By Ben Somerford
September 1st 2009 @ 2:31am
Related coverage
Lloyd’s hit raises the question of the send-off rule
Matthew Lloyd of Essendon looks on during the AFL Round 13 match between the Essendon Bombers and the Carlton Blues at the MCG. Slattery Images
While Matthew Lloyd’s reckless hit on Brad Sewell has inevitably received plenty of attention this week in the midst of the debate about ‘the bump’, the Essendon forward’s act should also initiate discussion about the need for a send-off rule in AFL footy.
With his side trailing by 22 points at the main break, the Bombers captain made the decision to try and make a statement early in the third-term.
Indeed, he made his mark by smashing Hawthorn’s key onballer Brad Sewell unconscious with a bump which few people would genuinely have enjoyed watching.
The obligatory melee emerged between the two sides, before Essendon went onto kick 11 goals to five in the second-half to claim a crucial victory which secured their spot in the finals.
And while it would be loose to claim Lloyd’s hit on Sewell was the turning point or the instigator for Essendon’s comeback, there is no doubt it made a difference. After all, Sewell (who had 11 disposals and 7 tackles up until that point) spent the rest of the match on the bench, robbing Hawthorn of one of their best players.
Nevertheless, there’s no doubt Lloyd will receive his comeuppance with a lengthy suspension from the tribunal, but the Hawks, who were fighting for a spot in the top 8, gain nothing from that.
After all it was the Hawks who were all of a sudden a man down with Sewell unavailable for the rest of the match. In the context of modern footy, where debates have raged this year about extra players on the bench, the result of this particular incident was incredibly unfair.
Put simply, Hawthorn was worse off for an opposing player’s crime. Explained like that, it seems ludicrous.
And Lloyd, who could have been playing his last game of AFL footy on Saturday with retirement a strong possibility, potentially could’ve committed the crime without punishment.
Indeed, in some ways the incident was reminiscent of the 2004 Grand Final when Brisbane’s Alistair Lynch bowed out of the game literally swinging.
Situations like these are ludicrous and one of the flaws of the AFL rules, whereby the greatest punishment a player can instantaneously concede is a free-kick or, heaven forbid, a 50-metre penalty.
Last season, the issue of a greater on-field punishment was raised after Barry Hall’s horrendous king-hit on West Coast’s Brent Staker.
Hall himself was an advocate for the idea of introducing the send-off rule, as well as Laws of the Game committee member Kevin Bartlett who claimed it was ‘long overdue’.
The arguments for such a proposal include providing a deterrent for such actions and providing some fairness for the affected side.
But the major argument against the rule is based on the increased power and responsibility it places on the umpires to make correct decisions.
Referring back to the Lloyd case though, the decision was pretty obvious as shown by umpire Matt Stevic’s decision to report the Essendon captain.
The injury sustained by Sewell was horrific and the charge afflicted by Lloyd was crude and reckless. If Stevic had the power to send Lloyd off, I dare say, he would have done so.
And staying with Saturday’s example, perhaps Lloyd being sent off would’ve avoided the ensuing melees and maybe even Campbell Brown’s public vengeance wouldn’t have reared its ugly head.
Of course, there are rough edges on this issue which would need to be clarified, for example whether a sending off would result in a short-term spell in the sin bin or if it would be a match-ending red card, but the premise for some kind of fair and meaningful on-field punishment is the major intention.
Surely, in a competition which employs equalizing off-field strategies such as the salary cap and draft picks, fairness on the actual playing field should be a priority.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(23)
Redb said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
no.
AndyRoo said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Surely the strategy in a grand final as underdogs with a few retiring players (i.e. next year your rebuilding) is “go hard”.
Brian said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Definately a problem. The best solution I have heard is that each team has 20 players on match day and two subs that can be used as once-off substitutions so that at least the team that copped the hit do not end up playing the game with less men. That still would not fully solve the problem of someone running across the line to take out a Judd or Ablett on GF day but would be an improvement on the current setup
Pauly Walnuts said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
The issue with doing that is that the player(s) coming on will have fresh legs, thus possibly being advantageous to the side whose player suffers a major/ or game ending injury.
Luc said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Well that’s a reasoned rebuttal, redb! Come on. Why not? You can do better than that.
Redb said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Why? becuase the premise of the article is incorrect as its based on lloyd’s bump on Sewell. Lloyd did not swing an arm in a flurry of blows by an out of control footballer.
