Do we need a send-off rule in the AFL?
- Thread starter Sttew
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #77
Yes, there absolutely should be send-offs in the AFL.
Firstly, just going to laugh at all the simple bogans crying "STOP CHANGING THE RULES!!1!". Do you yearn for the days where if you kicked the ball out of bounds on the full, it would be a thrown in? The days where we had 2 subs and no interchange? The days where defenders could easily get away with chopping the arms and pushing in the back? If a rule change can make the game a fairer, more entertaining spectacle, then it absolutely should be implemented, and none of you are capable of arguing otherwise.
As for send-offs, they discourage thugs like Hodge and Lewis from committing acts like they did on the weekend. With the way the current system is, the punishment is nothing more than a break, and while it could cost the team premiership points, it also keeps the players fresh and fit, giving them a better chance to play at their best in the latter half of the campaign. The punishment isn't nearly severe enough to discourage dog acts like whacking/elbowing people in the head, and one day, one of these incidents is going to lead to a serious, potentially career threatening injury, and you'll all be wondering why there wasn't a send-off rule in the first place.
Introducing this rule wouldn't make the game a worse spectacle, it would only discourage players from hitting other players in the head. To those claiming it would encourage diving, it's very easy to distinguish a dive from nothing from a genuinely hard whack, and even they had doubts on one viewing, these incidents could easily be referred to the video umpire, who could come up with a decision within 30 seconds.
Firstly, just going to laugh at all the simple bogans crying "STOP CHANGING THE RULES!!1!". Do you yearn for the days where if you kicked the ball out of bounds on the full, it would be a thrown in? The days where we had 2 subs and no interchange? The days where defenders could easily get away with chopping the arms and pushing in the back? If a rule change can make the game a fairer, more entertaining spectacle, then it absolutely should be implemented, and none of you are capable of arguing otherwise.
As for send-offs, they discourage thugs like Hodge and Lewis from committing acts like they did on the weekend. With the way the current system is, the punishment is nothing more than a break, and while it could cost the team premiership points, it also keeps the players fresh and fit, giving them a better chance to play at their best in the latter half of the campaign. The punishment isn't nearly severe enough to discourage dog acts like whacking/elbowing people in the head, and one day, one of these incidents is going to lead to a serious, potentially career threatening injury, and you'll all be wondering why there wasn't a send-off rule in the first place.
Introducing this rule wouldn't make the game a worse spectacle, it would only discourage players from hitting other players in the head. To those claiming it would encourage diving, it's very easy to distinguish a dive from nothing from a genuinely hard whack, and even they had doubts on one viewing, these incidents could easily be referred to the video umpire, who could come up with a decision within 30 seconds.
- Oct 7, 2009
- 18,930
- 30,127
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys Chicago Bulls
Hell no.
Its bad enough having to put up with this rubbish sub rule, sin bin as well.. its not under 9's...
Would be the last membership i buy if that comes in.. AFL wouldn't get a dime from me..
Its bad enough having to put up with this rubbish sub rule, sin bin as well.. its not under 9's...
Would be the last membership i buy if that comes in.. AFL wouldn't get a dime from me..
Better knock your opponent out properly then. Keep the numbers even.
Spot on. That way the offending player is shamed but it also doesn't completely stuff a side if it was a third umpire "mistake".
Only issue would be where the line was, as no doubt there would be arguments. I think deliberate acts like Hodge / Yarran / Conca / Vickery should go. Bumps and even Lewis's hit should be left off as they could be accidental.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Umpires make more mistakes than before...yep lets bring in another rule. Just no.
You'd have sent both off for their acts last weekend? despite neither swallow or goldstein having to leave the field as a result and it causing no further problems? What about Steven May, sent off? Judds chicken wing? you really trust umpires to make the call?
