations that stuff them up.

And this would be an extra rule and interpretation to stuff them up.
I understand your only advocating it for obvious incidents, but there is still the chance for an umpire to miss the initial incident or misconstrue the seriousness of an incident and effect the game.
As for the video element being brought into the game, it's not something we've used for matchdays before and I'm not sure we should start. Say, using Sockeye's example, that Will and Mooney's stoush is 2 minutes into the last quarter. It means Mooney gets to play out the game while we're down a player for the final quarter of a GF. Or to use another example, into the last qtr of a GF, Mooney is under a pack with Cooney, he gives him the squirrel unseen by anyone including the video and then Cooney retaliates with a punch and ends up sent off. We're down our most important mid while Mooney gets off scot free.
I understand your arguments about fairness on matchday but I just think too many grey areas get thrown up. I don't think it's a be all and end all solution.
Take the example in soccer where players suspensions following a red card get revoked because the ref got it wrong. Happened to Kisnorbo recently.

[hujsh]

So its not a problem that you are allowed to knock out blokes left right and centre and get away with on the day? :rolleyes:

If it was being exploited or there was many fights it would be a problem. But at most there is one punch to the head a year and that rarely knocks someone out.


As I writtten a number of time already, it only needs to happen once.
Sweeping the problem under the carpet doesn't fix it.


And if it's not a problem it doesn't need to be fixed.



This seems like the solution could potentially cause as many problems as the initial problem. Then everyone will want to go back to the way it was. It just feels like a change that doesn't need to happen

[westdog54]

First quarter of a grand final and Mooney gives Minson one, caught on TV, the crowd roars. The umpire turns around just in time to see Will give him one back.

Will gets sent off and we play out the game one short.

The MRP gives them 2 matches each.

Yep. Much fairer.

First quarter of a grand final and Barry Hall is getting towelled up by Lake, so he flattens him. Lake is concussed and is gone for the game.

After quarter time, having naturally being allowed to stay on the field, Hall runs riot, kicking 5 goals and setting up 4 more. Meanwhile, we play the game one short.

We lose by 2 goals. Barry Hall retires with another premiership medallion around his neck and goes on to a prosperous and profitable boxing career.

He doesn't even bother fronting up to the tribunal to receive his 20 match suspension.

[LostDoggy]

First quarter of a grand final and Barry Hall is getting towelled up by Lake, so he flattens him. Lake is concussed and is gone for the game.

After quarter time, having naturally being allowed to stay on the field, Hall runs riot, kicking 5 goals and setting up 4 more. Meanwhile, we play the game one short.

We lose by 2 goals. Barry Hall retires with another premiership medallion around his neck and goes on to a prosperous and profitable boxing career.

He doesn't even bother fronting up to the tribunal to receive his 20 match suspension.

Your imagination is running wild Westdog54. Things like this happen once in a blue moon. It was bad, he got seven weeks (huge blow to Sydneys season), lets get on with the AFL!.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

It's a fine line. About the only way I could see it being effective is if they are off the ground for the same amount of time, as suggested by Eade on the couch. Eg. Hall would of been sent off for the game for as long as Staker was off.

Only problem with that one is if clubs play politically. Say they keep Staker off the ground for the entire game, as Hall provides a dangerous option for The Swans up forward. Hall & Staker off = win to Eagles.

Probably the sensible thing is to simply leave it. It could turn out to be a disastrious rule, as umpires could make mistakes with sending off the wrong player (through retaliation) or as I said above, with clubs 'fixing' it.

In this day and age it's rare we see incidents like last Saturday Night. Therefore, I think we'd be better placed to leave it as it is. I doubt we'll see something as big as this for a long time to come and I think it's a potentially harming exercise to try and accommodate for the 'what ifs'.

[LostDoggy]

Why change the rules. We dont need players sent off, thats not our game.

So what if WCE were a man short, injuries happen in sport. Hall paid the price last night

Ok then, if it happened in a final for against my team, without instant justice, it would be an eye for eye. We are not going to win as are a man down so might as well do the same to the opposition.
No need for football just call it fighting.

[LostDoggy]

And this would be an extra rule and interpretation to stuff them up.
I understand your only advocating it for obvious incidents, but there is still the chance for an umpire to miss the initial incident or misconstrue the seriousness of an incident and effect the game.
As for the video element being brought into the game, it's not something we've used for matchdays before and I'm not sure we should start. Say, using Sockeye's example, that Will and Mooney's stoush is 2 minutes into the last quarter. It means Mooney gets to play out the game while we're down a player for the final quarter of a GF. Or to use another example, into the last qtr of a GF, Mooney is under a pack with Cooney, he gives him the squirrel unseen by anyone including the video and then Cooney retaliates with a punch and ends up sent off. We're down our most important mid while Mooney gets off scot free.
I understand your arguments about fairness on matchday but I just think too many grey areas get thrown up. I don't think it's a be all and end all solution.

THink there are a lot more grey areas without such a rule.



Take the example in soccer where players suspensions following a red card get revoked because the ref got it wrong. Happened to Kisnorbo recently.
Kisnorbo or Grella? Thats very rare in soccer. Never seen in big games either.

[hujsh]

It's a fine line. About the only way I could see it being effective is if they are off the ground for the same amount of time, as suggested by Eade on the couch. Eg. Hall would of been sent off for the game for as long as Staker was off.

