Send-off rule in the AFL

[rdhopkins2]

Probably about 5yrs ago Toby Pinwill was sent off after 2 soft yellows in a VFL final. I think at the time the VFL admitted it was a mistake. Port Melb were down a player for most of the second half I think and lost the final. It wasn't a great look for the send off rule.

 

[Allikat]

Umpires can't even get their current job right. You want to give them more responsibility?

I can see next Western Bulldogs game at Etihad, and the AFL justifying Pannell's 17 send offs to 1.

 

[sataris]

Probably about 5yrs ago Toby Pinwill was sent off after 2 soft yellows in a VFL final. I think at the time the VFL admitted it was a mistake. Port Melb were down a player for most of the second half I think and lost the final. It wasn't a great look for the umpires.

Fixed your post. The rule should be for acts of flagrant violence and deliberate cheating. The umpires should have that power imo.

I don't agree with using the soccer implementation of 2 yellows = 1 red. That's just a case of people blindly copying something without understanding.

Yellows shouldn't exist in Aussie Rules, we have 50m penalties that are perfect substitutes for yellow cards.

Reds should be available to the umps for what I mentioned above, flagrant acts of violence that demand something greater than a 50.

 

[sataris]

Umpires can't even get their current job right. You want to give them more responsibility?

I can see next Western Bulldogs game at Etihad, and the AFL justifying Pannell's 17 send offs to 1.

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

it would the equivalent of saying 'Allikat can't even post without making typo's. And you want to make him a mod?'

PS: I'm not having a go at you, I just don't understand where that reasoning comes from.

 

[Allikat]

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

it would the equivalent of saying 'Allikat can't even post without making typo's. And you want to make him a mod?'

PS: I'm not having a go at you, I just don't understand where that reasoning comes from.

It isn't. It's more like saying "Allikat is a shit board mod, and you want to make her a super mod?"

You're giving people more responsibility that already struggle with bouncing balls, interpretations, being outright biased.

p.s. I'm a ****ing awesome mod

 

[BurnedScones]

I've said it before, it's a good idea on paper, but you could almost guarantee the system will be abused and players will be sent off for nothing.

 

[sataris]

It isn't. It's more like saying "Allikat is a shit board mod, and you want to make her a super mod?"

You're giving people more responsibility that already struggle with bouncing balls, interpretations, being outright biased.

p.s. I'm a ******* awesome mod

I actually spent some time thinking if I should use 'him' or 'them' for that sentence.

Dammit the one time!

 

[jamaican_eagle]

I can think of two instances within the last 15 years. Barry hall flogging Brent Staker. And Adam Hunters dive against Barry Hall. You wont see a punch like that in another 20 years. Coaches will physically march onto the ground and drag the guy for the rest of the game if that happened. So why do you want to make rules up incase?

Did laugh at this one. I'm an eagle and I admit it was pretty bad, probably worse than the actual hit.

 

[AM]

I'm all for the send-off rule - applied only in the worst cases. The Hall/Staker king hit for example. Deliberate kicking would be another. Works well elsewhere.

One of these days a player with nothing to lose is going to take out a star player or two during the big dance and his side will suffer no penalty on the day and possibly cost the opposition a flag. Perhaps then the powers-that-be will sit up and take notice.

 

[shoebox]

If it was administered perfectly on game day it could have merit for the once in a blue moon Barry hall event. But given this is the AFL who can't even get clash strips, goal reviews and home finals correct, no f'n way.

 

[D-N-R]

The players are pretty well behaved considering we don't have a send off rule.

If it were to be introduced, then you would have to decide what charges warrant a sending off. Striking seems to be the obvious one. Maybe Charging as well. But does a strike with low force warrant a sending off? If we introduce a send off rule for "really bad stuff" then we are getting into a very subjective area.

You also have to consider how players might act up to get an opponent sent off.

Unless teams start targeting opponents and knocking them out to gain an advantage - and let's be honest, this is really, really rare - then I think the current system works well as it is.

 

[Blues_Man]

David Rhys Jones was sent off in a tassie state league game ...it was a tight game and probably cost his side the game . he was found not guilty at the tribunal. but he had already been punished.
The Umpires struggle to get basic decisions correct most times..who would ever let them be judge, jury, and executioner in one ?

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Go through this a couple times a season at least I reckon

I like the sin bin in Union - 10 minutes off the field and down to 17 men. Can still sub-on and off other players but no more than 17 on the field and sent-off player stays in the bin for the duration. Rarely is there anything that would warrant a full send off as suggested, but some of the dumb shit done over the years could easily be dealt with by a sin-bin. I mean like dangerous tackles, illegal contact, high hits, striking etc. (same sort of infringements union players get pinged for)

Sometimes getting them off the field for a bit helps both sides cool down if there was a high, late hit and both teams decide to melee for a bit, I dunno just my opinion

 

[Jcpdragonx]

