It’s hard to recall an incident as unnecessarily violent as Andrew Gaff’s strike on Andrew Brayshaw since Barry Hall made world headlines in 2008 with a horrific punch to the face of Brent Staker.
Gaff should, and almost certainly will, receive a very lengthy suspension for his season-ending hit on the Fremantle youngster. However, his lack of a similarly match-ending sanction on the day has reignited a red card debate that’s popped up before this season – namely, when Jeremy Cameron clumsily collected Harris Andrews high in marking contest.
The argument of those in favour of introducing send-offs to the AFL is that it’s unfair for one team to have a player rubbed out for the match due to the illegal action of an opponent if that opponent is free to play on.
The suggestion, therefore, is that if one player’s dirty play ends someone else’s day, they should have their day ended prematurely too.
While this sentiment is well-intended, it wouldn’t solve the initial injustices caused by reportable offences, and would create new inconsistencies too.
Let’s start with the facts, however, and the facts are there are already send-off provisions in the laws of Australian football*. While that specific law does not apply to the AFL competition, neither Cameron nor Gaff would have been sent off if it did.
Here is the law in question.
20. ORDER OFF LAW
20.1 APPLICATION This Law 20 applies to all competitions other than the AFL competition.
20.2 ORDER OFF FOR REMAINDER OF MATCH In addition to being reported, a field or emergency field Umpire shall order the Player reported from the Playing Surface for the remainder of a Match if the Player is reported for any of the following Reportable Offences: (a) intentionally or carelessly making contact with or striking an Umpire; (b) attempting to make contact with or strike an Umpire; (c) using abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language towards or in relation to an Umpire; (d) behaving in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner towards or in relation to an Umpire; (e) intentionally or carelessly kicking another person; (f) an act of misconduct if the Umpire is of the opinion that the act constituting misconduct is serious in nature.
It is worth noting that striking an opponent is a separate reportable offence (19.2.2 (ii)) and does not fall under the umbrella of a ‘serious act of misconduct’.
No other reportable offences see a player red carded, however, most competitions around the company take up Law 20.5’s offer, which is;
20.5 ORDER OFF FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD In addition to being reported on the first occasion for committing a Reportable Offence, other than those listed in Law 20.2, a Controlling Body may determine that a Player be ordered from the Playing Surface for such period as it in its absolute discretion deems fit.
In almost all adult leagues, this penalty is a yellow card sin bin.
Whether striking should be considered a red card offence is a debate for another time, however, this law does highlight that, at a fundamental level, the game of Australian football’s tendency to not eject players is not through a lack of legislation, nor a non-realisation that reportable offences can cause harm to others.
While, admittedly, there’s no reason this law couldn’t be modified slightly and then introduced to the top level of the game, this goes against the trend when it comes to the way the AFL deals with reportable offences.
The vast majority of suspensions and fines are issued by the Match Review Officer, not the umpires. In fact, earlier this season, Geelong coach Chris Scott questioned the usefulness of match day reports by umpires after a soft report on Jordan Murdoch – and I agree.
Our umpires already have a hell of a lot to look out for on match day (they also do a much better job than people give them credit for), and there really isn’t any reason for them to be bringing incidents to the attention of the MRO given each match gets dissected from every angle anyway.
If we can give umpires one less thing to look out for on match day, that allows them to focus more on the thousands of other decisions they have to make. Say what you want about our current MRO, but having one person (or panel) in charge of looking over all reportable incidents is, in theory, the best way to achieve consistent outcomes.
Introducing a yellow and red card system, however, turns that entire process on its head.
If we now say that a suspension is no longer enough punishment for a reported player – and that they must suffer some sanction during the match – the extent to which we’re asking umpires to look off the ball and behind play increases considerably, while yet another layer of decision making gets added to an already impossibly complex task.
A simple late spoil is no longer a question of ’50 metres or not?’, it becomes an unreasonably open-ended decision making process that, in a way, forces the umpire to do the MRO’s job in a handful of seconds with no replay.
Not only is that an issue, but oe of the biggest aspects of the Gaff incident that’s been overlooked is that none of the umpires actually saw the strike – so, even if the send-off rule applied in the AFL and striking was considered a red card offence, Gaff still wouldn’t have been marched off.
And therein lies something of a Pandora’s Box that a send-off law would open. Would we, as fans, be okay with some players getting sent off for reportable offences, with others escaping that part of the sanction because their indiscretion escaped the attention of the umpires?
The reality is that not every reportable offence would get picked up on the day, and this frustration at the unfairness over who’s game ends early would simply manifest itself in another way.
Would it be fair for two players reported for striking in the same game to both receive three-week bans if one player got red carded early in the match and the other did it away from the gaze of the officials?
Of course, the other snag such a rule could hit would be if an umpire got it wrong.
Imagine the outrage at having a key defender from your team red carded for nothing more than a clumsy spoil, and imagine how much that outrage would grow if the MRO deemed the incident not worthy of a report.
Imagine if Nic Naitanui had also been sent off (or sin binned) for his tackle on Karl Amon?
I understand that people will still feel it wrong for a player to continue participating in a match after they knocked another player out of it, but an ‘eye for an eye’ system just isn’t the way to assuage that injustice.
