Play Nice Was that Gaffs last game for WC?

[HardCaucasian]

this thread:

>I think gaff will get 6-8 weeks, maybe even higher
>GAFF SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOREVER
>i’m not sure that’s likely......
>ARE YOU DEFENDING HIM?!?!? HOW COULD YOU DEFEND SUCH AN ACTION

Now whos being hysterical?

 

[peppy la pew]

Don't want to jump into 'OMG HOW CAN U DEFEND HIM???' territory but Brayshaw's season has 3 games left.

Putting a player out for a number of weeks is unacceptable but 'ended his season' is deliberately emotive language.

So you disagree his season is now over ?

Let's assume there was 10 games left in the season, how many games do you think Brayshaw would miss ?

Start at 4 weeks because that is when he will be able to eat solids again

 

[Power Raid]

What is the difference between Krakouer's assault which resulted in jail time and Gaff's?

One happened whilst a footballer was wearing a uniform and the other without. Is that a defence?

 

[jdisc]

Cannot put Masten in prison though, he'd simply train the jail down over the pre-season and escape.

we can build a special cell just for him and his involvement

 

[Smeg Head]

The courts are there for a reason.......use them.

Should Port also be sent to the courts for providing an unsafe workplace? Considering you have sent players back onto the ground, not following the concussion testing protocols. Take your hysterical hand of it.

The afl tribunal will come down heavily on it.

 

[Scotland]

A lot of people really don't get what 'out of character' means.

If it was simply reported that a WC player struck a Freo player off the ball resulting in a broken jaw and you polled 100 footy fans who didn't watch the game on who they thought it was, I'd be surprised if any of them responded with Andrew Gaff.

That's what out of character means. It doesn't mean 'hey he did something bad but he's a good guy so that makes the bad thing OK'. It means 'he did something bad and we're all shocked by it because it's not something he has done before or something we ever expected to see him do'.

 

[jdisc]

This

On the crowd reaction, early defense was he is a wce player and he was genuinely gutted and they were showing him support. Followed by "what else were we to do"

Narrative now, didn't see the incident, we were cheering him for taking what we thought were unprovoked Freo hits.

Also wa footy seems to be the only ground in the country where noone is listening to the radio and updating people around them. Happens every game I go to, from time remaining to reasons for free kicks to injury updates. Apparently noone at Optus accessed a phone, a radio, or a SMS feed at any stage of the game

we are telling you what happened, you can speculate all you want but we were actually at the game and had no idea.

is this all some kind of elaborate lie?

 

[jdisc]

Now whos being hysterical?

people calling for him to be jailed for 10+ years

 

[Magus]

A lot of people really don't get what 'out of character' means.

If it was simply reported that a WC player struck a Freo player off the ball resulting in a broken jaw and you polled 100 footy fans who didn't watch the game on who they thought it was, I'd be surprised if any of them responded with Andrew Gaff.

That's what out of character means. It doesn't mean 'hey he did something bad but he's a good guy so that makes the bad thing OK'. It means 'he did something bad and we're all shocked by it because it's not something he has done before or something we ever expected to see him do'.

There is no difference in the two things you just said.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Who winds up with a hook to the chest though? If you’re going for the chest you don’t go with a hook, you go for a jab. I’m sick and tired of the good bloke defence. Imagine if this was someone like Sicily

Mate it happens every 2 mins on the field. 30 years ago it was a whack to the head. Now the only thing players can do to hurt an opponent and relieve their anger is a punch to the body. They do it all the time and with genuine force.

I’m not defending him, I just think that’s most probably the case given how often it happens and the pattern of behaviour from the offender.

As I’ve said, the AFL should crack down on all punches (ie strikes with clenched fists). They’d get it out of the game with a few suspensions.

 

[jdisc]

There is no difference in the two things you just said.

if you lack nuance then yeah i can see why you’d think they’re the same thing

 

[Ned_Flanders]

we are telling you what happened, you can speculate all you want but we were actually at the game and had no idea.

is this all some kind of elaborate lie?

