Red cards in AFL?

[Anja_Nees]

Problem is that a lot of incidents happen out of umpire’s view so you run the risk of penalising one team and not another. If it were done by video I guess it takes care of it but then it’s trial by video mid game.

That said, this and the Staker incident are good advertisements for the concept.

 

[nobbyiscool]

A couple of things:
- Gaff's hit wasn't seen by an umpire yesterday, so none of them would've been able to send him off.
- Do we really want to hand send off powers to a video umpire? We can't even trust them with goal reviews, do we really want to hand them the power to send a guy off?

And where's the line? The Gaff hit is a clear red card. What about Cameron? And are we sending guys off for an action, or for the result of it?

I'm not against it per se, I just don't see it working because of the unintended consequences. Players and coaches will exploit every single aspect of ever single rule, and our game is already hard enough to umpire.

 

[Power Raid]

Hurry up and introduce the red card system

 

[coldlunch]

i'm for it, pending a reasonably water-tight plan on how it's adjudicated.

as an aside, though, I think it's incumbent on the relevant coach in severe circumstances to voluntarily bench a guilty player for the rest of the game.
Simpson consoling Gaff and then sending him back out there with a target on his back is borderline negligence, particularly when the game was well and truly won. puts everyone at risk and works against the umpires' efforts to get back control of the game.

 

[Mitchell54]

I’m strongly against the idea. The game is already to hard to officiate. I feel sorry for them often as people blame them for everything when it should be the rule makers everyone is blaming

 

[beert]

One way to reduce incorrect send-offs would be to make the red card for behind-the play incidents only. This means that Cameron gets off for his hit on Andrews, but Gaff, Bugg, Hall etc. go.

Perhaps a "black card" (send-off, but player can be replaced) could be used for in-play incidents.

I'm just making stuff up on the fly now. Maybe I should apply for a job at AFL house?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I am 100% in favour of a red card rule in the game however it should only be in place for the absolute worst incidents where someone is illegally taken out of the game and the perpetrator's team gets the benefit of an extra man. I would actually be happy if they limited it to off the ball deliberate incidents like Gaff (and Barry Hall) and where someone has been knocked out through a flying arm or hip and shoulder (the Jeremy Cameron or Byron Pickett rule).

Everyday incidents that dont impact on the victim's ability to keep playing should be left to the tribunal as it always has been.

The highlighted would never happen. AFL have proven that they can't help themselves, aided and abetted by the hand wringers.

The video review was introduced with the promise of only being used to catch behind the play skull doggery, look what it's morphed into now.

The AFL and the umpires department, 100% can't be trusted to do it properly and stick to whatever guidelines they put in place.

 

[The Goon]

Don’t mind a red card but only under the following rules:
1. The player being red-carded can be replaced (ie no 17 v 18 on the field).
2. A red is given ONLY when through a players actions an opposition player cannot return to the field.
3. A red card must be given EVERY time this occurs, no matter how accidental the action.
4. It must be unambiguous that the action of the player caused the other player to leave the field for the rest of the game. This means (4a) delayed concussions cannot lead to a red card, (4b) the offending player is free to play while any concussion test is administered, and (4c) if the injury occurs in a group collision without clear vision of who and what caused the injury no red card is to be given.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[red+black]

first of all, no one should give a toss what Gil McLachlan has to say on the issue.

My question is, if Gaff was sent off for the rest of the game, should West Coast play with 17 men on the field? Or just 1 less on the bench?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

There’s absolutely no reason for it. It won’t do anything, it won’t reduce any incidents because it’s only for brain snaps and accidents anyway.

And they’ll **** it up. You know they will.

The tribunal system works fine and always has. People don’t escape justice. And it’s proper, calm justice - not rushed and flawed.

Forget it... it’s not going to happen and there’s no need for it.

 

[Sentinel]

I'm totally against the concept of a red card in football. But if ever there was an action deserving of it, this was the one - off the ball and out of play, clearly high impact and high severity, opposing player finished for the day etc - easily determinable on a quick viewing of a replay.

Not to say that an incident like Cameron's is at all excusable, but given it was at least 'in play' there needs to be a due process to follow to ensure it wasn't accidental - in Gaff's case it seems entirely clear cut.

In any case it's fairly moot, you see these sorts of thing once in a blue moon and knowing the AFL such an introduction would only result in a stuff up.

 

[dave123]

I say bring it in for a seasons trial

If it’s clear king hit then you’re not playing

I’m against violence

Why are we so scared of sending people off

 

[dave123]

I'm totally against the concept of a red card in football. But if ever there was an action deserving of it, this was the one - off the ball and out of play, clearly high impact and high severity, opposing player finished for the day etc - easily determinable on a quick viewing of a replay.

Not to say that an incident like Cameron's is at all excusable, but given it was at least 'in play' there needs to be a due process to follow to ensure it wasn't accidental - in Gaff's case it seems entirely clear cut.

In any case it's fairly moot, you see these sorts of thing once in a blue moon and knowing the AFL such an introduction would only result in a stuff up.

We have stuff ups all the time

You should never not change something because you might get 5% wrong

I’ll take the 95% right thanks .....

 

[dave123]

first of all, no one should give a toss what Gil McLachlan has to say on the issue.

My question is, if Gaff was sent off for the rest of the game, should West Coast play with 17 men on the field? Or just 1 less on the bench?

I say 17 on Park

 

[Monkey King]

I could see red card working well for awhile, but after that we'd see players getting sent off for all sorts of reasons.

