Opinion It's too late to apologize..

[Syphoncom]

The incident involving Port Adelaide defender Tom Jonas and West Coast midfielder Andrew Gaff has put a red card for certain offences on the table for discussion. The sickening footage of Jonas elbowing Gaff in the back of the head has raised the question, 'how far is too far'?


Following the game, Jonas has continued recent tradition in issuing a public apology via media conference, and contacting Gaff to personally apologise. The defender spoke both of his remorse for his actions, but also his character.


"I don't think I'm a dirty player, but obviously I've opened that up to speculation.

"I don't kick flashy goals or take hangers or sell candy.


"I'm not making any excuses for what happened but you need to make decisions, and in this instance I made the wrong one."

A wrong decision? What an understatement. Whether or not a player kicks flashy goals or sells candy is completely irrelevant to whether they elbow another in the back of the head. The implication that being a “tough competitor” encourages such violence demonstrates flagrant disregard for the true, tough greats of the game.


Whilst there is surely some regret, it seems the overarching reasons behind the media conference were a bit too self-serving. Jonas apologised to his teammates, but not Gaff's family. He says he accepts his punishment, yet his constant defence indicates he doesn't fully accept the seriousness of his actions.


Some may consider this hyperbole, but these sort of hits have the potential to kill.


While Phil Hughes is a recent reminder of the risks of high impacts, John Greening is a perfect example of how dangerous football knocks can be. Considered by Collingwood great Peter McKenna “the most talented player [he] played with”, Greening was hit behind play by St Kilda's Jim O'Dea. This one action left Greening in a coma, feared dead by teammates, effectively ending the career of a potential great and leaving a man just 21 fighting for his life.


Initially reported to be facing a four to six week suspension, Jonas has since received a six week break from AFL. Given a suspension is rarely so lengthy, on the surface it seems reasonable. The head is sacrosanct; we have had this repeated ad nauseam in recent times. This was primarily to combat head-high hip and shoulders, and curb the potential for concussions however; leading one to question whether the AFL considered the calculated maliciousness of the strike.


Six weeks seems lucky.


Consider the Barry Hall incident involving Brent Staker in 2008. Barry Hall, in an act of frustration, swung a fist at the jaw of the West Coast defender, flooring him and receiving a seven week suspension for the act. Although a terrible outburst, Staker remained conscious and was not moving at the time of the impact. Contrast this with the Jonas hit; the victim completely knocked out with a blow to the back of the head, travelling against the running Jonas.


A haymaker may look bad, but the potential for serious injury is far greater with the Jonas incident.


"As a player I play on the edge and that's where my value to the team comes and I'm generally a tough and physical competitor”, Jonas said.


Sorry Tom, but elbowing an unsuspecting player in the back of the head isn't tough.


It's weak.

 

[Syphoncom]

Decided not to choose the Pies this week, maybe something a little more unbiased. I'll probably put my posts up on a blog as well, but will continue to post here if it's alright and look for more feedback from you boys. I think with my last post it might have been misinterpreted as just another Bucks thread - if it's unclear, I'm having a stab at writing articles. (And to be honest, I'm glad to see Bucks not under the pump for a while!)

As always, any critiques, discussion, or ideas for future posts more than welcome

 

[joff]

The incident involving Port Adelaide defender Tom Jonas and West Coast midfielder Andrew Gaff has put a red card for certain offences on the table for discussion. The sickening footage of Jonas elbowing Gaff in the back of the head has raised the question, 'how far is too far'?


Following the game, Jonas has continued recent tradition in issuing a public apology via media conference, and contacting Gaff to personally apologise. The defender spoke both of his remorse for his actions, but also his character.


"I don't think I'm a dirty player, but obviously I've opened that up to speculation.

"I don't kick flashy goals or take hangers or sell candy.


"I'm not making any excuses for what happened but you need to make decisions, and in this instance I made the wrong one."

A wrong decision? What an understatement. Whether or not a player kicks flashy goals or sells candy is completely irrelevant to whether they elbow another in the back of the head. The implication that being a “tough competitor” encourages such violence demonstrates flagrant disregard for the true, tough greats of the game.


Whilst there is surely some regret, it seems the overarching reasons behind the media conference were a bit too self-serving. Jonas apologised to his teammates, but not Gaff's family. He says he accepts his punishment, yet his constant defence indicates he doesn't fully accept the seriousness of his actions.


Some may consider this hyperbole, but these sort of hits have the potential to kill.


While Phil Hughes is a recent reminder of the risks of high impacts, John Greening is a perfect example of how dangerous football knocks can be. Considered by Collingwood great Peter McKenna “the most talented player [he] played with”, Greening was hit behind play by St Kilda's Jim O'Dea. This one action left Greening in a coma, feared dead by teammates, effectively ending the career of a potential great and leaving a man just 21 fighting for his life.