And I'm saying your supporters changed the narrative on this once already, and I'm calling bs on the current one

 

[Espe]

absolutely not has to be 20 years minimum

this thread:

>I think gaff will get 6-8 weeks, maybe even higher
>GAFF SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOREVER
>i’m not sure that’s likely......
>ARE YOU DEFENDING HIM?!?!? HOW COULD YOU DEFEND SUCH AN ACTION

should be jailed too

jail everyone from the club just to make sure all bases are covered

Nice melt.

Fact is, if this happened on the street you would be in jail.

Maybe you should staring booing instead to get your point across.

 

[jdisc]

And I'm saying your supporters changed the narrative on this once already, and I'm calling bs on the current one

gee why do i bother going to the games when you can just tell me exactly what the atmosphere and the crowd is like

 

[Scotland]

It’s not defending him, just a case of trying to look at it in a balanced manner.

Was it a deliberate act that he’s never once shown a sign of committing over his whole career?

Or was it an incident that occurs hundreds of times a fame when players tangle, only this time he’s got it all terribly wrong?

Footy colours peoples views but I don’t know how else you can come to the first conclusion on balance. If he does it again next year, ok maybe...

(BTW I know you were being tongue in cheek, just saying).

Sadly the footy media operates on outrage and scandal and the masses lap it up.

It's not enough for Gaff to be suspended or for him to be suspended for what will likely be the longest period of any player this year. It has to be an extreme suspension, police involvement etc. Give me a spell.

He'll cop his whack and from now on be known as a guy who threw a punch. That's footy.

 

[jdisc]

Nice melt.

Fact is, if this happened on the street you would be in jail.

Maybe you should staring booing instead to get your get point across.

yes it’s almost like sporting codes have jurisdiction or something

not that i’d expect the hysterical posters to actually research their hysterical positions

 

[Smeg Head]

Mate it happens every 2 mins on the field. 30 years ago it was a whack to the head. Now the only thing players can do to hurt an opponent and relieve their anger is a punch to the body. They do it all the time and with genuine force.

I’m not defending him, I just think that’s most probably the case given how often it happens and the pattern of behaviour from the offender.

As I’ve said, the AFL should crack down on all punches (ie strikes with clenched fists). They’d get it out of the game with a few suspensions.

The problem is there seemed to be a chorus of crying foul for a year there where they did start to crack down a bit, and subsequently softened their rules again to the three strikes regime, and now to even further on small incidents.

 

[Doashuey]

This thread has proven to me that the WCE supporters posting in here and thinking they are victims (important distinction) are at least some degree of certified sociopathic...

Nothing is ever their fault.

To be fair, it really wasnt my fault. It was Gaffy.

 

[Woody15]

What is the difference between Krakouer's assault which resulted in jail time and Gaff's?

One happened whilst a footballer was wearing a uniform and the other without. Is that a defence?

Do you really want this though? Imagine a rugby game - high tackles, punches or shoulder charges concussing players. AFL games with elbows to jaws, sling tackles concussing players. These are all technically assaults. Who in their right mind would play a physical contact sport where there is a chance players could end up being criminally prosecuted?

 

[Demons09]

'' Gaff to face possible charges ''


Prominent lawyer Thomas Percy QC has flagged the prospect that West Coast Eagles' Andrew Gaff could face charges for his 'king hit' on Fremantle Dockers teenager Andrew Brayshaw, claiming he has had ‘people go to jail for less.’

Gaff has already expressed his remorse and said he 'feels sick' for the off the ball incident that left Brayshaw with a broken jaw and four dislocated teeth which could see the Brownlow Medal fancy rubbed out by the AFL Tribunal for the rest of the season.

Percy, a foundation member of the Dockers and East Perth board member, wrote on Facebook after the game said Brayshaw had been the victim of 'cowardly assault' and that Gaff deserved a ‘life ban’ for an incident he believed was worthy of a criminal investigation.

Andrew Gaff? What can you say?" Percy wrote on Facebook.


"He doesn't deserve to play AFL again. Ever. (There is) a prima facie case for a police investigation. I've had people go to jail for less.

"Why would a football score be more important than the health and wellbeing of an innocent young man who is in hospital as a result of a cowardly assault he didn’t provoke?"

