Hot Topic Send Off Rule

[Jimmae]

As far as I knew the emergency/third umpire had the power to remove someone from the field, I thought that included players?

It's for extreme circumstances though, more than a malicious bump.

 

[ferrisb]

I'm at least leaning towards trialing it at lower levels...

Like North vs WCE?

 

[DangerousD]

Was thinking further about this, but no doubt that there will be a situation where IF there was a send off 5 minutes after the incident, but in that time the player under scrutiny makes a play that results in a goal, and the team ends up winning by less than a goal.. the talking heads will have a squeal-fest about it.

There will always be something to talk about and many different possibilities, the biggest priority should be making the correct decision.
It’s something i doubt would or should happen often, maybe a handful of times a year at most.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Sorry just a smooth brained footy fan, not particularly articulate.

Trying to say that if it left solely in the hand of the on field umpires they may use it in the wrong situation just because they think they need to use it i.e marking contest and player gets fairly / accidently knocked out, add crowd anger/affirmation = Red Card. .

Are the umpires/review officers really that bad? I reckon the review system has been getting better and more efficient every year.

All they’d have to do is decide whether an action is a reportable offence. They would get a reasonable amount of time to do this. They aren’t perfect but they would get it right more often than not, certainly more often than us supporters watching.

 

[JustaBattler]

I'm thinking AFL contact for all except the most blatant stuff, like punching a player in the head ( which never happens anymore) is too hard to adjudicate on in general play for a send-off decision. Same goes for 'sin bin'. The game is already too hostage to the fact that umpiring is 'interpretative' given the nature of AFL contact.

I don't think AFL contact is directly comparable to other contact codes - stuff that is allowed to happen between players in AFL is automatically a free/penalty/send-off for repeat occurrence but is just part of the AFL makey-uppy free flowing rules of the game.

If we played pretty much any ball up /CBB in really slow mo - we would see multiple possible free kicks on display from either side...that is what makes the game difficult to umpire - the nature ( in broad terms) of what is allowable in scrimmages & marking contests and what is not.

 

[gbatman]

In big games, when games are close late, in finals etc you will see umpires, crack and they change their interpretations, afraid to pay frees, particularly in front of goal. Whistle goes away. This sort of thing may happen with the send off rule. So it will be inconsistent.

I think it also has too great a bearing on the game.

It does however work well at lower levels. But this is because thuggery still exists at these levels, games are hardly filmed and players often get away with it and avoid suspension. You also get some individuals who are out of control and violent and they need to be removed from the game. The reason we have the send off rule at lower levels, we don't get these issues at AFL level.

I don't think a send off rule is necessary for AFL level football. I think big penalties are the answer. Players still get away with it at the tribunal as Maynard did. If players didn't get away with it there would not be a great issue. Maynard getting off was the AFL's opportunity to make a statement and they failed badly.

At the end of the day the AFL not penalising players for doing the wrong issue is the issue. Not the lack of a send off rule.

 

[thylacine60]

I'm thinking AFL contact for all except the most blatant stuff, like punching a player in the head ( which never happens anymore) is too hard to adjudicate on in general play for a send-off decision. Same goes for 'sin bin'. The game is already too hostage to the fact that umpiring is 'interpretative' given the nature of AFL contact.

I don't think AFL contact is directly comparable to other contact codes - stuff that is allowed to happen between players in AFL is automatically a free/penalty/send-off for repeat occurrence but is just part of the AFL makey-uppy free flowing rules of the game.

If we played pretty much any ball up /CBB in really slow mo - we would see multiple possible free kicks on display from either side...that is what makes the game difficult to umpire - the nature ( in broad terms) of what is allowable in scrimmages & marking contests and what is not.

straight question, jab - do you think a player might incur a permanent injury (aside from any concussion issues) or be killed from a hit like the one on the weekend? I know it has happened in lower grades and juniors.........I've always wondered why it hasn't happened at the top level........

 

[JustaBattler]

straight question, jab - do you think a player might incur a permanent injury (aside from any concussion issues) or be killed from a hit like the one on the weekend? I know it has happened in lower grades and juniors.........I've always wondered why it hasn't happened at the top level........

