The social justice warriors (SJW’s) are every chance to get their way in the wake of the Tom Jonas hit on Andrew Gaff, following on from Steven May’s hit on Stef Martin a month ago. A red card system, or send-off rule, may come into the AFL.
The theory goes that if a player performs a malicious act on the football field that ends up with the opposition player unable to return, then that aggressor too should miss the rest of the match.
It sounds OK in theory – an eye for an eye, etc. But it would certainly open up a pandora’s box in a fast-moving 360-degree sport.
The SJW’s can’t stand that split-second decisions go awry and that an act of physicality could result in injury to an opponent, accidental or not. They demand justice there and then. Anything less is unsatisfactory and unfair. There are more bleeding hearts watching from the stands, the pub or the couch than actual blood on any football field.
Jonas will cop heavy penalty for his hit on Gaff, likely in the vicinity of 4-6 weeks. This will be an appropriate outcome. In theory, yes, Port were better off for the remainder of the game, with 22 men of their own against 21 from West Coast.
But the Power, challengers for a spot in the eight the Eagles currently hold, are now worse off in the medium term, and with no gain in the short term either, given they lost the match.
We’ve seen more than enough instances of sides being a man down and still winning the game that we know losing a player has no material impact.
GWS were two men down at quarter time against a 22 man Bulldogs side on Sunday, and still won the game easily, comfortably outscoring the Dogs from that point on. Sydney lost Ted Richards before quarter time against Hawthorn and still won. The week before Carlton lost Levi Casboult in the opening minutes, as did Geelong with Tom Lonergan. Both won.
Oh, and who won that Q-Clash where Stef Martin couldn’t return? That’s right, Brisbane did.
Who will decide if a player should be sent off? It can’t be the umpires. How often do we see match-day reports get thrown out? They have too much on their plate as it is with ridiculous rules and interpretations changing by the week.
Obviously the umpires should be stripped of the ability to make match-day reports, but that’s another story for another day.
Do we really want off-field officialdom making decisions of that magnitude? They’ve already made the score review system a farce, and can’t be trusted.
What about if a player is knocked out due to accidental contact, or a glancing non-malicious blow? Everyone is going to have a different interpretation of events, and some are going to deem that it was a purposeful act. Do we really want to see an innocent player missing half a match of football? What if the innocent player is the best player on one side, and the victim is a first game rookie? Hardly a fair equation.
What if the player is the victim of friendly fire? Should their teammate also miss the rest of the game?
Ridiculous, right? Of course it is. This is a physical sport, and sometimes unfortunate things happen. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to change the rules.
But what if a coach sends someone, or a player himself decides in a grand final to deliberately target the opposition’s best player, knocking them out at the opening bounce with an act of thuggery?
In terms of a response, Sean Connery said it best in The Untouchables – “He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue.”
But does anyone really think AFL footy is played that way these days? No. This isn’t the 60s, 70s or even 80s. The game is so clean that incidents such as these stand out like a beacon. There’s no need to overreact to them just to satisfy the SJW’s.
There is some merit to Justin Leppitsch’s proposition that if a player gets suspended against you, he is also ineligible to play you the next time you meet. There is great value behind that idea, particularly if that ban is on top of whatever suspension is meted out.
That way, the aggrieved party does get some justice of their own, but after a considered process, not on the spur of-the-moment when emotions could be running high.
There is a time and a place for rule changes. Many have unintended and unforeseen negative consequences. Some are fantastically positive (hello deliberate out of bounds rule).
But let’s not suffer from yet another knee-jerk reaction to an incident of increasing rarity, and let’s not bow down to the vocal SJW’s who feed on their own false outrage like oxygen. Jonas made a mistake, and will serve his punishment.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
The last time I saw SJWs spoken of so disparagingly was by some bloggers on Gamergate, who were suggesting that women had no right to complain about the content of games. What about having the reported player being unable to be interchanged for the rest of the game?
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Happened in the very round just gone.
spruce moose
Guest
I'd be stunned if a player was rubbed out of the game on a reportable offence only to learn during the week the umpire was wrong to report. That happens what, 0.1% of the time? You are trying to prevent scenarios that fall within an acceptable margin of error.
Paul D
Roar Guru
That video says it all. Brutal. It's a good rule.
harry houdini
Roar Rookie
I do have a habit of either enraging or stopping the convo ?, but quite strange how the 2 injuries in this game that was played on the weekend were replicas of how Jamie graham dislocated his knee. I agree, I want players to stay on their feet, it opens play up and stops these sort of injuries,
BigAl
Guest
Excellent conversation stopper there harry ! I'm with Leigh Mathews when he says that players should be encouraged to stay on their feet. If you have the ball and you lose your footing then you have to dispose of the ball immediately. If you are on the ground then you can't compete for the ball - roll away, as per rugby union.