Initially reported to be facing a four to six week suspension, Jonas has since received a six week break from AFL. Given a suspension is rarely so lengthy, on the surface it seems reasonable. The head is sacrosanct; we have had this repeated ad nauseam in recent times. This was primarily to combat head-high hip and shoulders, and curb the potential for concussions however; leading one to question whether the AFL considered the calculated maliciousness of the strike.


Six weeks seems lucky.


Consider the Barry Hall incident involving Brent Staker in 2008. Barry Hall, in an act of frustration, swung a fist at the jaw of the West Coast defender, flooring him and receiving a seven week suspension for the act. Although a terrible outburst, Staker remained conscious and was not moving at the time of the impact. Contrast this with the Jonas hit; the victim completely knocked out with a blow to the back of the head, travelling against the running Jonas.


A haymaker may look bad, but the potential for serious injury is far greater with the Jonas incident.


"As a player I play on the edge and that's where my value to the team comes and I'm generally a tough and physical competitor”, Jonas said.


Sorry Tom, but elbowing an unsuspecting player in the back of the head isn't tough.


It's weak.

Article was well written, well thought out,and importantly spot-on much better than mainstream media.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Yeah as someone who has been knocked out when they didn't see it coming, I can tell you it's way worse when you don't see it coming. It doesn't even have to be a big hit if you're not ready for it.

At least if you see it coming or know it's coming, your body and mind instinctively get ready for it and it lessens it's impact on you. But when you don't see it coming...man. As far as Gaff was concerned, he was hit by a car.

I'm all for the red card system. I truly believe it will deter these more malicious acts. You go the soccer route and leave one team down to 17 men for the match? Watch this shit get stamped out FAST. Have a yellow card where you leave a team down to 17 men for say 5 or 10 minutes? You'll even see players think twice about bumping instead of tackling.

They really should implement it.

 

[BPikkers]

Yes the article was well written and to the point.

I think Jonas should have received at least 6 weeks. He had plenty of time to make a decision and he decided to extend to purposely make elbow contact with gaff.

Yep a dog act. To be honest I didn't really know who he was before this incident

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Red cards would be a shocking idea. Watch Collingwood players get one left and right when we play teams that have players like Christensen and Selwood. They make enough mistakes as it is, the umpires.

I'm all for the red card system. I truly believe it will deter these more malicious acts.

Bit of an overreaction, as usual from you Ed - when was the last time something like this ever happened? Maxwell in 2009? Barry Hall in 2008? System is fine as it is.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

One Republic....good song too

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

Yeah as someone who has been knocked out when they didn't see it coming, I can tell you it's way worse when you don't see it coming. It doesn't even have to be a big hit if you're not ready for it.

Wouldn't introduce a red card systems because these whacks are fortunately rare on the field (these days).

Main point I take from your post Ed, is a reminder that these hits constitute assault. If done on the street, it is potentially a long prison sentence. Don't want players in prison, but 12 to 15 weeks seems a more appropriate penalty (would probably attract 9 to 12 weeks in NRL).

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Red cards would be a shocking idea. Watch Collingwood players get one left and right when we play teams that have players like Christensen and Selwood. They make enough mistakes as it is, the umpires.



Bit of an overreaction, as usual from you Ed - when was the last time something like this ever happened? Maxwell in 2009? Barry Hall in 2008? System is fine as it is.

If it's so rare, then what difference does it make? Mind you, if the system was put in place, it would be even rarer.

 

[good4footy]

It's never too late to apologise. Dog act, class since. The legitimacy of his apology will be measured by how he plays the game going forward.

 

[Pie eyed]

The incident involving Port Adelaide defender Tom Jonas and West Coast midfielder Andrew Gaff has put a red card for certain offences on the table for discussion. The sickening footage of Jonas elbowing Gaff in the back of the head has raised the question, 'how far is too far'?


Following the game, Jonas has continued recent tradition in issuing a public apology via media conference, and contacting Gaff to personally apologise. The defender spoke both of his remorse for his actions, but also his character.


"I don't think I'm a dirty player, but obviously I've opened that up to speculation.

"I don't kick flashy goals or take hangers or sell candy.


"I'm not making any excuses for what happened but you need to make decisions, and in this instance I made the wrong one."

A wrong decision? What an understatement. Whether or not a player kicks flashy goals or sells candy is completely irrelevant to whether they elbow another in the back of the head. The implication that being a “tough competitor” encourages such violence demonstrates flagrant disregard for the true, tough greats of the game.