Only problem with that one is if clubs play politically. Say they keep Staker off the ground for the entire game, as Hall provides a dangerous option for The Swans up forward. Hall & Staker off = win to Eagles.

Probably the sensible thing is to simply leave it. It could turn out to be a disastrious rule, as umpires could make mistakes with sending off the wrong player (through retaliation) or as I said above, with clubs 'fixing' it.

In this day and age it's rare we see incidents like last Saturday Night. Therefore, I think we'd be better placed to leave it as it is. I doubt we'll see something as big as this for a long time to come and I think it's a potentially harming exercise to try and accommodate for the 'what ifs'.

I had similar thoughts on Tuesday morning.

[LostDoggy]

First quarter of a grand final and Barry Hall is getting towelled up by Lake, so he flattens him. Lake is concussed and is gone for the game.

After quarter time, having naturally being allowed to stay on the field, Hall runs riot, kicking 5 goals and setting up 4 more. Meanwhile, we play the game one short.

We lose by 2 goals. Barry Hall retires with another premiership medallion around his neck and goes on to a prosperous and profitable boxing career.

He doesn't even bother fronting up to the tribunal to receive his 20 match suspension.

Thank you.
Just that it didn't work for Alastair Lynch as they lost the GF.

[LostDoggy]

It's a fine line. About the only way I could see it being effective is if they are off the ground for the same amount of time, as suggested by Eade on the couch. Eg. Hall would of been sent off for the game for as long as Staker was off.

Only problem with that one is if clubs play politically. Say they keep Staker off the ground for the entire game, as Hall provides a dangerous option for The Swans up forward. Hall & Staker off = win to Eagles.
Which is fair result given Hall hit Staker.


Probably the sensible thing is to simply leave it. It could turn out to be a disastrious rule, as umpires could make mistakes with sending off the wrong player (through retaliation) or as I said above, with clubs 'fixing' it.

In this day and age it's rare we see incidents like last Saturday Night. Therefore, I think we'd be better placed to leave it as it is. I doubt we'll see something as big as this for a long time to come and I think it's a potentially harming exercise to try and accommodate for the 'what ifs'.
Why? We want this game to be better and fairer so not allowing for a sending off rule in these cases to me seems stupid.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Which is fair result given Hall hit Staker.

No doubt it would of been fair on Saturday Night, but what if a player fakes? Let's say a player cops one in the chest and drops to the ground. They come off the ground and would usually be right to play in at least a quarter's time. However, his side's coaching panel realises it puts them in a better position to win if he stays off, forcing the offender to sit on the pine too.

It's a very fine line and it's asking too much of the umpires IMHO. They make enough mistakes as it is, and they simply don't have the time to sift through reality & make believe. It's too hard a call to make, and you can be sure that eventually some sides would start doing this.



Why? We want this game to be better and fairer so not allowing for a sending off rule in these cases to me seems stupid.

In theory, the send off rule would seem appropriate but IMO introducing such a rule only opens up further loopholes. It creates opportunities for clubs to 'fix' such situations - eg. player a constantly nags player b, player b sends an elbow to the chest, player a fall's down and dramatises. Result = player a + b are off the ground, with a clear advantage to player a's side.

Perhaps a 'time limit' punishment would be better. Eg. 20 minutes on the pine. Still, it's placing a lot of responsibility on the umpires to strictly enforce a rule which balances on very thin rope. They find it difficult enough dealing with the hands in the back rule.

[westdog54]

Your imagination is running wild Westdog54. Things like this happen once in a blue moon. It was bad, he got seven weeks (huge blow to Sydneys season), lets get on with the AFL!.

How is my imagination any wilder than Sockeye's scenario?

Honestly, be constructive or stop abusing your keyboard.

[LostDoggy]

No doubt it would of been fair on Saturday Night, but what if a player fakes? Let's say a player cops one in the chest and drops to the ground. They come off the ground and would usually be right to play in at least a quarter's time. However, his side's coaching panel realises it puts them in a better position to win if he stays off, forcing the offender to sit on the pine too.
With your proposal Hall would be off the ground as long as Staker is off. To me thats a man less each. If WC think their 21 vs 21 is better than so be it. Better than 21 WC vs 22.
Throwing a punching like that should be a send off, no matter if you miss, connect, knock out or just brush the opponent. It was a king hit.


It's a very fine line and it's asking too much of the umpires IMHO. They make enough mistakes as it is, and they simply don't have the time to sift through reality & make believe. It's too hard a call to make, and you can be sure that eventually some sides would start doing this.
Umpiring standards are a different issue. They change the rules and interpretation every year, another one which a fairer way is nothing new. I know I'd feel more robbed if the opposition knocked out our best to win the game then losing by poor umpiring.


In theory, the send off rule would seem appropriate but IMO introducing such a rule only opens up further loopholes. It creates opportunities for clubs to 'fix' such situations - eg. player a constantly nags player b, player b sends an elbow to the chest, player a fall's down and dramatises. Result = player a + b are off the ground, with a clear advantage to player a's side.

Again I'm not advocating it for niggling incidents unless b knocks out a. Then b is out til a is out. If you are stupid enough to get sucked in by niggling to attempt to knock someone out then maybe you deserve to be sent off.

[LostDoggy]

Can someone please explain something to me?