Sewell was going for the ball, so was lloyd, thats what happens in AFL footy, Sewell got their first, Lloyd bumped him when he had the ball which is legal and unfortuantely made head high contact.
If you watch the incident at normal speed or were at the game like I was, it is impossible to discern if lloyd was reckless, Sewell was on the ground, but was lloyd out of control?
The only time a send off rule could be called is for a blatant hit like Barry Hall did on Staker. Then if you have to ask yourself how many times does this occur in 176 AFL games per year?.. answer very rarely.. You dont change rules for rare events. Remember Barry Hall got 7 weeks.
Every AFL player knows there is video scrutiny, the AFL has been actively cracking down on punches for years.
The way Campbell Brown carried on after the incident he was the one out of control.
Redb
Allen said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Well, he got four weeks so the independent match review panel agrees with the 15/16ths of the footy supporting population that didn’t see the incident through red and black coloured glasses.
Sure Campbell Brown carried on after the incident but it was because he was extremely frustrated for the very reason you are dismissing. One of his most courageous team mates was put out of the game by a reckless act (and he felt deliberate act), and his team was given zero retribution on the day to the point where it may have cost them the game and their season.
You can argue all you want about the intent of Lloyd but the truth of the matter is that his actions took a player out of half of the game and I think is is justifiable that he should also have be removed from the field for some period of time as a form of justice for the other team.
A fair rule would state that a player seen to cause an injury to another player through reckless contact that forces them to leave the field of play be suspended from play for a quarter or until the injured player returns to the field.
Redb said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Dont know how you can claim to represent 15/16 of the pop, you don’t.
So in your narrow view, Brendan Fevola should have been taken off the field when he collided with Ted Richards a few weeks ago?
Ridiculous and this why we dont need a send off rule.
Redb
Pauly Walnuts said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
Ok, taking that tact a team could win the grand final in (beating the kiwis in cricket by) bowling underarm fashion – basically unfair tactics. There would be a thunderous crack down on the players and the club, but essentially, the team could, playing within the rules of the game (NOT THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME) king hit as many of the opposition players as possible thus giving them more men on the field than the opposition, thus a sufficient advantage to win the GF. I know, very fanciful, unrealistic etc, they are professional athletes, not boxers, so it would never occur, but the laws of the game don’t at this stage seem to prevent it. The only thing that springs to mind is bringing the game into disrepute, but I don’t know whether that would empower anyone to stop a game from being played out. From a viewpoint of removing the unfair loopholes, irregularities in the game – why not implement the change? I’m sure that the laws of the game cater for other infrequently occuring events.
Art Sapphire said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
The only way this can work is by taking the offending player out of the game but leaving the team with the full 18 on the field.
Basically, they will operating with one less on the interchange bench.
The AFL would not want to have a team with a numerical advantage on the field as this will most likely lead to one team having to flood for the remainder of the game.
Pauly Walnuts said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
Spot on AS
Pippinu said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Last two posts by redb and Art are spot on.
Many people from outside AFL circles who question why the AFL doesn’t have a send off rule (and never has had one at the elite level, from what I know) must understand that 17 vs 18 at the elite level of footy is such a massive advantage to the extent that the team with 17 cannot be competitive and will lose by a large margin.
That is not in the interests of the paying public, and it’s not in the interests of the AFL. The game demands that 18 must play 18 at all times.
Why? Because the dynamic of the game is different to the other codes. There’s no offside to limit the attacking team and make it easier for the defence, there’s no wall of players, and the game is played on a large field.
For the whole 120 minutes, the opposing coaches are trying to engineer the loose man – those unfamiliar with the game, even those very familiar with the game, won’t necessarily know that’s what’s going on, but that’s precisely what’s going on – that’s part of the reaason why players are running on and off, and moving to different positions around the ground and that’s why there are a cast of thousands in the coach’s box watching each and every move, reacting, and then coming up with some of their own to catch the other team off guard.
The other codes are far more structured than that.
Now, if all of a sudden, there’s a permanent loose man created because a bloke has been sent off – then that immediately kills off the contest, and/or, as Art says, we will see 18 men permanently camped in the defensive 50 and it will not be a pretty sight.
So, unless the man can be replaced, in no way can the AFL have a rule that allows 17 versus 18.
Also, the last thing we want in our game is for the ump to be policeman, judge and jury.
