Roast Troy Pannell

Remove this Banner Ad

I don't think he'll be an issue this week either, but not because he's pro-Bulldogs. I think he's just (perhaps due to subconscious bias to the way the Bulldogs play) inclined to pay head-high free kicks irrespective of how much effort is made by the ball carrier to induce it. Other umpires might start to think "wonder if I'm going too far here?" after the tenth in a row to one side, but not Pannell.

Fortunately, Gold Coast are unlikely to induce as many as the Bulldogs did, so we should be okay.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

GROTTO said:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-23/umpires-up-to-the-pressure-of-red-cards-kennedy

Can you imagine Pannell having the ability to red card us?

I can imagine Pannell winning the Norm Smith for the Bulldogs on Grand Final Day, just red card any player causing damage to the Doggies.

The red card should never happen at AFL level, but the book should be thrown at dirty players instead.
Click to expand...

I can just imagine his slow motion reach for the red card, waiting for all cameras to be on him, then the smug look on his face while he holds it up for all to see.
 
cmndstab said:
I don't think he'll be an issue this week either, but not because he's pro-Bulldogs. I think he's just (perhaps due to subconscious bias to the way the Bulldogs play) inclined to pay head-high free kicks irrespective of how much effort is made by the ball carrier to induce it. Other umpires might start to think "wonder if I'm going too far here?" after the tenth in a row to one side, but not Pannell.

Fortunately, Gold Coast are unlikely to induce as many as the Bulldogs did, so we should be okay.
Click to expand...

I think he's not the smartest umpire going around and as such is fooled into giving some head high free kicks when the player has ducked. I get the impression that a certain Bulldogs coach is very aware of earning cheap free kicks and probably targets Pannell's interpretation with the way he instructs and coaches his players. Umpires, despite all the criticism, are much better today than they were in the past. They have such a difficult job, let alone having to change the way they umpire from week to week to satisfy the AFL's need to micro-manage the game from week to week.

As you said, the Gold Coast play a different brand so Pannell wasn't a problem.
 
GROTTO said:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-23/umpires-up-to-the-pressure-of-red-cards-kennedy

Can you imagine Pannell having the ability to red card us?

I can imagine Pannell winning the Norm Smith for the Bulldogs on Grand Final Day, just red card any player causing damage to the Doggies.

The red card should never happen at AFL level, but the book should be thrown at dirty players instead.
Click to expand...
Oh please no. The last time a player completely went out to take someone out of a GF that I remember, the guy that was on the receiving end became a hero. Red cards would be all about putting a player in, trying to make incidents look red-cardable. We know what that looks like, and no-one wants that.
 
OutofTownCrow said:
Oh please no. The last time a player completely went out to take someone out of a GF that I remember, the guy that was on the receiving end became a hero. Red cards would be all about putting a player in, trying to make incidents look red-cardable. We know what that looks like, and no-one wants that.
Click to expand...

Im not exactly sure what your stand is on this?:huh:

For or against?

I wouldnt mind being for it, but only in extreme severe circumstances and even then I would want a "third umpire" to rule it as well only for dog-like hits.

With the Jonas hit as an example, the same hit may have caused no or little damage. Some players do fall over and over simulate an injury. Im not saying Gaff faked it, Im just saying you can also by some fluke chance make contact with a player at the wrong time and cause a lot of damage but have no malicious intent. Red cards for me would be for like what Hall did to the Eagles player years ago as an example.

I also dont want the team to be able to replace the player as well on the field.
 
GROTTO said:
Im not exactly sure what your stand is on this?:huh:

For or against?

I wouldnt mind being for it, but only in extreme severe circumstances and even then I would want a "third umpire" to rule it as well only for dog-like hits.

With the Jonas hit as an example, the same hit may have caused no or little damage. Some players do fall over and over simulate an injury. Im not saying Gaff faked it, Im just saying you can also by some fluke chance make contact with a player at the wrong time and cause a lot of damage but have no malicious intent. Red cards for me would be for like what Hall did to the Eagles player years ago as an example.

I also dont want the team to be able to replace the player as well on the field.
Click to expand...
Completely against the red card.

I was talking about Dermie in the 89 GF. It didn't stop the Hawks from winning, it inspired them.



Brereton came back and kicked an inspirational goal.

I do not want players making incidents look really bad as in Soccer - to try and draw the red card.



Heaven forbid the AFL go for a 2 yellows = red system, that would be diabolical.

It's not part of our game, and should never be.
 
OutofTownCrow said:
Completely against the red card.

I was talking about Dermie in the 89 GF. It didn't stop the Hawks from winning, it inspired them.



Brereton came back and kicked an inspirational goal.