Why is 'consequence' a consideration when determining a sentence/punishment, instead of intent? What I mean is: there is a great outcry (which I agree with, just to clarify) because Barry Hall punches someone and knocks him out. How is this different from another player swinging punches wildly but failing to connect, or connecting but not knocking his opponent out? (We see this excused all the time under the heading 'handbags')

The action is the same, the intent is the same, the 'brain snap' is the same... is Barry Hall punished for actually having a better punch? Does this mean that the smaller and crappier a puncher you are, the less restrained you have to be, and the bigger and more skilled you are, the more 'condemned' you are if you actually react? Barry's punch was over in a split second. There are guys out there who react and swing MANY punches wildly without actually connecting. Surely they should be getting seven weeks per INTENDED punch?

My point is that there is a huge level of hypocrisy in the game, based on who the 'perpetrator' is. If a Chris Judd swung at a Barry Hall and not knocked him out because

a. his punch was weak or missed, and
b. Barry is a big boy and can take a punch

it wouldn't even have made the match review panel, and the media would be talking about how Barry probably provoked the Golden Boy in the first place and deserved it.

--

re: the send-off rule, EVERY other team sport (apart from netball) has a provision for a send off rule of sorts - soccer, rugby, hockey, basketball etc..., because of the anomaly that some have already pointed out of being able to do ANYTHING within a match and get away with it for the remainder of the match. AFL is an anomaly in this sense, and those who think abusing the loophole is 'fanciful' need only remind themselves that in this game, it is only a matter of time before coaches start exploiting any and every loophole (kicking backwards and maintaining possession ad infinitum, interchange madness) available that only a few years ago would have been deemed 'fanciful'. That footy is actually relatively slow in the uptake of tactical innovation doesn't mean that it will never happen.

pps. And for those who say it has 'never' happened, you have very short memories. PLENTY of teams have already tried to clean up players (Brodie Holland on our Monty being only the latest example, plenty of examples from other grand finals that I can remember in the last twenty years) early in important games, because the short-term gain far outweighs the potential -- and much delayed -- penalty.

[hujsh]

Can someone please explain something to me?

Why is 'consequence' a consideration when determining a sentence/punishment, instead of intent? What I mean is: there is a great outcry (which I agree with, just to clarify) because Barry Hall punches someone and knocks him out. How is this different from another player swinging punches wildly but failing to connect, or connecting but not knocking his opponent out? (We see this excused all the time under the heading 'handbags')

The action is the same, the intent is the same, the 'brain snap' is the same... is Barry Hall punished for actually having a better punch? Does this mean that the smaller and crappier a puncher you are, the less restrained you have to be, and the bigger and more skilled you are, the more 'condemned' you are if you actually react? Barry's punch was over in a split second. There are guys out there who react and swing MANY punches wildly without actually connecting. Surely they should be getting seven weeks per INTENDED punch?

My point is that there is a huge level of hypocrisy in the game, based on who the 'perpetrator' is. If a Chris Judd swung at a Barry Hall and not knocked him out because

a. his punch was weak or missed, and
b. Barry is a big boy and can take a punch

it wouldn't even have made the match review panel, and the media would be talking about how Barry probably provoked the Golden Boy in the first place and deserved it.

--

re: the send-off rule, EVERY other team sport (apart from netball) has a provision for a send off rule of sorts - soccer, rugby, hockey, basketball etc..., because of the anomaly that some have already pointed out of being able to do ANYTHING within a match and get away with it for the remainder of the match. AFL is an anomaly in this sense, and those who think abusing the loophole is 'fanciful' need only remind themselves that in this game, it is only a matter of time before coaches start exploiting any and every loophole (kicking backwards and maintaining possession ad infinitum, interchange madness) available that only a few years ago would have been deemed 'fanciful'. That footy is actually relatively slow in the uptake of tactical innovation doesn't mean that it will never happen.

pps. And for those who say it has 'never' happened, you have very short memories. PLENTY of teams have already tried to clean up players (Brodie Holland on our Monty being only the latest example, plenty of examples from other grand finals that I can remember in the last twenty years) early in important games, because the short-term gain far outweighs the potential -- and much delayed -- penalty.

Barry Hall is an ex boxer. He has a responsibility to use his fist's responsibly as they could be considered lethal weapons (or weapons of considerable danger at least). David Hooks was killed by a punch from an ex-boxer. Hall's punch will do far more damage than most. In fact i believe that things like having a blackbelt is considered in court if someone with a blackbelt get's into a fight.

With Holland i doubt his intention was to take out Monty from the match. Sure it was shit to see him do it but it wasn't a strategy.

[Topdog]

First quarter of a grand final and Barry Hall is getting towelled up by Lake, so he flattens him. Lake is concussed and is gone for the game.

After quarter time, having naturally being allowed to stay on the field, Hall runs riot, kicking 5 goals and setting up 4 more. Meanwhile, we play the game one short.

We lose by 2 goals. Barry Hall retires with another premiership medallion around his neck and goes on to a prosperous and profitable boxing career.

He doesn't even bother fronting up to the tribunal to receive his 20 match suspension.

Half time, Hall playing well. Minson runs up to Hall and decks him (ala Leigh Matthews incident).

If it is an important game and one player is stupid enough to do it, the other team will do it back. May end up with a 5 on 5 game......But heck it hasn't happened in basically 150 years so of course it will happen soon.

