Here's what I wish happened with Gaff/Brayshaw.

[Rocket Science]

Camp Gaff is arguing everything you'd expect them to ...

The defendant's a model citizen going back to school-age competition, replete with character referees stretching back to his high school principal. Claims was also subject to constant unpenalised, off-the-ball attention from the Dockers and that he didn't mean to contact Brayshaw's face but rather his chest in an effort to create separation and space.

Interestingly, he claims he also sought club permission to speak publicly (interview with David King) post-game to express his concern and remorse.

That may all be the case but I don't think it matters much what they posit, he's getting serious time.

[Topdog]

Yeah he will get a right whack which is the right thing to do but I'm glad they are bringing up that the players we pay money to see are being held and hit illegally off the ball

[Twodogs]

I have looked at the video and I am convinced that he was attempting to hit him in the body (something that has been condoned, particularly for players and teams in contention).

The punch went horribly wrong and he has to take and live with the consequences. I do not accept that he had an intention to badly injure Brayshaw.

The consequences are serious, but it does not automatically follow that his intention was malicious.

I suspect that Gaff (and many others) have delivered body punches with no serious consequences on numerous occasions.

The incident with Toby Greene on Luke Dahlhaus in 2017 was done with significantly greater malicious intent.

Watching it again I tend to agree that it's a body punch gone wrong but Gaff threw it so he has to deal with the consequences.

[bornadog]

8 Weeks is the penalty

[Scraggers]

It is no coincidence. It is the result of tactics employed by (in this case) Ross Lyon, to try and negate the run of an elite player, by utilising said 18 yo kid as the scragger.

Sorry ... Did you want me ??

[jeemak]

I have looked at the video and I am convinced that he was attempting to hit him in the body (something that has been condoned, particularly for players and teams in contention).

The punch went horribly wrong and he has to take and live with the consequences. I do not accept that he had an intention to badly injure Brayshaw.

The consequences are serious, but it does not automatically follow that his intention was malicious.

I suspect that Gaff (and many others) have delivered body punches with no serious consequences on numerous occasions.

The incident with Toby Greene on Luke Dahlhaus in 2017 was done with significantly greater malicious intent.

It's interesting that we can among ourselves conclude that Toby Green is capable of landing a look-away flying kick to Dahl's face intentionally, but think that Gaff's swinging round arm from a square position and in full view of Brayshaw unluckily missed its target and hit him flush in the upper jaw (10cm-15cm away from the apparent intended target).

Is it the person committing the act, or the act being committed that drives this? Not a crack, a genuine question on how we perceive things.

You have to commit an act for it to form some part of your character. This act is now in character for Gaff, and even if it is only a small portion of his character, it's part of it nonetheless.

On the penalty, eight weeks is probably right based on current standards. I think things need to change next year going forward.

[Bulldog Joe]

Watching it again I tend to agree that it's a body punch gone wrong but Gaff threw it so he has to deal with the consequences.

Agreed and the 8 weeks seems about right to me.

[Bulldog Joe]

It's interesting that we can among ourselves conclude that Toby Green is capable of landing a look-away flying kick to Dahl's face intentionally, but think that Gaff's swinging round arm from a square position and in full view of Brayshaw unluckily missed its target and hit him flush in the upper jaw (10cm-15cm away from the apparent intended target).

Is it the person committing the act, or the act being committed that drives this? Not a crack, a genuine question on how we perceive things.

You have to commit an act for it to form some part of your character. This act is now in character for Gaff, and even if it is only a small portion of his character, it's part of it nonetheless.

On the penalty, eight weeks is probably right based on current standards. I think things need to change next year going forward.

Well for me it is the act not the person. Sometimes it easier to recall incidents involving your own team and maybe I haven't seen enough footy over the last 2 years.

However, there are other incidents that had malicious intent and one that comes to mind is the Joel Selwood elbow to a prone Sam Mitchell at Subiaco last year. Just this week Ben Cunnington delivered a vicious blow to Dayne Beams and again avoids suspension as Selwood did last year.

Tom Mitchell went out of his way to elbow Todd Goldstein in the head earlier in the year and avoided suspension.

All of those incidents give a precedent that had Gaff believing he could body punch his opponent with impunity. The fact that it has gone wrong highlights why all these incidents require a suspension.

[jeemak]

I'm sorry but I've seen all angles again on AFL 360 just now and that isn't a punch to the chest. It just isn't.

It's a swinging arm straight to the jaw, the footage from behind Brayshaw shows well and truly that it's aimed at nothing other than where it landed. He's looking exactly where his punch landed.

[Happy Days]

Here's what I wished happened with Gaff and Brayshaw:

I wish that instead of trying to be a court of both trial and sentencing that has to reflect the aims of sentencing or community values or whatever dick-swinging holistic approach they are taking with their tribunal, they realise that the game exists in a vacuum and that being suspended with pay for eight weeks from your job that most people play for free as a hobby isn't a real punishment as compared to what the courts can dish out for reals.

Whoever allowed QCs and character evidence to be introduced to what should be a very, very simple matter of arbitration for the sake of due process is at best a moron.

[jeemak]

Here's what I wished happened with Gaff and Brayshaw:

I wish that instead of trying to be a court of both trial and sentencing that has to reflect the aims of sentencing or community values or whatever dick-swinging holistic approach they are taking with their tribunal, they realise that the game exists in a vacuum and that being suspended with pay for eight weeks from your job that most people play for free as a hobby isn't a real punishment as compared to what the courts can dish out for reals.

Whoever allowed QCs and character evidence to be introduced to what should be a very, very simple matter of arbitration for the sake of due process is at best a moron.

Don't they only do that to afford whoever is fronting the tribunal natural justice, to avoid legal challenges?

[Happy Days]

Don't they only do that to afford whoever is fronting the tribunal natural justice, to avoid legal challenges?

Very good point - at a guess it would date back to the Greg Williams challenge?

It's just incredibly annoying that it's necessary.

[jeemak]

Very good point - at a guess it would date back to the Greg Williams challenge?

It's just incredibly annoying that it's necessary.

I think so, on the back of the Dunkley decision as well.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...f84a56a3a237f2

Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court case Williams was involved in (see article above):

Justice Hayne noted in his judgment that football was more than just a game – in the previous year the AFL’s revenue was $74 million, and then played in open court the introductory theme song from Ch9's The Footy Show

[Happy Days]

I think so, on the back of the Dunkley decision as well.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...f84a56a3a237f2

Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court case Williams was involved in (see article above):

Justice Hayne noted in his judgment that football was more than just a game – in the previous year the AFL’s revenue was $74 million, and then played in open court the introductory theme song from Ch9's The Footy Show

That's really fascinating - you can almost feel the distain from the judges having to deal with that nonsense dripping off their words.

[jeemak]

That's really fascinating - you can almost feel the distain from the judges having to deal with that nonsense dripping off their words.

But also bringing a common element back to the process by placating everyone with music they can understand.