Send off rule.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Send off rule.

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.

THink there are a lot more grey areas without such a rule.

Take the example in soccer where players suspensions following a red card get revoked because the ref got it wrong. Happened to Kisnorbo recently.

Kisnorbo or Grella? Thats very rare in soccer. Never seen in big games either.

[hujsh]

Re: Send off rule.

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'.

I had similar thoughts on Tuesday morning.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Send off rule.

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.

Thank you.
Just that it didn't work for Alastair Lynch as they lost the GF.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Send off rule.

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.

Which is fair result given Hall hit Staker.

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'.

Why? We want this game to be better and fairer so not allowing for a sending off rule in these cases to me seems stupid.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Send off rule.

Which is fair result given Hall hit Staker.

No doubt it would of been fair on Saturday Night, but what if a player fakes? Let's say a player cops one in the chest and drops to the ground. They come off the ground and would usually be right to play in at least a quarter's time. However, his side's coaching panel realises it puts them in a better position to win if he stays off, forcing the offender to sit on the pine too.

It's a very fine line and it's asking too much of the umpires IMHO. They make enough mistakes as it is, and they simply don't have the time to sift through reality & make believe. It's too hard a call to make, and you can be sure that eventually some sides would start doing this.

Why? We want this game to be better and fairer so not allowing for a sending off rule in these cases to me seems stupid.

In theory, the send off rule would seem appropriate but IMO introducing such a rule only opens up further loopholes. It creates opportunities for clubs to 'fix' such situations - eg. player a constantly nags player b, player b sends an elbow to the chest, player a fall's down and dramatises. Result = player a + b are off the ground, with a clear advantage to player a's side.

Perhaps a 'time limit' punishment would be better. Eg. 20 minutes on the pine. Still, it's placing a lot of responsibility on the umpires to strictly enforce a rule which balances on very thin rope. They find it difficult enough dealing with the hands in the back rule.

[westdog54]

Re: Send off rule.

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!.

How is my imagination any wilder than Sockeye's scenario?

Honestly, be constructive or stop abusing your keyboard.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Send off rule.

No doubt it would of been fair on Saturday Night, but what if a player fakes? Let's say a player cops one in the chest and drops to the ground. They come off the ground and would usually be right to play in at least a quarter's time. However, his side's coaching panel realises it puts them in a better position to win if he stays off, forcing the offender to sit on the pine too.

With your proposal Hall would be off the ground as long as Staker is off. To me thats a man less each. If WC think their 21 vs 21 is better than so be it. Better than 21 WC vs 22.
Throwing a punching like that should be a send off, no matter if you miss, connect, knock out or just brush the opponent. It was a king hit.

It's a very fine line and it's asking too much of the umpires IMHO. They make enough mistakes as it is, and they simply don't have the time to sift through reality & make believe. It's too hard a call to make, and you can be sure that eventually some sides would start doing this.

Umpiring standards are a different issue. They change the rules and interpretation every year, another one which a fairer way is nothing new. I know I'd feel more robbed if the opposition knocked out our best to win the game then losing by poor umpiring.

In theory, the send off rule would seem appropriate but IMO introducing such a rule only opens up further loopholes. It creates opportunities for clubs to 'fix' such situations - eg. player a constantly nags player b, player b sends an elbow to the chest, player a fall's down and dramatises. Result = player a + b are off the ground, with a clear advantage to player a's side.

Again I'm not advocating it for niggling incidents unless b knocks out a. Then b is out til a is out. If you are stupid enough to get sucked in by niggling to attempt to knock someone out then maybe you deserve to be sent off.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Send off rule.

Can someone please explain something to me?

Why is 'consequence' a consideration when determining a sentence/punishment, instead of intent? What I mean is: there is a great outcry (which I agree with, just to clarify) because Barry Hall punches someone and knocks him out. How is this different from another player swinging punches wildly but failing to connect, or connecting but not knocking his opponent out? (We see this excused all the time under the heading 'handbags')

The action is the same, the intent is the same, the 'brain snap' is the same... is Barry Hall punished for actually having a better punch? Does this mean that the smaller and crappier a puncher you are, the less restrained you have to be, and the bigger and more skilled you are, the more 'condemned' you are if you actually react? Barry's punch was over in a split second. There are guys out there who react and swing MANY punches wildly without actually connecting. Surely they should be getting seven weeks per INTENDED punch?

My point is that there is a huge level of hypocrisy in the game, based on who the 'perpetrator' is. If a Chris Judd swung at a Barry Hall and not knocked him out because

a. his punch was weak or missed, and
b. Barry is a big boy and can take a punch

it wouldn't even have made the match review panel, and the media would be talking about how Barry probably provoked the Golden Boy in the first place and deserved it.

--

re: the send-off rule, EVERY other team sport (apart from netball) has a provision for a send off rule of sorts - soccer, rugby, hockey, basketball etc..., because of the anomaly that some have already pointed out of being able to do ANYTHING within a match and get away with it for the remainder of the match. AFL is an anomaly in this sense, and those who think abusing the loophole is 'fanciful' need only remind themselves that in this game, it is only a matter of time before coaches start exploiting any and every loophole (kicking backwards and maintaining possession ad infinitum, interchange madness) available that only a few years ago would have been deemed 'fanciful'. That footy is actually relatively slow in the uptake of tactical innovation doesn't mean that it will never happen.

pps. And for those who say it has 'never' happened, you have very short memories. PLENTY of teams have already tried to clean up players (Brodie Holland on our Monty being only the latest example, plenty of examples from other grand finals that I can remember in the last twenty years) early in important games, because the short-term gain far outweighs the potential -- and much delayed -- penalty.