[LostDoggy]

Half time, Hall playing well. Minson runs up to Hall and decks him (ala Leigh Matthews incident).

If it is an important game and one player is stupid enough to do it, the other team will do it back. May end up with a 5 on 5 game......But heck it hasn't happened in basically 150 years so of course it will happen soon.

Lynch tried it a few years back. The 1945 wasn't a bad GF either. The 76? VFA GF was great TV but maybe not a great advertisement for the game. Sure there have been other instances.
BTW Hall himself is advocating for a send off rule.

Its only been the last 10-15 years the game has been cleaned up. Before that it was kill or be killed. Fair enough if you think might happen and the player in Stakers shoes might be ready but not in this era of football.

[The Underdog]

BTW Hall himself is advocating for a send off rule.



If he really believed in it he would have taken himself off...:rolleyes:

Anyway maybe I'm wrong. Hell knows, every rule change in the past few years has led to a prevalence of diving and faking which is rewarded ad nauseum, so we may as well punish the proper violent acts on the field as well.
Can't wait til Ray Chamberlain gets the power to send players off.
Anybody for 1 on 1?

[LostDoggy]

If he really believed in it he would have taken himself off...:rolleyes:
Yes
Just like walking in cricket I suppose.

[Topdog]

Lynch tried it a few years back. The 1945 wasn't a bad GF either. The 76? VFA GF was great TV but maybe not a great advertisement for the game. Sure there have been other instances.
BTW Hall himself is advocating for a send off rule.

Its only been the last 10-15 years the game has been cleaned up. Before that it was kill or be killed. Fair enough if you think might happen and the player in Stakers shoes might be ready but not in this era of football.

So lynch attempted to have someone forced off the ground with injury? It just doesn't happen anymore and giving these people more power is ridiculous.

Sure the Hall one looked simple enough but what if the ump was on another angle and it looked like a big hit but was actually just a push?

To many things can go wrong for something that basically just doesn't happen in the game.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Umpires are only responsible for about 20% of reports.

Are you really advocating that someone should be sent off 20% of the time?

[LostDoggy]

Umpires are only responsible for about 20% of reports.

Are you really advocating that someone should be sent off 20% of the time?

If they missed an obvious, it is usally captured on video. If its prior a break, why can't the ump can be told at the break?

[LostDoggy]

So lynch attempted to have someone forced off the ground with injury?
Lynch tried to KO Wakelin knowing he was retiring and the punishment was nothing next to a possible 4th straight premiership.


It just doesn't happen anymore and giving these people more power is ridiculous.

Don't the Hall incident, The Holland/Monty incident, the Lynch incident count? Baker KOed Kane Johnson not that long ago either.
Yes it so unreasonable to expect umpires to administer the rules:rolleyes:


Sure the Hall one looked simple enough but what if the ump was on another angle and it looked like a big hit but was actually just a push?
It was pretty obvious straight away he KOed him.


To many things can go wrong for something that basically just doesn't happen in the game. Many thing go right too. Rather lose a game that way than lose it cause you were kinghit out the game.

[westdog54]

Umpires are only responsible for about 20% of reports.

Are you really advocating that someone should be sent off 20% of the time?

Reports by the umpires vs reports by the MRP is an irrelevant consideration.

Here it is in black and white: If any umpire, yes, any umpire sees a dangerous, intentional piece of foul play by a player, he should have the authority to order that player from the field for the remainder of the game.

As I've mentioned already, we're the only football code in the world that doesn't employ a send off rule. And some people would have you believe that's something to celebrate/be proud of.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Reports by the umpires vs reports by the MRP is an irrelevant consideration.

Here it is in black and white: If any umpire, yes, any umpire sees a dangerous, intentional piece of foul play by a player, he should have the authority to order that player from the field for the remainder of the game.

As I've mentioned already, we're the only football code in the world that doesn't employ a send off rule. And some people would have you believe that's something to celebrate/be proud of.

But the vast majority don't get picked up until Monday.

You're not advocating a send off for reportable offences; you're advocating send off for those stupid enough to do something and get caught on the spot.

[Topdog]

Lynch tried to KO Wakelin knowing he was retiring and the punishment was nothing next to a possible 4th straight premiership.

I can not remember that happening. Not doubting you just dont remember the incident.



Don't the Hall incident, The Holland/Monty incident, the Lynch incident count? Baker KOed Kane Johnson not that long ago either.
Yes it so unreasonable to expect umpires to administer the rules:rolleyes:
The Holland/Monty one. **** me imagine umpires sending people off for bumps. Baker's one wasn't seen by anyone IIRC.... The umpires see about 50% of the reports that happen and only report someone <50% of those times. There is a very good reason for this....They don't have a clear view most of the time.


It was pretty obvious straight away he KOed him.

Something I'm sure a diving player wouldnt take advantage of...



Many thing go right too. Rather lose a game that way than lose it cause you were kinghit out the game.[

Yeah cos no one will punch back if you just out and out deck someone for no reason. The saying 'flying the flag' didn't just come out of thin air.

[Topdog]

I gather than that J. Brown should have been sent off last night?

[LostDoggy]

The Holland/Monty one. **** me imagine umpires sending people off for bumps.

So you are saying picking blokes off from a centre bounce by bumping into their head when down shouldn't be a send off? Monty was concussed and Holland copped 6 weeks.