Michael said | October 29th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
The send off rule will simply provide a further disincentive for people from doing things which endanger other players health and safety.
The problem with AFL at the moment is that there is no immediate disincentive for committing violent acts on the field. Alastair Lynch in the 2004 Grand Final is the prime example. He was going off the ground injured, and could not contribute anything further to his team on the ground. What did he try do? Take out a player from Port Adelaide and prevent him from taking part in the game, with the only disincentive a suspension which wouldn’t have mattered, and a fine that would’ve been paid for by the bonus of winning the Grand Final.
MadDog said | September 1st 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
No to a send off rule. It is subjective, and it is only a matter of time until a game is decided by it. I see enough bad umpiring decisions without seeing them incorrectly send off a player. I am more in agreenace with Brian and the extra substitutes rule. It reduces the impact of the player lost, without risking taking a player out incorrectly, Leave it to the tribunal.
You don’t want to see a serious injury, but I think this was all in the play. There is no doubt Lloyd made the decision to clean him up once he realised he wasnt going to get hands on the ball, but I doubt the intention was to hit him high, and he wouldnt have wished that injury on him, He just wanted to make a statement and to lift the team.
And as much as I like Campbell Brown he is a hypocrite. I have seen him a number of times clean up a guy with a big hit, throw a few fists. Of all people I thought Browny would pull his head in, he likes it rough and tough.
StickyBuns said | September 1st 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Great article, I don’t think there should be a send off rule. Taking people out is part of AFL football, it’s what the crowd go to see. I think to even things up Hawthorne should have made it their goal to injure one of Essendon’s players, particularly targeting Lloyd. Take them out with some old school retribution. Harden up people.
Tom said | September 1st 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Another famous incident was Alistair Lynch in his last ever game, which just happened to be the 2004 grand final, throwing several punches at Darryl Wakellin as the ball was being bounced.
He got some whopping great tribunal penalty, which of course didn’t impact on anyone. The whole thing looked like a calculated attempt to, if not take out an opposition player, at least put the fear of god into him.
It didn’t work and the Lions lost. From memory Lynch didn’t do much else of note.
I agree that in circumstances where the umpire believes one player has genuinely tried to injure another player (and strictly only in those circumstances), the offender should be sent off.
So I think Lynch should have been sent off. Lloyd was reckless but not trying to hurt anybody. He should have stayed on the park.
Bateman, on the other hand, should have been sent off for his clothesline on Lloyd. Can’t believe he only got two weeks.
Pauly Walnuts said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
Tom – re another famous incident was Alastair Lynch…. that was in the article mate.
Brett McKay said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
guys, what about a sin bin for reported players, as an alternate to the send-off??
gazz said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
I like the idea. u dont necessarily need to reduce a team to 17 men. just make a player, ie.lloyd, unavailable for a quarter where he has to sit on the bench.
i thnk redb has got it wrong too. lloyds hit was horrible. u cant just run into blokes with their heads over the footy. he made the decision to do so and should rightfully be punished for it. hawthorn gain nothing from a suspension, he shouldve been sinbinned
Redb said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
gazz,
So last year in almost an identical circumstances Chris Judd and Matty Lloyd went straight for the ball both reached it at the same time and both forcefully clashed heads. The difference with Sewell is he just got their first and lowered his head to pick up the ball in that instant was bumped.
Under the current rules the head has to be protected whether it was intentional or not. That is why he got 6 weeks and the severe damage.
Redb
Pauly Walnuts said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
Maybe unavailable for the length of time his opponent is unavailable. Sewell didn’t come back, so Lloyd sits on the pine for the afternoon (an eye for an eye).
davelee said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Yep, I tend to agree. In this day and age, if you hit a guy with his head over the footy, you’ve got to know you’re in trouble. Perhaps the send-off rule could be a good deterrent for guys deciding to do such an offence, although it would be a split-second decision. But if the sendoff rule was used only rarely it would be good. As I say, as a deterrent more than anything.
gazz said | September 1st 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
i dont recall the incident with judd & Lloyd redb, so i cant really comment.
but the crime Lloyd committed here, was bumping a guy with his head over the footy. he made the decision to do it. even if it was a split-second decision, he made it. i guess the AFL clamping down on all this means that there is no choice in that split-second, the player knows bumping isnt an option.
i thnk if you let these things go someone will end up breaking their neck and thatll be a huge disaster for sport.