[hujsh]

Re: Send off rule.

Can someone please explain something to me?

Why is 'consequence' a consideration when determining a sentence/punishment, instead of intent? What I mean is: there is a great outcry (which I agree with, just to clarify) because Barry Hall punches someone and knocks him out. How is this different from another player swinging punches wildly but failing to connect, or connecting but not knocking his opponent out? (We see this excused all the time under the heading 'handbags')

The action is the same, the intent is the same, the 'brain snap' is the same... is Barry Hall punished for actually having a better punch? Does this mean that the smaller and crappier a puncher you are, the less restrained you have to be, and the bigger and more skilled you are, the more 'condemned' you are if you actually react? Barry's punch was over in a split second. There are guys out there who react and swing MANY punches wildly without actually connecting. Surely they should be getting seven weeks per INTENDED punch?

My point is that there is a huge level of hypocrisy in the game, based on who the 'perpetrator' is. If a Chris Judd swung at a Barry Hall and not knocked him out because

a. his punch was weak or missed, and
b. Barry is a big boy and can take a punch

it wouldn't even have made the match review panel, and the media would be talking about how Barry probably provoked the Golden Boy in the first place and deserved it.

--

re: the send-off rule, EVERY other team sport (apart from netball) has a provision for a send off rule of sorts - soccer, rugby, hockey, basketball etc..., because of the anomaly that some have already pointed out of being able to do ANYTHING within a match and get away with it for the remainder of the match. AFL is an anomaly in this sense, and those who think abusing the loophole is 'fanciful' need only remind themselves that in this game, it is only a matter of time before coaches start exploiting any and every loophole (kicking backwards and maintaining possession ad infinitum, interchange madness) available that only a few years ago would have been deemed 'fanciful'. That footy is actually relatively slow in the uptake of tactical innovation doesn't mean that it will never happen.

pps. And for those who say it has 'never' happened, you have very short memories. PLENTY of teams have already tried to clean up players (Brodie Holland on our Monty being only the latest example, plenty of examples from other grand finals that I can remember in the last twenty years) early in important games, because the short-term gain far outweighs the potential -- and much delayed -- penalty.

Barry Hall is an ex boxer. He has a responsibility to use his fist's responsibly as they could be considered lethal weapons (or weapons of considerable danger at least). David Hooks was killed by a punch from an ex-boxer. Hall's punch will do far more damage than most. In fact i believe that things like having a blackbelt is considered in court if someone with a blackbelt get's into a fight.

With Holland i doubt his intention was to take out Monty from the match. Sure it was shit to see him do it but it wasn't a strategy.

[Topdog]

Re: Send off rule.

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.

Half time, Hall playing well. Minson runs up to Hall and decks him (ala Leigh Matthews incident).

If it is an important game and one player is stupid enough to do it, the other team will do it back. May end up with a 5 on 5 game......But heck it hasn't happened in basically 150 years so of course it will happen soon.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Send off rule.

Half time, Hall playing well. Minson runs up to Hall and decks him (ala Leigh Matthews incident).

If it is an important game and one player is stupid enough to do it, the other team will do it back. May end up with a 5 on 5 game......But heck it hasn't happened in basically 150 years so of course it will happen soon.

Lynch tried it a few years back. The 1945 wasn't a bad GF either. The 76? VFA GF was great TV but maybe not a great advertisement for the game. Sure there have been other instances.
BTW Hall himself is advocating for a send off rule.

Its only been the last 10-15 years the game has been cleaned up. Before that it was kill or be killed. Fair enough if you think might happen and the player in Stakers shoes might be ready but not in this era of football.

[The Underdog]

Re: Send off rule.

BTW Hall himself is advocating for a send off rule.

If he really believed in it he would have taken himself off...

Anyway maybe I'm wrong. Hell knows, every rule change in the past few years has led to a prevalence of diving and faking which is rewarded ad nauseum, so we may as well punish the proper violent acts on the field as well.
Can't wait til Ray Chamberlain gets the power to send players off.
Anybody for 1 on 1?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Send off rule.

If he really believed in it he would have taken himself off...

Yes
Just like walking in cricket I suppose.

[Topdog]

Re: Send off rule.

Lynch tried it a few years back. The 1945 wasn't a bad GF either. The 76? VFA GF was great TV but maybe not a great advertisement for the game. Sure there have been other instances.
BTW Hall himself is advocating for a send off rule.

Its only been the last 10-15 years the game has been cleaned up. Before that it was kill or be killed. Fair enough if you think might happen and the player in Stakers shoes might be ready but not in this era of football.

So lynch attempted to have someone forced off the ground with injury? It just doesn't happen anymore and giving these people more power is ridiculous.

Sure the Hall one looked simple enough but what if the ump was on another angle and it looked like a big hit but was actually just a push?

To many things can go wrong for something that basically just doesn't happen in the game.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Send off rule.

Umpires are only responsible for about 20% of reports.

Are you really advocating that someone should be sent off 20% of the time?