I do not want players making incidents look really bad as in Soccer - to try and draw the red card.



Heaven forbid the AFL go for a 2 yellows = red system, that would be diabolical.

It's not part of our game, and should never be.
Click to expand...


Actually the red card system is a part of our game and has been for a while albeit at a junior/amateur level. The game we watch today is so far detached from the game 10 years, 20 years ago etc its not funny. Its not the same.

In any case I cant think of many incidents of recent that would warrant a red card.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GROTTO said:
Actually the red card system is a part of our game and has been for a while albeit at a junior/amateur level. The game we watch today is so far detached from the game 10 years, 20 years ago etc its not funny. Its not the same.

In any case I cant think of many incidents of recent that would warrant a red card.
Click to expand...
Bit of a stretch comparing the Amatuer changes to rules to the AFL though. I mean, Auskick has different rules as does AFL-9s but they are irrelevant to AFL at the highest level.

I actually think that game-day umpires should not even be able to report players anymore - leave it to the MRP. Giving them the power to send off a player would be diabolical.
 
OutofTownCrow said:
Bit of a stretch comparing the Amatuer changes to rules to the AFL though. I mean, Auskick has different rules as does AFL-9s but they are irrelevant to AFL at the highest level.

I actually think that game-day umpires should not even be able to report players anymore - leave it to the MRP. Giving them the power to send off a player would be diabolical.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the game today is far far different to any game of a decade or two ago. There has been many many changes in rules and laws of the game.

For the record, the VFL has a send off rule which is considered the next grade down from the AFL and the second best "AFL comp".

I dont mind a send off rule if it is blatant deliberate and vicious punch to the head and in any case I would also want a video umpire to oversee such a rule. Rules change all the time and they change to improve the spectacle as a general premise. As I said, I havent seen anything to warrant this over the last few years, but the rule existing is a good deterrent.
 
GROTTO said:
Yes, but the game today is far far different to any game of a decade or two ago. There has been many many changes in rules and laws of the game.

For the record, the VFL has a send off rule which is considered the next grade down from the AFL and the second best "AFL comp".

I dont mind a send off rule if it is blatant deliberate and vicious punch to the head and in any case I would also want a video umpire to oversee such a rule. Rules change all the time and they change to improve the spectacle as a general premise. As I said, I havent seen anything to warrant this over the last few years, but the rule existing is a good deterrent.
Click to expand...
I didn't know the VFL had the Red Card in - had to look that up ...

http://www.aflvic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AFL-VC-Handbook-2013-Rules-and-Regulations.pdf

I don't like the look of that at all for AFL level - sure in the am's some of that is needed - but not for the pro's.

What sort of offence would be worth a sending off? I cannot get my head around it being based on multiple reports when reports get thrown out.

Feels like a solution to a problem we don't have if you ask me.
 
The side that has a player taken out through extreme violence may have to play one short for the rest of the game. At present, this is a huge advantage for the thug's team. There should either be a red card for said thug or some way of the disadvantaged team bringing a reserve player onto the bench. An act of thuggery could decide a granny and what an outcry there will be if that happens. Adjudication is difficult. Video umpire involvement for mine.
 
Stephen2 said:
Barry Hall on Brent Staker level stuff in my opinion is justified. Get the hell off the field, d**khead
Click to expand...
+1

Exactly this kind of incident I'm talking about. It's those posters that can't appreciate the game has changed and evolved the need to have a send of rule that are out of touch with today's game.

What's to stop players in their final ever game in a grand final from taking out players without any course of repercussions for their indiscretions.?
 
beartoo said:
The side that has a player taken out through extreme violence may have to play one short for the rest of the game. At present, this is a huge advantage for the thug's team. There should either be a red card for said thug or some way of the disadvantaged team bringing a reserve player onto the bench. An act of thuggery could decide a granny and what an outcry there will be if that happens. Adjudication is difficult. Video umpire involvement for mine.
Click to expand...

I know nobody liked the sub rule, but I wouldn't mind being able to bring one of the emergency players on for something like this, or maybe just an injury, not the 3 quarter time swap out just for the sake of it, but having somebody to even up the numbers in a genuine emergency or prevent a team creating an advantage via thuggery should work. Maybe if its just a regular injury, the injured player must miss a week, but if there is a report from the incident or something like that they can play the next week.
 
GROTTO said:
+1

Exactly this kind of incident I'm talking about. It's those posters that can't appreciate the game has changed and evolved the need to have a send of rule that are out of touch with today's game.