Baker's one wasn't seen by anyone IIRC.... The umpires see about 50% of the reports that happen and only report someone <50% of those times. There is a very good reason for this....They don't have a clear view most of the time.

For about the 4th time, whats wrong with a video ref telling the umpire at a break?


Something I'm sure a diving player wouldnt take advantage of...
Thats nothing new. For this whole arguement I talked about obvious incidents. KO someone is pretty obvious. And the fact that someone has to and stay off the ground is proof enough.


Yeah cos no one will punch back if you just out and out deck someone for no reason. The saying 'flying the flag' didn't just come out of thin air.
Not sure what you are advocating here? Its great viewing, I doubt all in brawls are the way to go.
At the moment team its free for the opposition to carry out their own justice on the day. With a send off rule the violence is discouraged more for fear that you will effect your team negatively.

[gohardorgohome]

When was the last time that someone who has given an opponent a whack, has gone onto give out a bit more treatment to the opposition. I cant think of too many times. The tribunal is there for a reason. Let things be sorted out there. It least it is chaired by former footballer and not an umpire.

Barry Hall went overboard with his punch on Staker, but i have no problem with a guy that is being illegally scragged giving out a bit of a warning in retalliation.

Footy has lost a fair bit in the politically correct sanitisation process that has been evolving over the last decade or so. Its still a great game, but I still enjoy a bit of the physicality and aggro that was in the game that I grew to love.

I really think the whole think has been totally done to death.

I hate the notion that a mum does not want her son to play footy because it is too violent. If a kid wants to play football, he will, be that in the the school playground. If the kid is scared off by the possibility of being injured then that child may not be of the right mindset to enjoy football anyway.

[LostDoggy]

When was the last time that someone who has given an opponent a whack, has gone onto give out a bit more treatment to the opposition.
Not the issue. The fact that he stay on the ground after he has KOed someone is. 1 hit is enough to change the complexion of the game.


I cant think of too many times. The tribunal is there for a reason. Let things be sorted out there. It least it is chaired by former footballer and not an umpire.
Meanwhile you lose the game possibly an important cos you are a man down.
Again why is it unreasonable to expect umpire to administer rules?


Barry Hall went overboard with his punch on Staker, but i have no problem with a guy that is being illegally scragged giving out a bit of a warning in retalliation.
You knock someone out you deserve not to play out the game be, it in retalliation or as a kinghit.


Footy has lost a fair bit in the politically correct sanitisation process that has been evolving over the last decade or so. Its still a great game, but I still enjoy a bit of the physicality and aggro that was in the game that I grew to love.


I hate the notion that a mum does not want her son to play footy because it is too violent. If a kid wants to play football, he will, be that in the the school playground. If the kid is scared off by the possibility of being injured then that child may not be of the right mindset to enjoy football anyway.[/QUOTE]

Well it changed years ago, you either have back 20 years or fully the other way. No good complaining about now. To me its all about what fair. You KO someone either send him off or allow the other team to retalliate.

[westdog54]

But the vast majority don't get picked up until Monday.

You're not advocating a send off for reportable offences; you're advocating send off for those stupid enough to do something and get caught on the spot.

Your point being?

[gohardorgohome]

I disagree Ernie, you seem to be determined in your views but you'll never sway my point of view and I suppose I will never sway yours.

I know that many of the guys I played suburban footy with feel much the same way as I. Footy today is great to watch most of the time, but most people who were brought up with the rough stuff in the 70's and '80s would love to have a fair bit of it back.

How you you recommend a player who is being scragged should react in this politically correct world Ernie?

Also who would you say should make the call to send a guy off? What happens if this person makes the wrong call? To what level of doubt should the call be made?

If the send off rule is introduced how do you ensure that the offender is sent off for all incidents? I think there are too many grey areas.

[LostDoggy]

Every other code (including ours at junior and amateur levels) administers a send-off in some form, so are we saying that AFL at the highest level is the only football code in the world that has officiating so incompetent that we can't expect them to do the same? That seems to be the gist of most arguments against a send-off rule, that players will try to con the ump and umpires are not good enough to do their jobs (which I completely acknowledge as valid points; other codes have had problems with this).

However, pointing out potential flaws in a concept does not invalidate the entire concept, only certain forms of it. If an immediate send-off is too fraught with potential gamesmanship, then, as Ernie has already pointed out, quarter-time video send-offs may be an option. This would be hard to replicate at lower levels of football, but professional sports around the world seem to have decided that decision making and officiating at a professional level must be of a higher standard than at amateur and junior level (thus, tennis and hawkeye, video referees in cricket and many football codes etc.); the quality of decision-making at the highest level cannot be held to ransom by the argument of inconsistency with lower levels. If anything, it is the prerogative of the lower levels to come up to the required standard, than the other way around.

Also, any send-off rule can be strongly codified to cover only the MOST obvious of situations, so that it may be that only one or two send-offs occur in any given season, rather than (as some are assuming) every other game. I think what most of us who are at least open to the suggestion are arguing is that there should at least be the provision for an umpire to send off a player as a last recourse. At the moment their hands are completely tied, regardless of the situation.

I am not convinced, either way, actually -- a bad send-off rule would be worse than not having one -- but I believe that we have to be at least open to the concept, and discuss the different possible forms a send-off rule might take.