Have a look at the physics of the equation- you have one player having just kicked a ball off balance and probably unbraced for impact and another player launching 90kilos of body mass into the upper torso neck and head delivered at 15km/hr or greater through a pointy and hardened contact patch that is pretty severe directed level of force.

That force transfers itself through the stronger chest/shoulder muscle group directly into the unbraced neck region ( see the whiplash effect of the players neck in the video) that alone can cause damage but of the hit actually makes contact with the head - we are looking at more force than a professional boxer can exert in a big punch or a king hit.

From a danger point of view in a punch situation you dont want anyone punching you in the temple - that can be an immediate death sentence - but I am making an analogy to punch ...

I would be surprised if a shoulder to the head led to a death there isnt enough speed in the mass times acceleration equation - but the whiplash and or concussive effect on the reciever's brain is not inconsequential over time.

What can break necks is force applied to the next /head which is pinned and immobile on the ground or bound in a scrum ...which is in rugby codes spear tackles and scrum rules have been banned and changed.

The hip and shoulder in rugby is bad enough - but in AFL I say it has far worse potential for damage- because in AFL, quite often players can't see it coming and therefore are not braced and can't take defensive body positioning...

so the TLDR answer is : No I don't think launched tackles like this are likely to kill - but they are likely to cause serious damage.

The worst thing about such 'acts' is that they are dog acts - ther was absolutely no reason to make contact like this - zero , none.

One thing to be hard at teh contest - another thing which has come consistently from certain coaches is to be a dog at contests- Lyon has form as does Clarkson as does Hardwick as did Sheedy.

 

[thylacine60]

fair reply, cheers......

 

[Jimmae]

Have a look at the physics of the equation- you have one player having just kicked a ball off balance and probably unbraced for impact and another player launching 90kilos of body mass into the upper torso neck and head delivered at 15km/hr or greater through a pointy and hardened contact patch that is pretty severe directed level of force.

That force transfers itself through the stronger chest/shoulder muscle group directly into the unbraced neck region ( see the whiplash effect of the players neck in the video) that alone can cause damage but of the hit actually makes contact with the head - we are looking at more force than a professional boxer can exert in a big punch or a king hit.

From a danger point of view in a punch situation you dont want anyone punching you in the temple - that can be an immediate death sentence - but I am making an analogy to punch ...

I would be surprised if a shoulder to the head led to a death there isnt enough speed in the mass times acceleration equation - but the whiplash and or concussive effect on the reciever's brain is not inconsequential over time.

What can break necks is force applied to the next /head which is pinned and immobile on the ground or bound in a scrum ...which is in rugby codes spear tackles and scrum rules have been banned and changed.

The hip and shoulder in rugby is bad enough - but in AFL I say it has far worse potential for damage- because in AFL, quite often players can't see it coming and therefore are not braced and can't take defensive body positioning...

so the TLDR answer is : No I don't think launched tackles like this are likely to kill - but they are likely to cause serious damage.

The worst thing about such 'acts' is that they are dog acts - ther was absolutely no reason to make contact like this - zero , none.

One thing to be hard at teh contest - another thing which has come consistently from certain coaches is to be a dog at contests- Lyon has form as does Clarkson as does Hardwick as did Sheedy.

You're directly describing force and indirectly describing impulse (the amount of time the force is applied) and pressure (the force over the area). It's not impossible for the point of a shoulder or an elbow to impart the same kind of force, impulse or pressure of a fist/palm strike.

There's also the possibility a player charging into someone while mid-air and falling on top of them, applying significant additional force at the initial point of landing.

 

[Arr0w]

I believe the penalty to Webster sends a strong deterrent message for all players and clubs

Next step is the AFL being consistent whether the offending or recipient player is a star or role player in the game and all throughout the season including finals

 

[Dramoth]

I can imagine it… Collingwood 15 minutes into the first quarter has to forfeit because their entire team has been sent off.

Essendon might make it 5.

 

[JustaBattler]

You're directly describing force and indirectly describing impulse (the amount of time the force is applied) and pressure (the force over the area). It's not impossible for the point of a shoulder or an elbow to impart the same kind of force, impulse or pressure of a fist/palm strike.

