Red Cards in Footy

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kapow!!!

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
7,571
Likes
1,291
Location
Queensland
AFL Club
Fremantle
You think I haven't watched the video?
The logical flaw is thinking it supports you conclusion.
The logical flaw is actually you failing to realise your own confirmations bias if that's your interpretation after seeing the video. Dog act, intentional and severe based on the MRPs own interpretations it has laid out this year. Has prior history of it and has really failed to demonstrate any meaningful contrition. It couldn't possibly be more open and shut than this.

I don't like the idea of Red Cards but if ever there was a case that best exemplifies the need it is this
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Posts
7,948
Likes
6,011
AFL Club
GWS
The logical flaw is actually you failing to realise your own confirmations bias if that's your interpretation after seeing the video. Dog act, intentional and severe based on the MRPs own interpretations it has laid out this year. Has prior history of it and has really failed to demonstrate any meaningful contrition. It couldn't possibly be more open and shut than this.

I don't like the idea of Red Cards but if ever there was a case that best ex
Even though it wasn't intentional. Clearly you've seen the words confirmation bias somewhere and thought it would cool to use them, where do you think confirmation is coming from in this case?
You cant, even if you try really hard, to think of a case of striking that might be more clear cut?
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
16,617
Likes
42,106
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
You think I haven't watched the video?
The logical flaw is thinking it supports you conclusion.
I’ve got contempt for you and anyone else who suggests that he was trying to spoil at all when he arrived at the contest after Andrews has already cleared the ball and at no stage was leading with his fist.

3C57C315-1516-45B0-8B44-007AC819D8CA.jpeg


If he had his arm extended, sure, you could claim it was careless/reckless. But he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He’s already got the elbow out when Andrews is doing what Cameron is apparently attempting and spoiling the ball. Which, incidentally, is above his head and nowhere near where Cameron’s fists are.

When Tom Jonas got 6 weeks for his hit on Gaff, at least it LOOKED like a spoil gone wrong.
 

Kapow!!!

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
7,571
Likes
1,291
Location
Queensland
AFL Club
Fremantle
Even though it wasn't intentional. Ckearly you've seen the words confirmation bias somewhere and thought it would cool to use them, where do you think confirmation is coming from in this case?
Surely you're just being obtuse here? I think more people than not would interpret that as intentional. Your need to defend your own player here and the need to downplay it, I believe, is only because you don't WANT to see it.

Honestly I thought that was self-evident

You cant, even if you try really hard, to think of a case of striking that might be more clear cut?
Maybe Solomon on Ling? But yeah, this is right up there.
 

vanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Posts
11,730
Likes
10,363
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hornets
Saturday was the first time I thought the red card idea was a good one. Cameron took out their best defender and kicked a goal within a minute of the game restarting.

I would only like the card to be used if the injured guy can't play out the game though.
 

DangerSloane

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Posts
39,266
Likes
18,037
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
Two things.

1. Red cards are needed.
2. Not for incidents like Cameron's

There cant be a red card given if its not a clear cut deliberate act.
Nobody could argue that is clear cut deliberate.

The red card is for the Barry Hall scenario...where a player loses the plot and does something completely out of the realms of the laws of the game. Should be able to be reviewed by the sideline field umpire and at the next break the card awarded if it wasnt seen in-play.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2018
Posts
105
Likes
159
AFL Club
Geelong
Saturday was the first time I thought the red card idea was a good one. Cameron took out their best defender and kicked a goal within a minute of the game restarting.

I would only like the card to be used if the injured guy can't play out the game though.
Could never work imagine if Fyfe bumped some donkey you'd tell the guy to lay there and not return.
 

Westicle

All Australian
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Posts
647
Likes
1,884
AFL Club
Richmond
A Modest Proposal to implement red cards to Australian Football without significant umpiring discretion being required:

Thesis: A no-fault red card system could be implemented without a connotation of punishment or wrong-doing as a display of sportsmanship and show of solidarity for the injured player. Where any player is removed from the game as the result of a head injury caused in a contest with an opposition player, both players involved in the contest shall sit out the game unless they are both medically cleared to return.

Rationale: There are several very different reasons to implement a red card system that are not necessarily all aligned.

1. Specific deterrence: eg. Jeremy Cameron is a dog, he should be punished.
2. General deterrence: eg. Players who know certain actions may result in a red card will be likely to avoid those actions.
3. Fairness: eg. Brisbane has lost a player from the game and now plays at a disadvantage.

It is important to distinguish between these goals when considering appropriate incentives.

Point 1 is arguably covered by the Tribunal function of the AFL - if we disregard points 2 & 3, there is no need for a "red card system" as we can punish specific players for their actions as harshly as needed. If you're not concerned about general deterrence or fairness of the specific game this is the end of the conversation.

Point 2 is trickier, as the Tribunal does provide a disincentive to play in ways that harm other players. However if you are Matthew Lloyd in your last game of AFL football trying to win the flag for your team, a suspension might be irrelevant to you. It also is a strong incentive for all players to meet the duty of care they owe to other players as their fortune is tied together regardless of intent.

Point 3 argues strongly in favour of this system. Entirely disregarding points 1 & 2, a concern many people have with concussion/head injury is the fairness or equality of the contest. A contest is fair when both sides have equal numbers of conscious players. This is achieved by maintaining consistent players numbers and has no reference to punishment or fault. Ultimate good sportsmanship would suggest the team advantaged by such a situation would voluntarily sit a player out (also demonstrating a real concern for the welfare of the injured player, rather than the continuing contest).