Gaff apologised for the incident which occurred in the third quarter of the Eagles' 21.16 (142) to 13.6 (84) win, with Brayshaw dropping to the ground and laying there for an extended period as blood poured out of his mouth.

The 18-year-old kept his mouthguard in, fearing some of his teeth had been knocked loose, and was taken to hospital.


Fremantle confirmed Brayshaw's jaw was broken and four teeth were displaced, with the first-year midfielder booked for surgery on Sunday night.

The incident will go straight to the AFL tribunal and could attract a ban of between four and eight weeks.

"I just want to apologise to Andy," a remorseful Gaff told Fox Sports.

"I feel sick. I did the wrong thing and it doesn't indicate my character.


"My only thought is how Andy is and what will happen (to me) will happen."

Dockers coach Ross Lyon said he distressed by the incident before comparing it to Barry Hall's punch on Brent Staker in 2008 which saw the former Sydney Swans forward cop a seven-week ban.

"Andrew Brayshaw was king-hit 100m off the ball," Lyon said.

"I've got an 18-year-old kid that I saw in a real mess when I came down to the rooms and his mum in tears as I was walking in. It's not very palatable.

"He was pretty distraught. I gave him a hug. I wouldn't like to see my son like that.

"My senior players certainly wanted retribution and I had to stay out on the ground longer at three-quarter time to settle a couple down."

West Coast coach Adam Simpson said the incident was out of character for Gaff.

"As much as it is going to look as though it was intentional, I'm not really sure it was."

Gaff appeared to be crying after on the bench late in the third quarter, with Simpson coming down to comfort him.

"One thing I know is that Andrew's character and who he is as a person and a player can't be questioned," Simpson said.




What a load of shit. This is being blown way over proportion. Why not go back and charge Barry Hall, Dale Kickett for what he did to Adam Hunter, Dermott Brereton for his multiple incidents including stomping on an eventual team mates head as well as every other guy in the history of the AFL for their incidents. ''King Hit ''

Another over used term. A punch is a punch. It was and is supposed to be exactly that. A punch with maximum power. You are not supposed to punch with 10 percent power. He didn't blind side him, he didn't hit him from behind or from side on. This is ridiculous and although it was wrong everyone needs to harden up. Take a good look in the history of the game and all the other shit that got swept under the carpet. It doesn't excuse this, but if Gaff gets crucified then so should every other drongo who's committed multiple incidents.


Society is weak these days and all the ones crying about it are men who have now become like women.

Maybe we should go back to the eighties when men were men , and kids being bullied were told to harden up and not be soft *****.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

gee why do i bother going to the games when you can just tell me exactly what the atmosphere and the crowd is like

If you want people to believe you, stop changing the story

 

[Magus]

if you lack nuance then yeah i can see why you’d think they’re the same thing

'hey he did something bad but he's a good guy so that makes the bad thing OK'.

And

'he did something bad and we're all shocked by it because it's not something he has done before or something we ever expected to see him do'.

Explain the difference to me here? They're both statements on his character based on past behaviour.

So guess what? Now that hes done it, it IS his character. Funny how that works huh?

 

[Cuzz09]

"If that happened on the street"...

It didnt.

Dont get this argument.

Same with his age. Is it ok to hit a 31 year old? Less weeks?

He'll get a massive suspension.

The end

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Andrew Mc]

Who winds up with a hook to the chest though? If you’re going for the chest you don’t go with a hook, you go for a jab. I’m sick and tired of the good bloke defence. Imagine if this was someone like Sicily

Yup, I said this earlier too. It was a good old fashioned on-target hook.

 

[Scotland]

So you disagree his season is now over ?

Let's assume there was 10 games left in the season, how many games do you think Brayshaw would miss ?

Start at 4 weeks because that is when he will be able to eat solids again

It appears pretty obvious he won't play again this season, but if he was out for 4 weeks from Rd 6 instead of Rd 20 the narrative would be different.

'hey he did something bad but he's a good guy so that makes the bad thing OK'.

And

'he did something bad and we're all shocked by it because it's not something he has done before or something we ever expected to see him do'.

Explain the difference to me here? They're both statements on his character based on past behaviour.

Jesus.

One excuses the action, the other does not.