There's also the possibility a player charging into someone while mid-air and falling on top of them, applying significant additional force at the initial point of landing.

I agree - the scariest thing about any head-high contact is that - anything could happen at any time for all sorts of reasons - fortunately, most players these days have little interest in maiming their opponents - even so, all sorts of things can happen at any time in a contest where players are going in from all different angles...

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Unless they introduce a bunker situation whereby an incident can be replayed and determined on the spot, that it is an incident that will draw a suspension, then probably its a no to red cards.

However, if you take out an opposition player, you should be sent off and your team forced to use their sub. If the sub has already been used, then my plan is screwed.

Back to the bunker idea.

The thing is if you lose a player due to sniping, you should get the benefit of any action taken, not just the opponents coming up soon.

Maybe a 6 week suspension can be 5 weeks plus the next time the teams play each other.

 

[Franc de Borges]

Not against a straight red card for the most brutal incidents, as long as the decision could be reviewed first for confirmation.

The two-yellows-equal-a-red system is more problematic, as players could end up being sent off for two moderate/high grade incidents, which is not in keeping with the idea behind introducing the rule.

Most interesting is how the send off system would work (i.e. team permanently down to 17 on-field, or just down a rotation).

 

[Wickzki]

A send-off rule is a nice ideal but isn't realistic for the AFL right now.

In my opinion, a send-off should meet the following criteria:

1. High impact

2. A level of intent, recklessness or carelessness as to be considered indefensible.

From memory, there's been only two incidents in the past 6 years that meet the criteria. Andrew Gaff

3

Andrew Gaff

Age

33

Ht

184cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.6

5star

K

15.9

5star

HB

10.7

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

2.0

4star

CL

2.5

4star

D

24.5

5star

K

15.6

5star

HB

8.9

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.0

3star

CL

2.5

4star

D

11.2

3star

K

8.0

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

3.2

4star

T

0.6

3star

CL

0.6

3star

in 2018 and Jimmy Webster

29

Jimmy Webster

Age

32

Ht

188cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.7

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.8

4star

M

3.7

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

288.1

4star

No current season stats available

D

9.2

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

3.6

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.8

4star

this past weekend.

I'd much rather strive for the AFL tribunal and the MRP to get it consistently correct rather than adding another significant layer to an already convoluted system.

They did a fantastic job with the Webster case - not just in the penalty but in explaining their reasoning behind it. More of this please.

 

[passmark]

A send-off rule is a nice ideal but isn't realistic for the AFL right now.

In my opinion, a send-off should meet the following criteria:

1. High impact

2. A level of intent, recklessness or carelessness as to be considered indefensible.

From memory, there's been only two incidents in the past 6 years that meet the criteria. Andrew Gaff in 2018 and Jimmy Webster this past weekend.

I'd much rather strive for the AFL tribunal and the MRP to get it consistently correct rather than adding another significant layer to an already convoluted system.

They did a fantastic job with the Webster case - not just in the penalty but in explaining their reasoning behind it. More of this please.

Only twice? I haven’t reviewed the last 6 year but even if it’s once it still a viable option.

Is anyone seriously arguing Gaff should have been able to continue in the game after that incident?

You’re effectively saying anything is acceptable in the game.

 

[Wickzki]

Only twice? I haven’t reviewed the last 6 year but even if it’s once it still a viable option.

Is anyone seriously arguing Gaff should have been able to continue in the game after that incident?

You’re effectively saying anything is acceptable in the game.

Gaff should have been sent off if the process existed.

Webster should have been sent off if the process existed.

It should only be for undeniable incidents such as the above.

It adds a layer of complexity to a system that is already highly inconsistent.

Here is my problem with it:

Imagine sending Maynard off for the Brayshaw incident last year in Q1 of a final.

Collingwood plays a man down for the rest of the game. It determines the outcome of the game.

The tribunal process plays out exactly as it did (Maynard ultimately cleared).

 

[Franc de Borges]

Gaff should have been sent off if the process existed.

Webster should have been sent off if the process existed.

It should only be for undeniable incidents such as the above.

It adds a layer of complexity to a system that is already highly inconsistent.