Finally, this (largely) removes the need for subjective interpretation by the umpires as to when a player is withdrawn from the game. If there is any contest resulting in a concussion/head injury, both teams lose a player. Obviously the bona fides of any player's health concern would be relevant, and the AFL could severely punish a team which exploited the rules by eg. faking a head injury. But there would be no need for a subjective interpretation of the rule on the field.

Examples: (in light of my own team's experience):

In the first quarter of the 2017 preliminary final, whilst contesting the ball Trent Cotchin makes negligent contact with Dylan Shiel resulting in a concussion. The MRP later determines that he contested the ball fairly and was not at fault. In this case, specific deterrence is not relevant and the only outcome is that GWS plays without their best midfielder. Under the above proposal, as the (not at fault) player involved in the contest with Shiel, Cotchin is required to sit out the game unless Shiel is fit to return to the field. Richmond and GWS both play with 21 players and neither team is disadvantaged by the injury. There is no fault or punishment implied by this outcome and it is unrelated to any MRP/Tribunal referrals which may result from the same incident.

In the first quarter of round 14, 2017, Bachar Houli swings his arm behind him and knocks out Jed Lamb, who does not return to the game. Richmond receives an advantage playing against 21 men for the remainder of the game. Houli is later cited by the MRP for intentional high contact and suspended for four weeks. Under the above proposal, both Lamb and Houli would sit out the game so Carlton is not disadvantaged. The Tribunal would then consider the incident independently (although the fact that Houli has already sat out the initial game may be taken in to consideration by the Tribunal if relevant).

In both cases it is hoped that the players will sub-consciously recognise that their fate during the game is tied to the safety of the opposition players and encourage them to do their utmost not to do anything which might impact the long-term health of their colleagues. In addition, they have the opportunity to consider/receive updates on the well-being of the injured player which they would not have if they continued playing.

Conclusion: This is a wild departure from the common understanding of red cards. It may not be popular, especially if it is misunderstood as a form of punishment. It is my hope that people can focus on the fairness of the contest and the long term health and safety of players, and recognise that removing an uninjured player from the game is a small price to pay for achieving those goals. Eventually it might even be appreciated as a codified gesture of good sportsmanship and respect between all players.

How stupid am I?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DangerSloane

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Posts
39,266
Likes
18,037
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
I’ve got contempt for you and anyone else who suggests that he was trying to spoil at all when he arrived at the contest after Andrews has already cleared the ball and at no stage was leading with his fist.

View attachment 517518

If he had his arm extended, sure, you could claim it was careless/reckless. But he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He’s already got the elbow out when Andrews is doing what Cameron is apparently attempting and spoiling the ball. Which, incidentally, is above his head and nowhere near where Cameron’s fists are.

When Tom Jonas got 6 weeks for his hit on Gaff, at least it LOOKED like a spoil gone wrong.
Jonas' wasnt even close to a spoil. That was far more of a dog act than Cameron's

I think you're biased in analysing these two different circumstances.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,670
Likes
15,019
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
Seriously. When a player intentionally/recklessly takes another player out of the game, a suspension isn't enough.

Jeremy Cameron will get 4 weeks for his hit on Harris Andrews, but that doesn't change the fact that Brisbane are now without their best player for the rest of the game. Red cards work in soccer, why not in footy too?

I'm not suggesting that red cards be thrown out for any incident that causes harm to another player - a dangerous tackle, or an accidental head-high bump shouldn't result in a red card. But when it is as messed up as this incident, surely it is justified?

The hit in question: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-23/andrews-knocked-out-by-crude-hit
Great idea for that clear incident.
What happens with the other 30 a year which are not so cut and dried? What about the constant errors the umps will make, the idiotic "throws" to the "bunker" for yet another ****in Umpire to cast his oyster-ed old eye over the inconclusive footage. How will we redress the blatant misappropriation of the vaguely worded rules when games are lost in total debacle.
Umpire already have too many tools to totally ruin the game. Do not hand them a "placard' to wave to gain more personal attention.
I honestly think people who advocate changing the rules all the time should be banned form Bigfooty, even banned form membership in the clubs.

They can go and start a new forum, call it "Big Meddling" or "let's ****it for everyone" or similar.
 

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
34,500
Likes
60,610
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
It’s worked in other sports

It needs a trial

We can use video to determine a goal

We can use video to determine thuggery
No.

Most of them are too incompetent to properly utilise the power they already have.

It's the equivalent of giving a loaded pistol to a 4 year old kid.

No.
 

Westicle

All Australian
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Posts
647
Likes
1,884
AFL Club
Richmond
Great idea for that clear incident.
What happens with the other 30 a year which are not so cut and dried? What about the constant errors the umps will make, the idiotic "throws" to the "bunker" for yet another ****in Umpire to cast his oyster-ed old eye over the inconclusive footage. How will we redress the blatant misappropriation of the vaguely worded rules when games are lost in total debacle.
Umpire already have too many tools to totally ruin the game. Do not hand them a "placard' to wave to gain more personal attention.
I honestly think people who advocate changing the rules all the time should be banned form Bigfooty, even banned form membership in the clubs.

They can go and start a new forum, call it "Big Meddling" or "let's ****it for everyone" or similar.
See above my modest proposal for red cards without room for umpiring errors.
 
Top Bottom