---

Just as a brainstorm, perhaps a system like field hockey, where there are ten minute sin bin provisions, may be an option.

[LostDoggy]

Also who would you say should make the call to send a guy off? What happens if this person makes the wrong call? To what level of doubt should the call be made?

If the send off rule is introduced how do you ensure that the offender is sent off for all incidents? I think there are too many grey areas.

Who should make the call is an interesting point. If a field ump is considered, for whatever reason, incapable of making such a call, others have pointed out that video umps are a possibility.

As for how one ensures that offenders are sent off? In the Hall incident was it not clear enough? If an ump sees that surely there should at least be the provision that he can take further action apart from simply awarding a free kick?

[LostDoggy]

Footy has lost a fair bit in the politically correct sanitisation process that has been evolving over the last decade or so. Its still a great game, but I still enjoy a bit of the physicality and aggro that was in the game that I grew to love.


The thing is, the EASIEST thing to do when being aggravated is to react physically, which is why players continue to aggravate those players they know are susceptible to it. There's no skill or excitement in being 'aggro', to use your term. You can get that with any drunk thug on King Street on a Friday night.

The true test of mental strength and character is the ability to concentrate on getting the job done regardless. A player like a Scott West, that goes under packs ad infinitum and gets up from under them with nary a complaint, for example.

I, too, love the physicality that comes with the game, but only in the context of a contest -- crashing through packs, bursting from the centre, going in hard for a loose ball, backing into a pack, marking with the flight of the ball. These are all acts of great physicality and courage, and the potential for injury to yourself or others is there. If you happen to take out players in the contest, this, too, I think, is legitimate.

But 'aggro' and physicality in themselves, miles off the ball and completely out of context with the actual game, is just a sign of ill-discipline and lack of focus or maturity and lets your own team (and yourself) down more then anything else. Even past players from the 'old days' (that some here seem to pine for) have expressed regret at their behaviour from that time. Being a 'man' isn't all about buffoonery.

A team's supporters want to see players react physically all the time, but that's just an easy, emotional response that professionals can't afford to give in to.

[hujsh]

Every other code (including ours at junior and amateur levels) administers a send-off in some form

Uh. And they're crap at it too.;)

[Topdog]

With the end of quarter video ref what happens when there is an incident in the 4th quarter.

What happens with anything that happens at the start of a quarter?

The obvious ones are not always that obvious. The umpire reported J.Brown on the spot the other day and seemed fairly convinced of it. I'd hate to see people sent off because of one man's stupidity.

[LostDoggy]

I disagree Ernie, you seem to be determined in your views but you'll never sway my point of view and I suppose I will never sway yours.

I know that many of the guys I played suburban footy with feel much the same way as I. Footy today is great to watch most of the time, but most people who were brought up with the rough stuff in the 70's and '80s would love to have a fair bit of it back.

How you you recommend a player who is being scragged should react in this politically correct world Ernie?
Just punch them in the head and knock them out a I suppose.
Violence is always the answer. Eye for an eye and no need for umpires.

Rules are already in place to take care of this. If you don't believe there is then send off rule or not-things aren't going to change here.


Also who would you say should make the call to send a guy off?
Umpires via the rules. Exactly what they do now and have done for nearly 150 years.


What happens if this person makes the wrong call?
Its nothing new or unusual especially in our game, they huge call made every week. Some effect results too.


To what level of doubt should the call be made?
Already spoke about this.


If the send off rule is introduced how do you ensure that the offender is sent off for all incidents? I think there are too many grey areas.
Already spoke about this as well.
At the very least a likely offender is punished at game time which not the case at the moment.

[LostDoggy]

With the end of quarter video ref what happens when there is an incident in the 4th quarter.

What happens with anything that happens at the start of a quarter?

The obvious ones are not always that obvious. The umpire reported J.Brown on the spot the other day and seemed fairly convinced of it. I'd hate to see people sent off because of one man's stupidity.
Firstly it would have to be missed by the ump, if missed by the ump why can't a message be relayed to the ump as soon as it is seen?

In your case at least something is better than nothing.

Sorry I didn't see the Brown incident, did he KO someone?

I hate to lose a game because an opposition player has intentional KOed one of ours.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Sorry I didn't see the Brown incident, did he KO someone?



No, but he got reported because the idiot umpire thought he did. The charge got thrown out.

Lucky he didn't get sent off, huh?

[LostDoggy]

No, but he got reported because the idiot umpire thought he did. The charge got thrown out.

Lucky he didn't get sent off, huh?

Still not enough info. Did the other player get strecher/walked off. Did he end up playing the game out? Video of the incident?

Besides umps make crucial mistakes all the time. Eg. Richo's mark.
The problem is the umpiring not the rules.

[gohardorgohome]

The tribunal as it stands can call on opinion of biomechanists and video replays from all angles. There is a process in place to make sure that there must be a certain level of evidence before a guy is suspended. How can an umpire, or someone in a video room make a decision that is so certain before a guy is sent off?

There is no compelling reason to introduce the send off rule. In the case of Hall, he went to the tribunal, the incident was displayed on video to a panel of Ex Footballers who have a much better feel of the game than an umpire. Hall was found guilty and suspended. I see no problem with this at all.

