Send off rule.

[LostDoggy]

Two minutes to go in the grand final. Scores level. Bulldogs finishing full of running. Our always trusted, creditable, all-seeing, fair-minded umpire sends of big Will for some pathetic incident.
You only have to go to the footy to know it will happen.

Pathetic incident like knocking out one of their players deliberately?
Fair enough then.
There are obvious instantances that should be red cards eg Hall/Staker and ones that aren't.

Why does this great game of ours have some much dependence on umps never getting anything right?
Can't rely on umps interpretations so that means we can't have fairer rules.

[hujsh]

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.

When's the last time you've seen someone taken out to win a game?

Hall wasn't trying to injure him because he's a threat. He's just a violent thug.

It's not a real problem because it never happens. That's why people were so surprised to see Hall do it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

First quarter of a grand final and Mooney gives Minson one, caught on TV, the crowd roars. The umpire turns around just in time to see Will give him one back.

Will gets sent off and we play out the game one short.

The MRP gives them 2 matches each.

Yep. Much fairer.

[westdog54]

No. Stop changing the rules

Do you only post whenever you have something negative to say?

[LostDoggy]

First quarter of a grand final and Mooney gives Minson one, caught on TV, the crowd roars. The umpire turns around just in time to see Will give him one back.

Will gets sent off and we play out the game one short.

The MRP gives them 2 matches each.

Yep. Much fairer.

The much fairer way is for both to be sent off. One by the ump, one by video at quarter time.

Doesn't sound like the Minson one would be a kinghit anyway and I don't think that should be a sending off offence anyway.

If Minson knocked him out and a red card is appropriate, to me thats fairer then the way things currently are.

[LostDoggy]

When's the last time you've seen someone taken out to win a game?

Just because it its rare doesn't mean it will never happen. As I wrote already, it only needs to happen once!

Hall wasn't trying to injure him because he's a threat. He's just a violent thug.

I'm sure that makes Staker and WC fans feel better. Fair enough Barry you left us a man short and might have broken jaw. Don't worry about it son.

It's not a real problem because it never happens. That's why people were so surprised to see Hall do it.

Incorrect - it happened.

[hujsh]

Just because it its rare doesn't mean it will never happen. As I wrote already, it only needs to happen once!


I'm sure that makes Staker and WC fans feel better. Fair enough Barry you left us a man short and might have broken jaw. Don't worry about it son.


Incorrect - it happened.

I just don't want people trying to solve problems if they aren't there.

And IMO it's not a problem. In fact, I bet we wont see a hit like that for a long time

[LostDoggy]

I just don't want people trying to solve problems if they aren't there.
And IMO it's not a problem.

So its not a problem that you are allowed to knock out blokes left right and centre and get away with on the day?

In fact, I bet we wont see a hit like that for a long time

And the next time it happens be it 1,2 ,4 10, 20 years, the subject will be brought up again.
As I writtten a number of time already, it only needs to happen once.
Sweeping the problem under the carpet doesn't fix it.

If you want to join the argument, please don't go over the same things again.

[LostDoggy]

Why change the rules. We dont need players sent off, thats not our game. I disagree with most of the rule changes, especially the quick kick out from fullback after a point. People dont want to see 'fast' footy, they want to see quality contested footy.

So what if WCE were a man short, injuries happen in sport. Hall paid the price last night

[wimberga]

Im with you Ernie on this one all the way. I dont understand why it should be allowed to happen.

[The Underdog]

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.


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

And this would be an extra rule and interpretation to stuff them up.
I understand your only advocating it for obvious incidents, but there is still the chance for an umpire to miss the initial incident or misconstrue the seriousness of an incident and effect the game.
As for the video element being brought into the game, it's not something we've used for matchdays before and I'm not sure we should start. Say, using Sockeye's example, that Will and Mooney's stoush is 2 minutes into the last quarter. It means Mooney gets to play out the game while we're down a player for the final quarter of a GF. Or to use another example, into the last qtr of a GF, Mooney is under a pack with Cooney, he gives him the squirrel unseen by anyone including the video and then Cooney retaliates with a punch and ends up sent off. We're down our most important mid while Mooney gets off scot free.
I understand your arguments about fairness on matchday but I just think too many grey areas get thrown up. I don't think it's a be all and end all solution.
Take the example in soccer where players suspensions following a red card get revoked because the ref got it wrong. Happened to Kisnorbo recently.

[hujsh]

So its not a problem that you are allowed to knock out blokes left right and centre and get away with on the day?

If it was being exploited or there was many fights it would be a problem. But at most there is one punch to the head a year and that rarely knocks someone out.

As I writtten a number of time already, it only needs to happen once.
Sweeping the problem under the carpet doesn't fix it.

And if it's not a problem it doesn't need to be fixed.



This seems like the solution could potentially cause as many problems as the initial problem. Then everyone will want to go back to the way it was. It just feels like a change that doesn't need to happen

[westdog54]

First quarter of a grand final and Mooney gives Minson one, caught on TV, the crowd roars. The umpire turns around just in time to see Will give him one back.

Will gets sent off and we play out the game one short.

The MRP gives them 2 matches each.

Yep. Much fairer.

First quarter of a grand final and Barry Hall is getting towelled up by Lake, so he flattens him. Lake is concussed and is gone for the game.

After quarter time, having naturally being allowed to stay on the field, Hall runs riot, kicking 5 goals and setting up 4 more. Meanwhile, we play the game one short.

We lose by 2 goals. Barry Hall retires with another premiership medallion around his neck and goes on to a prosperous and profitable boxing career.

He doesn't even bother fronting up to the tribunal to receive his 20 match suspension.

[LostDoggy]

First quarter of a grand final and Barry Hall is getting towelled up by Lake, so he flattens him. Lake is concussed and is gone for the game.

After quarter time, having naturally being allowed to stay on the field, Hall runs riot, kicking 5 goals and setting up 4 more. Meanwhile, we play the game one short.

We lose by 2 goals. Barry Hall retires with another premiership medallion around his neck and goes on to a prosperous and profitable boxing career.

He doesn't even bother fronting up to the tribunal to receive his 20 match suspension.

Your imagination is running wild Westdog54. Things like this happen once in a blue moon. It was bad, he got seven weeks (huge blow to Sydneys season), lets get on with the AFL!.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

It's a fine line. About the only way I could see it being effective is if they are off the ground for the same amount of time, as suggested by Eade on the couch. Eg. Hall would of been sent off for the game for as long as Staker was off.

Only problem with that one is if clubs play politically. Say they keep Staker off the ground for the entire game, as Hall provides a dangerous option for The Swans up forward. Hall & Staker off = win to Eagles.

Probably the sensible thing is to simply leave it. It could turn out to be a disastrious rule, as umpires could make mistakes with sending off the wrong player (through retaliation) or as I said above, with clubs 'fixing' it.

In this day and age it's rare we see incidents like last Saturday Night. Therefore, I think we'd be better placed to leave it as it is. I doubt we'll see something as big as this for a long time to come and I think it's a potentially harming exercise to try and accommodate for the 'what ifs'.