ScoobySnacks
All Australian
- Jul 3, 2010
- 905
- 1,254
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Taking a player off the field will encourage the ultra defensive, flooding tactics from the team that is a man down. It would be utterly horrible to watch
- Apr 15, 2013
- 1,744
- 2,735
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Bloody hysterics! And my response has nothing to do with my team. I've watch the sport for a long time and never once felt it necessary. Societies go through cycles of increased periods of violence and over censure, right now we're trying to make everything vanilla. What happens when you wrap everything in cotton wool is that the thing implodes as people are stifled. Let the game be, accept that sometimes there will be moments that make you a little nervous or angry and realise that's why you love it. There's a little risk involved, it's running on the edge that makes it exciting.
FWIW having a player sent off would be catastrophic for a team, basically game over. The rule is a disaster in soccer as errors are made by umpires.
FWIW having a player sent off would be catastrophic for a team, basically game over. The rule is a disaster in soccer as errors are made by umpires.
- Banned
- #86
Yes, absolutely. Who cares if Goldstein and Swallow were ok in the end, the fact is they could've been badly injured, and because of that, deliberate acts of violence should be discouraged as much as possible. Who are you to say an elbow to the head/neck doesn't risk a career threatening injury?
Steven May's bump wasn't a deliberate snipe, it was incidental contact, therefore he shouldn't be sent off. Judd's was a deliberate attempt to injure, therefore he should be off the field.
should be.. I thought this ever since Barry Hall wacked Staker. That was a Red Card offense
DrEvil_
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 21, 2014
- 9,999
- 22,323
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
What we really need is a shot clock. Imagine GF 2015, Freo vs Sydney GF, mega flood and neither side kick a goal in a half, and the team least bored by this wins the cup. You're OK with that?
Tom Kerrigan
Cancelled
No need to send players off - just introduce a rule that says whatever the offending player did, this bloke right here gets to come on and do the exact to you. We would never again have players dishing it out unless they could take it.
Look at him, he loves the idea.
Look at him, he loves the idea.
Ehhhhh kind of for and against it.
In the case of a player intentionally doing a dog act like Lewis and Hodge did.
If it causes a player to be concussed they offending player should be kept off the field until the concussion test is done.
If the injured player does not return neither can the offender, but both sub's can be activated during that period.
If the offending player knocks out the injured player they are both taken off the ground for the rest of the game.
Will keep the teams equal or as close as possible.
Only to be used in the case when it's intentional or reckless..
In the case of a player intentionally doing a dog act like Lewis and Hodge did.
If it causes a player to be concussed they offending player should be kept off the field until the concussion test is done.
If the injured player does not return neither can the offender, but both sub's can be activated during that period.
If the offending player knocks out the injured player they are both taken off the ground for the rest of the game.
Will keep the teams equal or as close as possible.
Only to be used in the case when it's intentional or reckless..
I would be happy for them to have been "red vested" and cop suspensions on top. The loss of the sub and/or interchanges is enough penalty for the team. Removing the player from the field is appropriate as is any later suspensions.
- Jul 9, 2013
- 10,715
- 12,711
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Not in the AFL it doesn't. Sure, lower grades of Australian Rules football does, and that it completely understandable.
Riccardo11
Cancelled
There was an order off rule in the VFA for a couple of years to try and combat some of the rougher play, the player was banished to the bench for 15 minutes and could not be replaced. I think they dispensed with it because it was too open to interpretation and players were taking dives and niggling to try and get their opposition man sent off.
It's a good idea in theory, but I think it wouldn't work, because of the above.
It's a good idea in theory, but I think it wouldn't work, because of the above.
The game is a lot cleaner than thirty years ago. If it ain't really that broke, you shouldn't try to 'really' fix it with a radical change.
KissKiss
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2012
- 7,725
- 8,722
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Alastair Lynch already tried this, pity he couldn't actually land a punch.
But absolutely yes. For very serious offences (strikes and elbows behind play like Barry Hall's) and using a the video referee. It doesn't change the rules or affect the game in any major way, but it takes out a hole in the rules
- Apr 11, 2002
- 33,644
- 34,761
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Iggles, Georgia.
Just make the offending player play the rest of the game with one footy boot on.
Most people here seem to be crying about rule changes and not wanting to make it like soccer, whilst AFL is a physical sport and there will big incidental hits and tackles, I would not mind further steps to see thuggery and dog acts removed from the game and punished further. There’s no place for intentionally trying to knock someone out or deliberately injure them in modern sport. You should not be able to do what Barry Hall or Chris Yarran did and stay on the field to play out the game.