I think its necessary. You can deliberately ram a player's head into a post (cough hodge) and you'll have one more player than your opponent. Not fair at all. Red Card should = that player sent off for the entire game, play with 17 men 20 minutes. Having 10 men in soccer ruins the rest of the game, defend defend defend and hope for a draw.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

by the time we need to send a player off in footy he'd be getting pinned down by the cops anyway.

the simple fact is this is not only a contact sport, it's a contact sport wherein we allow blokes with no talent to run around pinching people and throwing dirty little jumper punches just to get under a blokes skin.

occasionally this will have its intended effect and put the bloke off his game and every now and then a bloke will get angry and retaliate by having a swing.
and this is why we don't have a send off rule. this is a sport where in players are encouraged to act like dogs on the field, a "hard" taggers job is specifically to piss players off as long as this role exists and counted as "part of the game" so to is the occasional punch.

now suspensions and heavy penalties exist in order to discourage players from swinging willy nilly but come on. a bloke holds you're jumper for 60 minutes, throws dirty little punches in your back, insults your mum and continues to get away with it. sooner or later some blokes are going to retaliate.

everyone says, who put its only for extreme acts like bazza hitting a bloke when he wasn't looking or dropping your knee into someone.
i can bring up ample footage over the last 5 years showing players doing just this and when these things and they aren't even given free kicks for doing it half the time. the response is always "oh there was nothing in it" to which i ask those supporting a send off rule.

if youre the umpire on the field making the decision how and where do you draw the line? does a bloke have to be injured before a send off can occur? does channel 7 have to replay it 20 times? is there an "thats out of character for him" rule?

if we are going to introduce a sin bin, where and how it can be used needs to be clearly defined and the rule needs be enforced consistently. neither the MRP or the on field umpires manage to do that with any of the existing rules so why would we think they could get this right?

the simple fact is, we don't have an issue with players bopping people, it so rarely occurs people can only list 2-3 incidents in the last decade which fit the bill worthy of a send off.

 

[Balony_pony16]

I think its necessary. You can deliberately ram a player's head into a post (cough hodge) and you'll have one more player than your opponent. Not fair at all. Red Card should = that player sent off for the entire game, play with 17 men 20 minutes. Having 10 men in soccer ruins the rest of the game, defend defend defend and hope for a draw.

a bit different in AFL losing a player...it affects your interchanges and over all team fatigue. Nothing wrong with game long red card for real serious stuff. If the other team goes a man down it only makes it more fair. Barry Halls punch on Staker always comes to mind. Im not sure of any other sport in the world you wouldnt get sent off for that sort of thing

 

[Jakksynn]

I think there needs to be one for serious incidents. What's to stop a player coming out in a grand final and wiping out the oppositions best player? Sportsmanship?

 

[Ando727]

If this eventuates it would be the dumbest thing to ever happen to the sport.

I could support it. Michael Long - 2000 GF. Bastard.

 

[Tuco]

Checks if there is a weelky problem of incidents demanding this change.

Nope.

Next hare brained suggestion...

With pressures on players to hold their positions, and the short longevity of the average AFL career - strict tribunal rulings on incidents should be enough to keep things from degenerating.

At the amateur level send offs and life bans are much more helpful. Just don't need it at the senior level.

 

[radiojake]

Could the AFL finally introduce a Send-Off rule?

We know that the VAFA has one in place and that for years the VFA did too - the VFA had the rule in place if a player was reported twice in one match (the last player ever was Jeff Sarau for Frankston in 1989).

SANFL has (or had, not sure) the rule - I know Gary McIntosh (Norwood) got sent off sometime in the 90s for being reported twice in the same game. I remember one of the reports was for a trip - Can't remember the other one, but I remember thinking they were both pretty minor - It's not as if he belted someone...

 

[SterlingArcher]

You do know it is possible to like both sports? And if you'd bothered to look, I posted earlier basically saying it'd be a terrible idea for footy.

But hey, keep up the stereotypin'

Overly sensitive - tick.

Must be a soccer fan

 

[Wild Bill]

Don't like it. The umps will get it wrong.

 

[basashi]

Lets say there was a particularly robust player and he was in the mood for clouting people. And he injured someone with a blatant punch ala Leigh Matthews.

The umpire then reports him and pays a kick with a 50m penalty. That's the most he can do.

The player then continues in the game and late he breaks another jaw. Or a head high with a serious head injury... or whatever.

The subsequently injured player then takes the league to court and says:
- I was at risk
- the league owed me a duty of care
- the situation was foreseeable
- the strongest control that the league put within the remit of the umpire (report, kick, 50) was negligently inadequate in protecting me
- I was injured and would not have been but for the negligently inadequate control

Sounds like a pretty fair case to me.

 

[Randomizor]

Could we round up all the soccer fans and piss them all off over to big soccer.

People actually watch soccer? I'm still slightly convinced there is some sort of worldwide prank being pulled here.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

it would the equivalent of saying 'Allikat can't even post without making typo's. And you want to make him a mod?'

PS: I'm not having a go at you, I just don't understand where that reasoning comes from.

not sure what's so abstract about that reasoning. that's perfectly rational.