Whilst there is surely some regret, it seems the overarching reasons behind the media conference were a bit too self-serving. Jonas apologised to his teammates, but not Gaff's family. He says he accepts his punishment, yet his constant defence indicates he doesn't fully accept the seriousness of his actions.


Some may consider this hyperbole, but these sort of hits have the potential to kill.


While Phil Hughes is a recent reminder of the risks of high impacts, John Greening is a perfect example of how dangerous football knocks can be. Considered by Collingwood great Peter McKenna “the most talented player [he] played with”, Greening was hit behind play by St Kilda's Jim O'Dea. This one action left Greening in a coma, feared dead by teammates, effectively ending the career of a potential great and leaving a man just 21 fighting for his life.


Initially reported to be facing a four to six week suspension, Jonas has since received a six week break from AFL. Given a suspension is rarely so lengthy, on the surface it seems reasonable. The head is sacrosanct; we have had this repeated ad nauseam in recent times. This was primarily to combat head-high hip and shoulders, and curb the potential for concussions however; leading one to question whether the AFL considered the calculated maliciousness of the strike.


Six weeks seems lucky.


Consider the Barry Hall incident involving Brent Staker in 2008. Barry Hall, in an act of frustration, swung a fist at the jaw of the West Coast defender, flooring him and receiving a seven week suspension for the act. Although a terrible outburst, Staker remained conscious and was not moving at the time of the impact. Contrast this with the Jonas hit; the victim completely knocked out with a blow to the back of the head, travelling against the running Jonas.


A haymaker may look bad, but the potential for serious injury is far greater with the Jonas incident.


"As a player I play on the edge and that's where my value to the team comes and I'm generally a tough and physical competitor”, Jonas said.


Sorry Tom, but elbowing an unsuspecting player in the back of the head isn't tough.


It's weak.

Good article, though I believe it's never too late for a heartfelt apology.
He seems to have form as well, so the best way he could "apologise" would be to address his poor behavior on the field and not stoop to such acts in future.

 

[Subprime]

Footy can be a dangerous game, ask anyone who has backed into a pack and copped a flying knee in the back of the head. If the danger was taken out of the game I wouldn't watch it any more and I dare say I would never have played it either.

I don't think what Jonas did is the same as what Hall or O'Dea did (though I have only heard about the latter). I don't think it was part of the game either and Jonas has copped a severe suspension after due consideration. Exactly the right way to deal with this type of thing.

The call for the introduction of 'red cards' has thankfully been ruled out by Gillon McLachlan. All that would have done is add extra pressure on umpires to provide instant gratification/punishment when there they simply do not have all the facts available.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Footy can be a dangerous game, ask anyone who has backed into a pack and copped a flying knee in the back of the head. If the danger was taken out of the game I wouldn't watch it any more and I dare say I would never have played it either.

I don't think what Jonas did is the same as what Hall or O'Dea did (though I have only heard about the latter). I don't think it was part of the game either and Jonas has copped a severe suspension after due consideration. Exactly the right way to deal with this type of thing.

The call for the introduction of 'red cards' has thankfully been ruled out by Gillon McLachlan. All that would have done is add extra pressure on umpires to provide instant gratification/punishment when there they simply do not have all the facts available.

good post.

in the gws/dogs game a dogs player kicked it and it went out..as it rolled to the line a heap of gws players were running along with the arms out appealing for deliberate. it looks terrible.

can you imagine the staging / staying down that would happen if their is a red card on the table.

 

[TW Sherrin]

re Jonas. he made a split second mistake. he now misses more than a month of footy. case closed.

 

[Countrypie]

Nice article - well structured and well written. The Greening incident in some ways show how far we've come as players suffering "sunstroke" was not an uncommon occurrence in the early 70s. O'Dea got 10 weeks for that - life was more appropriate and how he was never charged like Lethal was years later is beyond me...oh wait...he was a cop as was his coach. Go figure.
How would Teddy Whitten and Jack Dyer go these days?

 

[Syphoncom]

Good article, though I believe it's never too late for a heartfelt apology.
He seems to have form as well, so the best way he could "apologise" would be to address his poor behavior on the field and not stoop to such acts in future.

Yeah you're probably right on that front, I just thought the song name made a decent title . And then I jumped in the car and it came on, so I figured I had to keep it haha.

The one thing I would've liked to have touched on was how the current system (I'm find with it for what it's worth) only penalises the opposition against other teams, essentially helping their future opponents, whilst doing nothing for the team wronged on the day. Unfortunately I think you just have to wear that, but either way it was outside the scope of the piece.

 

[Pie eyed]

I

Yeah you're probably right on that front, I just thought the song name made a decent title . And then I jumped in the car and it came on, so I figured I had to keep it haha.