Slane
Guest
Great comment.
harry houdini
Roar Rookie
I happened to watch a VFL match on tele last night between Frankston and Geelong, 2 players got injured in the game, one strained a medial ligament in his knee, the other ligaments in his ankle both caused by players sliding in to the ball and trapping the opposition’s player legs The rule is actually a good rule requiring players to stay on their feet. Have a squiz why it was bought in !!!!!!!!. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDhjV0zsoL4
harry houdini
Roar Rookie
I happened to watch a VFL match on tele last night between Frankston and Geelong, 2 players got injured in the game, one strained a medial ligament in his knee, the other ligaments in his ankle both caused by players sliding in to the ball and trapping the opposition's player legs The rule is actually a good rule requiring players to stay on their feet. Have a squiz why it was bought in !!!!!!!!. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDhjV0zsoL4
TomC
Roar Guru
I'm not telling you what you believe. Of course you're entitled to your point of view. So are those you call social justice warriors. Although I still have no idea who these people are. It's a bit meaningless to tell me how much power they wield. You might as well be talking about the Illuminati for all the sense the term makes. It's easy to blame things we don't like on some vaguely defined enemy. In this case I think you're blaming what you see as the sanitisation of the game on this shadowy group, or whatever social justice warriors are supposed to be. There are simply a lot of people who prefer the game to be played in a different way to what you want.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Haha, that's a gold summary Arky. That bloody sliding rule. I blame Robbo 100%, a fine act of SJW'ing if I've ever seen it.
Cameron Rose
Expert
That's your point of view. I'm not sure how you can tell me what I believe though? don't have any dealings with crime or violence, and mental illness couldn't be categorized as a blight. And I believe the warriors hold more power and sway than you are giving them credit for. It sounds like you don't believe the term should exist? No-one could be categorized as such? That's a valid point of view. But if you concede that the term does have merit, then I am entitled to have an opinion on them.
KempseyKid
Guest
The incident last weekend between Port and West Coast may have drawn a greater response if a 22 man Port had won against a 21 man West Coast. Rugby referees have two assistants as well as the television match official, there are more stops in rugby than AFL, but AFL does have plenty, where something (such as the Gaff incident) could be reviewed. Most major sports seem to incorporate a yellow and red card system, from international football(soccer) to baseball. Giving the match official that option doesn't mean that they are going to use it, but it is there to be used as required when warranted.
Stewart
Guest
The problem is in your use of the words "reportable offence". According to who? The umpire that potentially gets it wrong?
Stewart
Guest
Except king hits don't happen anymore. Kids coming through the junior systems don't play like that anymore and the ones that do get cleaned out in the levels that do have send-offs. This is a solution looking for a problem. You can't say that it is worthwhile because an incident happens once every few years because when it does eventually get applied it will create a storm and a groundswell to get rid of it. No coach is going to instruct a player to iron out an opponent in a GF because of the fact it will just motivate the opposition and no player is going to take it on themselves to iron someone out as they wil forever be "that guy", an answer to a trivia question and a pariah to his teammates for firing up the opposition and costing the game.
Sam Walker
Roar Guru
I don't think a red card is really required however i believe the coaches should take the matters into their own hands and drag the guy for a while, give him time to calm down get the game going again and then throw them back out. Yes there will be spite aimed at the player but they will just have to live with that. Eventually they will be punished for their action.
Marvel
Guest
Plenty of times in NRL 20 years ago players were sent off and then exonerated by video evidence on the Monday so the team was without a player unfairly in tough RL for many minutes. NRL cleaned up when Comans came in and threw the book at people with long suspensions which hurt in the hip pocket rather than the rest of the game so long suspensions were the panacea rather than send offs
Marvel
Guest
Thanks so it is a rare event whereas in rugby two yellows will get you sent off - Storms Mclean picking up and ramming McKinnon into the ground so he ended up a quadriplegic didn't get a red card so what does though he got 7 weeks later...
Marvel
Guest
Mike Wood You obviously never went to an AFL game beforehand because everyone agrees its much cleaner than it used to be - would you like to nominate where all these disgruntled parents are who have stopped going to games as attendances are up even though the Vic Big clubs have been struggling
Ahmed
Guest
I would certainly not call AFL level football violent. There are however rare occurences where melees occur. These occur in all sports (r. league, soccer, basketball ...), and needs to be stamped out with massive fines (the entire weeks wages), and suspensions (3 weeks for any level of involvement). But to go out and call the whole sport violent is going one step too far. I'd imagine most sports would be called violent with the standards you apply. You never take your kids to see tennis due to the outbursts of players like Tomic, Murray and Serena Williams in the past. You would never attend the soccer due to recent melees on the pitch. And you certainly would not take them to watch the golf, cricket, polo, table tennis etc. There are things that the whole of football needs to work on, but violence at the elite level is being addressed well with heavy penalties being applied. I do agree that the lower levels of football need to significantly improve across many aspects. The prime one of concern that I see is racial abuse which is severely affecting improved participation rates and limiting the cultural diversity.