Send off rule.

[westdog54]

Sheesh! I was just throwing in a few ideas about process. Feel free to disagree, as you have. Your comments are valuable. It's just that I would have thought you'd be hard pressed to detect any 'hysteria' in the post- it certainly wasn't posted with any particular axe to grind. I think you were looking for a red rag, and if that's the kind of thing that make you sick, then your boundaries obviously need a sterner test.

I was certainly not looking for a red rag. I happen to believe that too often the umpires are made a scapegoat for problems that exist in our game, and that they are under enough pressure without the public/media scrutiny they receive.

The 'hysteria' I suggested refers to the general reaction that this topic has received in the main. I chose your post to make light of it when it was only one example of the reaction and I apologise for that.

Yes, a send off is a punishment, but, in reality, so is a free kick or a 50 metre penalty. I'd like to think that if the AFL adopted a yellow/red card style system, that the red would only be produced in extreme circumstances, such as Saturday nights. Its very rare in most codes that a straight red needs to be produced, and in almost all cases its perfectly warranted.

I just think that some of the opposition to a send off rule has been an over-reaction.

OT: Its great to see a 'Rookie List' poster engaging in measured, respectful and constructive debate. Respect

[whythelongface]

Its not like soccer anyway, its just 1 less on the interchange, just like what has happened to the opposition.

Who's to say that would be the case. For instance in the NRL they have interchange as well (albeit a limited interchange) and if a player is sent off the team plays with 12 players on the field still with 4 players on the interchange bench. If the AFL were to introduce sendings off would they not follow the same principle? ie. have 17 players on the field at anyone time with 4 interchange players. I doubt they would have a sending off policy that would allow a team to have 18 players on the field and only reducing the no. of players on the interchange bench to 3.

[westdog54]

Who's to say that would be the case. For instance in the NRL they have interchange as well (albeit a limited interchange) and if a player is sent off the team plays with 12 players on the field still with 4 players on the interchange bench. If the AFL were to introduce sendings off would they not follow the same principle? ie. have 17 players on the field at anyone time with 4 interchange players. I doubt they would have a sending off policy that would allow a team to have 18 players on the field and only reducing the no. of players on the interchange bench to 3.

The AFL can have the rule however they want to have it. If it means sending off the player in question for the match but allowing him to be replaced I'd have no problem with that.

[LostDoggy]

No. Stop changing the rules

[whythelongface]

The AFL can have the rule however they want to have it. If it means sending off the player in question for the match but allowing him to be replaced I'd have no problem with that.

What would be the point of having a sending off rule then? Surely you need to penalise the team as well as the player?

[Mantis]

What would be the point of having a sending off rule then? Surely you need to penalise the team as well as the player?

You certainly do.

[LostDoggy]

And Hall would have missed the first 10 weeks of 07 and forfeited match payments equalling a large amount. Don't forget that this is their job and they lose a fair whack of money by not playing. Also would have been labelled a thug and had many many penalty points hanging over his head.

Big deal he just won 2 premeirships in a row. I'd cop 10 weeks off and match payments for a premiership. He would have the keys to Sydney and be idolized by Swans fans. He is labelled a thug away.

And Ernie, I can't believe you're advocating giving the umpires more authority to mess up...

Umps are a necessary parts of the game. Its the rules and interpretations that stuff them up.

[LostDoggy]

In soccer the sending off is not the only punishment. At the very least its a punishment when the offence occured and against the team most likely effected.
You automatically get a week off next week. Severe incidents are dealt with by the judicary and given more punishment.

[LostDoggy]

Who's to say that would be the case. For instance in the NRL they have interchange as well (albeit a limited interchange) and if a player is sent off the team plays with 12 players on the field still with 4 players on the interchange bench. If the AFL were to introduce sendings off would they not follow the same principle? ie. have 17 players on the field at anyone time with 4 interchange players. I doubt they would have a sending off policy that would allow a team to have 18 players on the field and only reducing the no. of players on the interchange bench to 3.

Fair enough.
I'm basically saying Barry Hall shouldn't have been allowed to continue playing the game on Saturday night but could have been replaced.
No less men on the field.

[LostDoggy]

No. Stop changing the rules

Ok leave these loop holes then.

[LostDoggy]

What would be the point of having a sending off rule then? Surely you need to penalise the team as well as the player?

With rotations these days the penalty is harsh. 1 less man on the bench is as tit for tat as you can get, given he has ruled an opposition player out.

[LostDoggy]

Don't like it.

Yet another thing that makes our great game unique.

Sending off would create more problems than it fixes and have too much of an impact on the result.

[LostDoggy]

Don't like it.

Yet another thing that makes our great game unique.

Sending off would create more problems than it fixes and have too much of an impact on the result.

Yes Knocking someone out doesn't change the result.

An unlevel playing field makes our game unique. Its great how you can bend the rules/use a loop hole to win games.

[whythelongface]

With rotations these days the penalty is harsh. 1 less man on the bench is as tit for tat as you can get, given he has ruled an opposition player out.

Why should it be tit for tat. Shouldn't the offender's team be punished more so than that of the defender. Thus, the offending team should be penalised more by having one less player on the field.

In theory the current AFL system is flawed as it allows for a lesser player to take out a superstar. The only punishment that is dealt to the offending team is that the player is reported, whilst the opposition may well lose their star player for the whole game (and perhaps longer). However, in practice it seems to have worked pretty well. Why is this the case? Why is there not more instances where star players are taken out by other players - especially during finals and in the GF.

[LostDoggy]

Why should it be tit for tat. Shouldn't the offender's team be punished more so than that of the defender. Thus, the offending team should be penalised more by having one less player on the field.

He is punished more later. Its like arguing for the Johnny Howards republic. Either way is better than no way.
At least with some send off the is some pay back to the team that deserve it most
I'm not saying this send off rule should be used all the time just in cases like the Hall/Staker.

In theory the current AFL system is flawed as it allows for a lesser player to take out a superstar. The only punishment that is dealt to the offending team is that the player is reported, whilst the opposition may well lose their star player for the whole game (and perhaps longer). However, in practice it seems to have worked pretty well. Why is this the case? Why is there not more instances where star players are taken out by other players - especially during finals and in the GF.

Well the loop hole is there and it will only take one case for an important game to to be deemed a farce.