If the send off rule was intoduced we would start to have as much staging as you see in soccer. Now I like soccer. I am a Melbourne Victory member, but I hate the staging that goes on in some leagues around the world.

[gohardorgohome]

Just punch them in the head and knock them out a I suppose.
Violence is always the answer. Eye for an eye and no need for umpires.

Rules are already in place to take care of this. If you don't believe there is then send off rule or not-things aren't going to change here.


Umpires via the rules. Exactly what they do now and have done for nearly 150 years.


Its nothing new or unusual especially in our game, they huge call made every week. Some effect results too.


Already spoke about this.


Already spoke about this as well.
At the very least a likely offender is punished at game time which not the case at the moment.


The most sense you have written in any of your answers ;)

[Sockeye Salmon]

The only change to the current system is the first match of any suspension is held back until the next time the player is due to play that club again.

At least there is some payback to the team offended against.

[aker39]

The only change to the current system is the first match of any suspension is held back until the next time the player is due to play that club again.

At least there is some payback to the team offended against.


And if that next game happens to be the GF

[gohardorgohome]

The only change to the current system is the first match of any suspension is held back until the next time the player is due to play that club again.

At least there is some payback to the team offended against.

I'm happy with that

[aker39]

I'm happy with that

Under the current draw, it is possible to play a team in Round 1 and then not play them again until the GF.

[LostDoggy]

The tribunal as it stands can call on opinion of biomechanists and video replays from all angles. There is a process in place to make sure that there must be a certain level of evidence before a guy is suspended. How can an umpire, or someone in a video room make a decision that is so certain before a guy is sent off?

So basically you are saying umpires shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions?


There is no compelling reason to introduce the send off rule. In the case of Hall, he went to the tribunal, the incident was displayed on video to a panel of Ex Footballers who have a much better feel of the game than an umpire. Hall was found guilty and suspended. I see no problem with this at all.

OK we will just ignore the fact that Hall type incident could change the complexion of the current game being played.


If the send off rule was intoduced we would start to have as much staging as you see in soccer. Now I like soccer. I am a Melbourne Victory member, but I hate the staging that goes on in some leagues around the world.
Again rules in soccer are already in place to handle this. They are a bit lacked but they don't blame a fair rule more poor refereeing.

[LostDoggy]

The only change to the current system is the first match of any suspension is held back until the next time the player is due to play that club again.

At least there is some payback to the team offended against.

Also what if it is the GF? Retiring? Changing clubs?

[hujsh]

Under the current draw, it is possible to play a team in Round 1 and then not play them again until the GF.

It's very possible. Now it doesn't matter when you played a team you could play them again still. Pretty sure we play the Kangas twice again late in the year.

[Sockeye Salmon]

And if that next game happens to be the GF

Different issue and it makes my earlier idea way harder to implement, but I think grand finals should count double - not just for suspension incurred during them as they do now - but also for suspensions currently being served.

If you get 4 weeks then the grand final should count for double - you would miss the grand final and 2 other games.

If you give someone a Barry Hall (v Matt Maguire not v Brent Staker) style love tap and get 1 week it shouldn't put you out of a grand final (and the AFL wouldn't have to have dodgied it for the Swans).

[Topdog]

Don't agree with the miss the game against them idea.

The thing is if a team really wanted to get an advantage by clocking someone they would just play a fringe player and tell them to "knock out whoever is on Johnno"?

[westdog54]

Don't agree with the miss the game against them idea.

The thing is if a team really wanted to get an advantage by clocking someone they would just play a fringe player and tell them to "knock out whoever is on Johnno"?

http://cms.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/Development/umpiring/Laws%20of%20football_2008.pdf

I think that everyone that is so opposed to a send-off rule should read law number 20:Order Off Law and tell me exactly what it is they disagree with about this law.

[bornadog]

Will the AFL once more have a knee jerk reaction to the Webster hit and bring in a send off rule?

[Grantysghost]

Will the AFL once more have a knee jerk reaction to the Webster hit and bring in a send off rule?

Would that be a bad thing? I don't think he should remain on the field personally.

[bornadog]

Would that be a bad thing? I don't think he should remain on the field personally.

On the one hand I say ok, but on the other, I would not give power to umpires

[GVGjr]

Will the AFL once more have a knee jerk reaction to the Webster hit and bring in a send off rule?

If the AFL follow through themselves and apply the rules consistently and not worry about the status of the player or if finals are involved and also hand out a substantial suspensions when needed there shouldn't be a need for umpires to do anything else but umpire the game.
I'm not really in favor of an umpire having to make that decision in the heat of a game.
Umpires report players, they don't determine what the suspension should be. That needs to happen by a separate panel.

[bornadog]

If the AFL follow through themselves and apply the rules consistently and not worry about the status of the player or if finals are involved and also hand out a substantial suspensions when needed there shouldn't be a need for umpires to do anything else but umpire the game.
I'm not really in favor of an umpire having to make that decision in the heat of a game.
Umpires report players, they don't determine what the suspension should be. That needs to happen by a separate panel.

I am not advocating for a send off rule, but, what they could do is have the third umpire review the video (like VAR), and then make a decision.

[GVGjr]

I am not advocating for a send off rule, but, what they could do is have the third umpire review the video (like VAR), and then make a decision.

I get that but to me more umpires isn't the answer. Make the penalties a strong deterrent, apply them evenly and that should work it's way through the competition very quickly. Before we get to a send off rule lets get the basics right.