What's to stop players in their final ever game in a grand final from taking out players without any course of repercussions for their indiscretions.?
Click to expand...
Alastair Lynch in the 2004 grand final. The fact that we're talking about it means that the AFL might trial red cards in the not-too-distant future. I wouldn't mind giving it a go (for the reasons others have outlined) but I do have serious concerns about diving and umpires getting it wrong.
 
GROTTO said:
Im not exactly sure what your stand is on this?:huh:

For or against?

I wouldnt mind being for it, but only in extreme severe circumstances and even then I would want a "third umpire" to rule it as well only for dog-like hits.

With the Jonas hit as an example, the same hit may have caused no or little damage. Some players do fall over and over simulate an injury. Im not saying Gaff faked it, Im just saying you can also by some fluke chance make contact with a player at the wrong time and cause a lot of damage but have no malicious intent. Red cards for me would be for like what Hall did to the Eagles player years ago as an example.

I also dont want the team to be able to replace the player as well on the field.
Click to expand...

4th umpire actually. There's already 3 of them on the field. :)

I know what you mean though. Some other party other than the 3 umpires on the playing area. I like that idea.

The obvious choice would be the 4th umpire who currently reviews scoring both on demand and between goals.

Play could continue after the player is stretchered off while the upstairs umpire could review the incident from video from every conceivable angle and communicate his decision within a few minutes to the on-field umpires. Obviously to only apply in serious situations like 'the one involving Jonas.

In such case where there is no doubt that the offender has done something extreme and is a dead set goner then I think he should be banned from playing for the rest of the game to offset the loss that he caused to the other team.

it should be the exception not the norm, as there always has to be some physicality in the game.

Does anyone think that a score penalty of say somewhere between 3 and 5 goals in these extreme cases would lessen the occurrence of Jonas like assaults with coaches actively discouraging such actions by their players because of the adverse effects on the scoreboard?
 
macca23 said:
4th umpire actually. There's already 3 of them on the field. :)

I know what you mean though. Some other party other than the 3 umpires on the playing area. I like that idea.

The obvious choice would be the 4th umpire who currently reviews scoring both on demand and between goals.

Play could continue after the player is stretchered off while the upstairs umpire could review the incident from video from every conceivable angle and communicate his decision within a few minutes to the on-field umpires. Obviously to only apply in serious situations like 'the one involving Jonas.

In such case where there is no doubt that the offender has done something extreme and is a dead set goner then I think he should be banned from playing for the rest of the game to offset the loss that he caused to the other team.

it should be the exception not the norm, as there always has to be some physicality in the game.

Does anyone think that a score penalty of say somewhere between 3 and 5 goals in these extreme cases would lessen the occurrence of Jonas like assaults with coaches actively discouraging such actions by their players because of the adverse effects on the scoreboard?
Click to expand...
Right now i dont trust the AFL umpiring department enough to give them extra power. I agree with the premise of an impartial 4th umpire to review situations like this, but i dont trust them not to take things like 'the stage of the game' into account when making their decision.
 
macca23 said:
4th umpire actually. There's already 3 of them on the field. :)

I know what you mean though. Some other party other than the 3 umpires on the playing area. I like that idea.

The obvious choice would be the 4th umpire who currently reviews scoring both on demand and between goals.

Play could continue after the player is stretchered off while the upstairs umpire could review the incident from video from every conceivable angle and communicate his decision within a few minutes to the on-field umpires. Obviously to only apply in serious situations like 'the one involving Jonas.

In such case where there is no doubt that the offender has done something extreme and is a dead set goner then I think he should be banned from playing for the rest of the game to offset the loss that he caused to the other team.

it should be the exception not the norm, as there always has to be some physicality in the game.

Does anyone think that a score penalty of say somewhere between 3 and 5 goals in these extreme cases would lessen the occurrence of Jonas like assaults with coaches actively discouraging such actions by their players because of the adverse effects on the scoreboard?
Click to expand...
If the victim has to be stretchered off then there should be enough time for the 4th umpire to review the incident and make a decision before play re-starts. Shouldn't have to wait several minutes after play has recommenced.
 
If an injury deliberately caused by an opposition player takes that person out of the game, only then would I consider something like a "benched for the rest of the game" issue. Yellow cards can be abused. Only save it for flagrant issues.

Plus brawls would end up with nobody being able to use the interchange for the rest of the match, most likely. No, this doesn't mean I support brawls, it means that they'd have to set a precedent where if one player starts a fight, does the other person gets a benching for retaliating back (and the rest following into the brawl). That's just a huge boring debate waiting to happen.

EDIT: so basically anything that'd be a guaranteed 2 week or more suspension by the Panel such as deliberate attacks I'd support. Simple "warning" or three strike rules should not be considered since there's always going to be room for abuse and then that brings "flopping" into the equation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top