This exactly. I’ve seen commentators saying there have only been two incidents worthy of a red card this year (Gaff & Cameron) but the reality is that once you open this can of worms, within 10-15 years it’s gonna be applied a whole lot differently than what we’re talking about now.

Please AFL, don’t open this can of worms.

 

[Appa]

The red card is needed. It must've taken amazing restraint from the Fremantle senior players to not remonstrate with Gaff. They should not be put in a position where the have to play against a player who has committed a thuggery act against one of their team mates.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

The AFL would **** it up. We need an independent body for shit like this.

 

[mightymouse75]

With live coverage on all parts of the game it could be monitored. What about if a tackle or punch takes someone out of the game. The perp also leaves the arena.

 

[Antares]

BUT - This game has existed for over 100 years without a red card rule, I would't be changing it now - I have no faith the AFL would get this red card thing correct, it would just be another cluster **** like the goal review system.

Subs were around for 80 years. Out of bounds on the full kicks were throw ins for 70 years. I'll bet you won't whinge about that.

Increase the size of the fines & make them liable ... In my book, Gaff should be paying the AFL a $50k-100k fine for that snipe AND covering all medical expenses / damages for the kid involved

lol

 

[Antares]

I see so many frailties with introducing a red card system. They already can't get video technology right and umpires are prone to human error and making howlers. Can see this blowing up in the AFL's face even though there will be the odd warranted case for a red card.

It's not hard to differentiate between a reckless bump and deliberately hitting someone in the head.

- Do we really want to hand send off powers to a video umpire? We can't even trust them with goal reviews, do we really want to hand them the power to send a guy off?

So? Goal reviews are completely different because you need angular information, which requires high quality cameras.

Gaff punched a guy in the head, and it's clear as day for anyone to see on even a 20 year old television.

And where's the line? The Gaff hit is a clear red card. What about Cameron? And are we sending guys off for an action, or for the result of it?

Do you seriously not see the drastic difference in action between Gaff/Cameron/Hall/Jonas and a usual high contact bump? No matter how bad bumps look, it's never as bad as deliberately swinging a fist or an elbow.

There’s absolutely no reason for it. It won’t do anything, it won’t reduce any incidents because it’s only for brain snaps and accidents anyway.

But you don't actually know that. Even if that were the case, there's no reason not immediately punish players for that.

And they’ll **** it up. You know they will.

Again, you have nothing.

The tribunal system works fine and always has. People don’t escape justice. And it’s proper, calm justice - not rushed and flawed.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha, delusional.

Forget it... it’s not going to happen and there’s no need for it.

It'll happen, and I'll enjoy your tears when it does.

 

[RAPPA]

It's not hard to differentiate between a reckless bump and deliberately hitting someone in the head.

So? Goal reviews are completely different because you need angular information, which requires high quality cameras.

Gaff punched a guy in the head, and it's clear as day for anyone to see on even a 20 year old television.


Do you seriously not see the drastic difference in action between Gaff/Cameron/Hall/Jonas and a usual high contact bump? No matter how bad bumps look, it's never as bad as deliberately swinging a fist or an elbow.


But you don't actually know that. Even if that were the case, there's no reason not immediately punish players for that.


Again, you have nothing.


Ahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha, delusional.


It'll happen, and I'll enjoy your tears when it does.

What about a punch to the face to a player that plays on but is later found to have suffered a fractured jaw or some other injury? To what extent is the red card used for the resulting effect of the conduct an not the conduct itself? Howe's punch on Cripps for example was blatantly deliberate but Cripps did not sustain a Brayshaw-type injury.

 

[Antares]

What about a punch to the face to a player that plays on but is later found to have suffered a fractured jaw or some other injury? To what extent is the red card used for the resulting effect of the conduct an not the conduct itself? Howe's punch on Cripps for example was blatantly deliberate but Cripps did not sustain a Brayshaw-type injury.

The AFL's whole outcome over intent thing is pure stupidity. If you deliberately punch someone in the head under any circumstance, you should be out of the game no matter what the injury.

 

[Wallaby]

Red Card - in theory yes. In practice - no.

As stated, Gaff wouldn't have been sent off, because no umpire saw it (I suppose the video ump could find it, and the field umps could have a look at qtr time - can you see a problem here?).

We all know a clear red card situation - Gaff, Hall etc. I would be extremely happy if they were sent off. We all know a non-red card, but reportable situation. Where is the line? Who decides? What if the umpire has a different opinion to you or me?

We saw a situation in the Richmond Geelong game, where a dangerous tackle was reported, player got sanctioned and fined, but the offender received the free kick in the game-time situation.

I still maintain one option is that if a player commits a reportable offence that he is found guilty of, and the player who is infringed suffers an injury that keeps him out for the game, the suspended player also misses the next game against that opponent. Well, something like that.

 

[FRUMPY]

No reason a video ref couldn't be used to handle red cards. The red card doesn't need to happen instantly, the video ref can take as log as he needs to adjudicate. Even if it takes 10 mins and then the runner goes out and tells him to get off.

My issue is that we start out for incidents like Gaff's punch getting a red card and then slowly they start giving them out for lesser and lesser incidents. Take the tribunal for example, was brought in for punches, elbows etc and now blokes are getting suspended/fined for good bumps or other niggly incidents. If we bring in a red card system, within 10 years blokes will be getting sent off for abusing an umpire.

 

[Roobs321]

No need for such a system at all in this particular game based on the scarcity of debatable incidents.