[bornadog]

I get that but to me more umpires isn't the answer. Make the penalties a strong deterrent, apply them evenly and that should work it's way through the competition very quickly. Before we get to a send off rule lets get the basics right.

I totally agree, but I am predicting what the AFL are thinking

[Grantysghost]

I get that but to me more umpires isn't the answer. Make the penalties a strong deterrent, apply them evenly and that should work it's way through the competition very quickly. Before we get to a send off rule lets get the basics right.
Other sports can do it ok? Why cant the AFL?

[GVGjr]

Other sports can do it ok? Why cant the AFL?

History would say we will need a few iterations before we get it close to being right.
I was all for a send off rule when there were players throwing haymakers etc but that has stopped.
If we get the penalties right it might not been a huge priority.

[FrediKanoute]

If the AFL follow through themselves and apply the rules consistently and not worry about the status of the player or if finals are involved and also hand out a substantial suspensions when needed there shouldn't be a need for umpires to do anything else but umpire the game.
I'm not really in favor of an umpire having to make that decision in the heat of a game.
Umpires report players, they don't determine what the suspension should be. That needs to happen by a separate panel.

I agree. Again look to Rugby Union, the player gets a yellow card and the matter is referred to the Video Ref. It is then assessed and upgraded to a red if warranted based on a 10 min assessment of the video information against a set of clear parameters.

[GVGjr]

With the proposed send off rule that would mean a team being down to 17 or are we saying a tactical sub could be activated meaning that the side is just one player down on the IC bench or are they one player down on the field?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

With the proposed send off rule that would mean a team being down to 17 or are we saying a tactical sub could be activated meaning that the side is just one player down on the IC bench or are they one player down on the field?

For me, it's one player down on the bench. Definitely not the field.

[GVGjr]

For me, it's one player down on the bench. Definitely not the field.

But if we are using the EPL and the World Game as an example on how the send off rule works well, you would be a player down on the field.

I guess if we took it to that level it could fix the problem pretty quickly because the coaches wouldn't accept it.

One thing I discussed with a mate last night and his suggestion in that back in the AFL HQ you would have the footage of all games beamed in and a small panel would adjudicate if a player should be sent off. So if something happened early in the first quarter the panel would look at it and contact the umpire and say player x isn't allowed back on after quarter time etc.

I think our crowds want the AFL to get serious about concussions but I wonder how they would react early in a game when one of their players were sent off.

[bornadog]

But if we are using the EPL and the World Game as an example on how the send off rule works well, you would be a player down on the field.

I guess if we took it to that level it could fix the problem pretty quickly because the coaches wouldn't accept it.

One thing I discussed with a mate last night and his suggestion in that back in the AFL HQ you would have the footage of all games beamed in and a small panel would adjudicate if a player should be sent off. So if something happened early in the first quarter the panel would look at it and contact the umpire and say player x isn't allowed back on after quarter time etc.

I think our crowds want the AFL to get serious about concussions but I wonder how they would react early in a game when one of their players were sent off.

AFL have ruled out bringing in a Red card system.

[SonofScray]

The AFL cannot be trusted to fairly implement a red card system.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

But if we are using the EPL and the World Game as an example on how the send off rule works well, you would be a player down on the field.

I guess if we took it to that level it could fix the problem pretty quickly because the coaches wouldn't accept it.

One thing I discussed with a mate last night and his suggestion in that back in the AFL HQ you would have the footage of all games beamed in and a small panel would adjudicate if a player should be sent off. So if something happened early in the first quarter the panel would look at it and contact the umpire and say player x isn't allowed back on after quarter time etc.

I think our crowds want the AFL to get serious about concussions but I wonder how they would react early in a game when one of their players were sent off.

AFL is too high scoring to have 17 v 18. Imagine playing basketball 4v5. I know it's not quite the same given the lower number of players and smaller court but the disadvantage is too great in afl. As it is we complain about being one down on the bench.

Any player being sent off is likely to face 4+ weeks on the sideline in addition to letting their team down in the day. The send of rule at least likely evens up the match given the opposition is likely down a player from concussion.

I think fans would complain heavily if their team lost and had a player sent off even if there were no grounds for arguing the send off (as in the case of the Webster hit).

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The AFL cannot be trusted to fairly implement a red card system.

Yeah this is the biggest obstacle. But soccer has the same problem. The afl just sucks at adjudicating. The goal review is amateur hour. I still havent recovered from the JJ overturn.

[GVGjr]

AFL is too high scoring to have 17 v 18. Imagine playing basketball 4v5. I know it's not quite the same given the lower number of players and smaller court but the disadvantage is too great in afl. As it is we complain about being one down on the bench.

Any player being sent off is likely to face 4+ weeks on the sideline in addition to letting their team down in the day. The send of rule at least likely evens up the match given the opposition is likely down a player from concussion.

I think fans would complain heavily if their team lost and had a player sent off even if there were no grounds for arguing the send off (as in the case of the Webster hit).

I agree but if we want a send off rule to address poor actions on the ground then shouldn't it be a reduced number on the field?

As I have stated I don't want it and our umpires shouldn't have to make that decision but if we can come up with a consistent penalty in terms of weeks suspended I think it will reduce the number of occasions players do what the likes of Powell-Pepper and Webster have just done.