Here is my problem with it:

Imagine sending Maynard off for the Brayshaw incident last year in Q1 of a final.

Collingwood plays a man down for the rest of the game. It determines the outcome of the game.

The tribunal process plays out exactly as it did (Maynard ultimately cleared).

A straight red would have to come with an automatic suspension (three games in the Premier League for violent conduct).

The sending off would be reviewed first, so we wouldn’t end up with this scenario.

 

[Bletch]

Gaff should have been sent off if the process existed.

Webster should have been sent off if the process existed.

It should only be for undeniable incidents such as the above.

It adds a layer of complexity to a system that is already highly inconsistent.

Here is my problem with it:

Imagine sending Maynard off for the Brayshaw incident last year in Q1 of a final.

Collingwood plays a man down for the rest of the game. It determines the outcome of the game.

The tribunal process plays out exactly as it did (Maynard ultimately cleared).

You mean like Melbourne did?

See, if the ump (or whoever) gets it wrong and sends a guy off, who later gets cleared by a tribunal, the worst outcome is that the playing field is leveled. Collingwood would not have been one man down (in comparison with Melbourne), they'd have been even.

It's actually a perfect example of when a send-off rule would make sense.

Note - I'd only be considering a send-off for incidents where the opposition team has been impacted. i.e. A concussion or other major injury that results in the opposition player leaving the field.

 

[Gez1969]

I agree in principle but can't settle on the specific detail.
My questions:
Should/clould there be time-limited send off, say 10-15 minutes from the clock?
Complete send off regardless for the remainder of the game?
Replacement players or is that out regardless?
Who decides, the unpire who sees the incident?
A Video Ref?
Do you stop the clock and confer with the field umpires?
What exactly constitues a send off other than an egregious non-footballing act... but even that definition is dynamic and evolving.
It is definitely worth considering but much thought and consultatuion is required before that trigger is pulled.

 

[thylacine60]

I agree in principle but can't settle on the specific detail.
My questions:
Should/clould there be time-limited send off, say 10-15 minutes from the clock?
Complete send off regardless for the remainder of the game?
Replacement players or is that out regardless?
Who decides, the unpire who sees the incident?
A Video Ref?
Do you stop the clock and confer with the field umpires?
What exactly constitues a send off other than an egregious non-footballing act... but even that definition is dynamic and evolving.
It is definitely worth considering but much thought and consultatuion is required before that trigger is pulled.

pretty much a similar set of questions to the ones I had - I particularly would like to see the aggressor's side play one short.......it would have been quite interesting watching geelong play 2 short after rohan conked cameron..........

 

[Wickzki]

You mean like Melbourne did?

See, if the ump (or whoever) gets it wrong and sends a guy off, who later gets cleared by a tribunal, the worst outcome is that the playing field is leveled. Collingwood would not have been one man down (in comparison with Melbourne), they'd have been even.

It's actually a perfect example of when a send-off rule would make sense.

Note - I'd only be considering a send-off for incidents where the opposition team has been impacted. i.e. A concussion or other major injury that results in the opposition player leaving the field.

If you have a send off rule then you're allowed to put your sub on?

In soccer where you have a red card rule a sub doesn't replace the sent off player. Part of the punishment is to play a man down for the rest of the game.

I would have thought similar would apply in the AFL except that it would be the interchange that is shorted by one.

 

[Bletch]

If you have a send off rule then you're allowed to put your sub on?

In soccer where you have a red card rule a sub doesn't replace the sent off player. Part of the punishment is to play a man down for the rest of the game.

I would have thought similar would apply in the AFL except that it would be the interchange that is shorted by one.

I'd allow the sub on, yes.

 

[Wickzki]

A straight red would have to come with an automatic suspension (three games in the Premier League for violent conduct).

The sending off would be reviewed first, so we wouldn’t end up with this scenario.

I can appreciate and see this which is why I say that it would have only happen twice in the last 6 years - Gaff and Webster.

Reserved for the absolute clearest of dog acts. Wellingham's hit on Simmo the one that comes to mind most readily for us. Milburn's hit on SOS in 2001.

These are the examples of the rule being quite suitable and relatively straightforward to implement.