As it stands now, I don’t think there would have been more than 5 incidents this entire season out of 45 games that would have been red card worthy – most notably Hodge and perhaps Lewis, Yarran’s punch on Chapman and possibly a couple of others that escape me. It’s not happening every game and its fairly easy to see what constitutes a sending off. It shouldn't radically change the sport.
I’ll bring up an example from a few season ago – the Sharrod Wellingham bump on Kade Simpson. Simpson is about to take the mark, Wellingham has no eyes on the ball and no chance of contesting the mark, leaves the ground and bumps Simpson square in the head which breaks Simpson’s jaw and forces him off the ground. Wellingham’s dog act leaves Carlton a man down (although luckily they won the game) and Simpson to miss weeks. There was a huge outcry after this game for Wellingham’s action. I don’t know how you can justify Wellingham not being sent-off or sin binned at the worst and allowed to play out the game
As it stands now, I don’t think there would have been more than 5 incidents this entire season out of 45 games that would have been red card worthy – most notably Hodge and perhaps Lewis, Yarran’s punch on Chapman and possibly a couple of others that escape me. It’s not happening every game and its fairly easy to see what constitutes a sending off. It shouldn't radically change the sport.
I’ll bring up an example from a few season ago – the Sharrod Wellingham bump on Kade Simpson. Simpson is about to take the mark, Wellingham has no eyes on the ball and no chance of contesting the mark, leaves the ground and bumps Simpson square in the head which breaks Simpson’s jaw and forces him off the ground. Wellingham’s dog act leaves Carlton a man down (although luckily they won the game) and Simpson to miss weeks. There was a huge outcry after this game for Wellingham’s action. I don’t know how you can justify Wellingham not being sent-off or sin binned at the worst and allowed to play out the game
chiwigi
I’ll make tears from your Wines.
Yes we do. It's crazy that an act done against you can later disadvantage you.
Player A whacks your player and he ends up concussed or even out for twenty minutes whilst he recovers. No penalty at the time and may even cost the NON offending team the game.
Player A then gets two weeks from the tribunal...his team just happen to be playing the team that is above you in the race for 4th spot the next week. Again your team is hurt by Player A's team not being at full strength.
In this scenario your team loses potentially 8 points and a top 4 spot because your player got snotted! That's just not even close to fair. Punish them IN THE GAME FOR ACTIONS IN THE GAME! Use the video and set a high benchmark to ensure fairness.
Player A whacks your player and he ends up concussed or even out for twenty minutes whilst he recovers. No penalty at the time and may even cost the NON offending team the game.
Player A then gets two weeks from the tribunal...his team just happen to be playing the team that is above you in the race for 4th spot the next week. Again your team is hurt by Player A's team not being at full strength.
In this scenario your team loses potentially 8 points and a top 4 spot because your player got snotted! That's just not even close to fair. Punish them IN THE GAME FOR ACTIONS IN THE GAME! Use the video and set a high benchmark to ensure fairness.
Let's see how a sending off rule applies in a local comp - I'll select the VAFA.
VAFA field umpires have 3 cards they use to send off players.
A yellow card is used if a player decides to use an "audible obsenity". He is off for 15 minutes and can be replaced. The idea behind it is to calm the player down.
A red card is used for a reportable incident of a minor nature. Can be replaced. Reports to be either severed by a prescribed penalty (e.g. striking is 2 weeks) or heard by Tribunal.
A black card is used for reportable incidents of a severe nature. Cannot be replaced. Matter must be heard by Tribunal.
VAFA field umpires have 3 cards they use to send off players.
A yellow card is used if a player decides to use an "audible obsenity". He is off for 15 minutes and can be replaced. The idea behind it is to calm the player down.
A red card is used for a reportable incident of a minor nature. Can be replaced. Reports to be either severed by a prescribed penalty (e.g. striking is 2 weeks) or heard by Tribunal.
A black card is used for reportable incidents of a severe nature. Cannot be replaced. Matter must be heard by Tribunal.