The one thing I would've liked to have touched on was how the current system (I'm find with it for what it's worth) only penalises the opposition against other teams, essentially helping their future opponents, whilst doing nothing for the team wronged on the day. Unfortunately I think you just have to wear that, but either way it was outside the scope of the piece.

Interesting take.
Possibly a major suspension should say, 6 weeks, "comprising of the next 4 in succession" and "the next 2 against the opposition the offence was incurred against or any Final" which ever is played first.

 

[Markfs]

The great thing about the use of red cards in the English version of football is that it has opened up a whole new area of entertainment. I've been thoroughly bored in some those games but the strategy of each team trying to trap opposition players into getting red cards, really adds spice to the game. This is especially the case in big games like the world cup where teams have spent the whole first half trying to get the opposition in trouble by faking stuff.

I watched the replay of the Pommie cup last weekend between Man Utd and some other mob. It was sunday morning and I was doing anything to get away from gardening. Anyway, I watched the first 10 minutes but I fell asleep for the next 20 and woke up to find that nothing had happened. The worse thing about it is that neither team had done anything to get the opposition red-carded. Absolutely crazy. I turned it off in disgust.

Red carding is a fantastic addition to the entertainment. I can see players like Poppy and Lindsay Thomas and guys like that bringing a huge improvement in the theatre of the game by swanning themselves to the ground in search of red cards. It's got my vote...

ps another thing we should import from the pommie game is kissing after goals.....

 

[Marlin01]

What do you guys think of Jonas claiming he was "bracing for impact" at the tribunal?

Does it take a bit of the shine off the sincerity of his apology?

 

[Good_Old]

No red cards please. Just makes another thing for the umpires to get wrong and potentially cost teams games.

 

[Goldfish]

Red cards would be a shocking idea. Watch Collingwood players get one left and right when we play teams that have players like Christensen and Selwood. They make enough mistakes as it is, the umpires.



Bit of an overreaction, as usual from you Ed - when was the last time something like this ever happened? Maxwell in 2009? Barry Hall in 2008? System is fine as it is.

Good article and well written. Not sure on the red card option, could have it like the goal review where an incident is reviewed by a couple of people in the stands? Can't give the umpires the powers to send off a player imo.

I did have to laugh though, it appears that the Eagles were on the receiving end of the majority of incidents that would have been red-carded over the last 10 years...

Jonas on Gaff
Hall on Staker
Maxwell on McGinnity

Guess we're just lucky?

 

[Countrypie]

What do you guys think of Jonas claiming he was "bracing for impact" at the tribunal?

Does it take a bit of the shine off the sincerity of his apology?

Frankly, the whole apology looked stage managed and fake. It looked like a dog act and his apology reflected that. I hope your boy is OK. EVery time it happens it brings back the Greening memories. 6 weeks isn't enough. You can't defend the indefensible

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Good article and well written. Not sure on the red card option, could have it like the goal review where an incident is reviewed by a couple of people in the stands? Can't give the umpires the powers to send off a player imo.

I did have to laugh though, it appears that the Eagles were on the receiving end of the majority of incidents that would have been red-carded over the last 10 years...

Jonas on Gaff
Hall on Staker
Maxwell on McGinnity

Guess we're just lucky?

Don't think the subtle troll goes unnoticed. Maxwell was cleared.

Maybe you should've run with Headland and Selwood instead... Oh but that's right, Selwood kinda brought that one on himself.

 

[Pie eyed]

Good article and well written. Not sure on the red card option, could have it like the goal review where an incident is reviewed by a couple of people in the stands? Can't give the umpires the powers to send off a player imo.

I did have to laugh though, it appears that the Eagles were on the receiving end of the majority of incidents that would have been red-carded over the last 10 years...

Jonas on Gaff
Hall on Staker
Maxwell on McGinnity

Guess we're just lucky?

I'd argue the Maxwell one was nothing like the two above.
The ball was in dispute for starters, Maxwell effected a legitimate (at the time) bump which did unfortunately cause a lot of physical damage.
There is no way on earth Maxwell would have got off the suspension on appeal if he intended injury.
That's not to say it would be tolerated now or to diminish the effect it had on McGinnity.

 

[Syphoncom]

Don't think the subtle troll goes unnoticed. Maxwell was cleared.

Maybe you should've run with Headland and Selwood instead... Oh but that's right, Selwood kinda brought that one on himself.

I thought initially he got 4 weeks? It's not like the first two for sure, I thought it was just a casual remark. Plus it's actually a very important point, because initially he may very well have been red carded under such a system. To be later found innocent, it does provide an example of where it would get it wrong. Having said that, it still doesn't level the playing field post incident - it's really just a subjective, debatable topic that has no right or wrong.