While the impact the incident had on the victim is – and should – be an aggravating circumstance when deciding a penalty, if penalties – be they send-offs or suspensions – are solely tied to victim impact it simply creates wild inconsistency.
A punch to the back of the head that causes little impact should always be punished more heavily than a high bump from a mistimed attack on the football that concusses someone, in my book.
There are also several reportable offences that don’t necessarily stop someone else from playing, that we all agree still warrant suspension, such as spitting on another person, threatening an umpire or staging.
We also seem to forget that reported players are often suspended for longer than the player they injured stays out. As unfair as it seemed for the Giants to still have Cameron on the field while Brisbane were without Andrews, the Lions got him back on the field a week before GWS got their man back.
Zak Jones was recently suspended for two matches after his late bump on Kyle Langford knocked him out of the game – but the Essendon youngster was available for the selection the next week.
In both of those cases, and no doubt in countless more, the lack of a send-off at the time proved hardly to be an injustice in the long run.
The AFL still has much to learn from incidents like the one we saw on Sunday, and we can all agree stamping that conduct out of the game has to be a high priority.
But quickening the pace at which justice is applied creates more problems than it solves.
Author’s note: The provided link is to the 2017 copy of the laws of the game. However, there were no law changes introduced in 2018, so the information contained within is still up to date.
James Robinson
Roar Rookie
For me, I would love a distinction between footballing and non-footballing incidents when it comes to the use of cards. At least in initial implementation of it. For example, while it was brutal, Cameron's late hit on Harris is not worthy of a send off as it was technically a football incident (football was in the general area, Cameron was part of a contest, albeit late) Gaff's clear strike on a player 100m of the play is a non-football offence and deserves to be carded off (i like the idea of a black card, where the player is off for the game but can be replaced) Is this a perfect solution? No. Some will say that football incidents can be as bad if not worse than non football incidents. Others will say that even adjudicating between a football or non football offence is too much for umpires. But it is a compromise solution that will help implement an immediate punishment to a team that acts in a completely thugish and non football manner as well as providing a tool for umpires to be able to deescalate a situation.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I think it's also worth adding: Rule 19.2.2 lists a whole heap of reportable offences, such as striking, kicking, rough conduct, punching, and so on. It finishes with the following catch-all offence: "(z) engaging in any other act of misconduct or serious misconduct." I don't think the argument that "striking an opponent is a separate reportable offence (19.2.2 (ii)) and does not fall under the umbrella of a ‘serious act of misconduct’" holds any water. It is quite clear from the use of the word 'other' in rule 19.2.2 that 'serious misconduct' is broad enough to encompass the more severe instances of striking or punching. I can guarantee you that an umpire in a lower league would be well within their rights to red card a player for doing what Gaff did. Also, Cameron did not 'clumsily collect Andrews in a marking contest'. He ironed him out with a dirty raised forearm when he realised he wasn't in a position to contest the ball. Not the first rubbish act he's committed on a footy field and there's no way he still deserved to be out there after that.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Sheil would have gone for sure, with accompanying Tiger outrage.
Ben
Guest
MQ....... I am a Aussie rules lover first and foremost. The 3 field umpires don't have to make a decision...... anything serious can be reviewed off field by a video ref, its not hard. Ok the case of soccer, yep refs make decisions...... heaven forbid! Highest profile and most important final in the world...... 2006 WC final..... Zindane rightfully sent off for headbutt on the Italian....... good call and no different to what is needed in AFL. Every major code in the world does it, and every level of Aussie rules bar AFL does it...... there is no excuse. Get your traditional head out of the sand to address a real issue.
MQ
Guest
It's not amateur hour, it's a different tradition. In Australian Football, the ump is not police, judge and executioner, and I'm fine with that. The Australian Football tradition at the highest level is that serious offences are looked at in a considered manner in a post-match tribunal. In a soccer game, the ref decides everything, can send players off on a whim, can end the game whenever he feels like it (e.g. just as the ball is about to cross the line), can decide which team should receive his largesse in terms of penalties and cards. He's God. Thankfully, that's not the case in Australian Football. Speaking of amateur hour, I can recall when Kewell had to attend a post-match hearing upon giving the German ref an earful after the Brazil v Australian game in 2006. Everyone thought Kewell was in deep trouble, and in fact, while walking off, the German ref tells Kewell his world cup is over. Everyone turns up to the hearing, and no one actually knows how to conduct a post-match hearing. No one even appeared to know why the were there in the first place, so Kewell never received any sanction. As I said, different traditions.
Mango Jack
Roar Guru
There's something fundamentally wrong with allowing a player who has behaved like this to continue playing. I can't think of another contact sport that does not have provision for officials to send a player form the field, accompanied by clear guidelines for when to do it.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
There is zero chance of no replacement for a red card getting up. The point of allowing a replacement is that the player from the offending team is removed from the field and his team gets no advantage over the other team in terms of rotations. It shouldn't be called a red card, perhaps call it a blue card and once confirmed call it a black card.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Agree but the use of a red card sees the offending team down a player. If he is allowed to be replaced, what is the point. No replacementfor red cards.
Jeff
Guest
An alternative to a conventional send off rule seems very simple, put the responsibility on the clubs to control their players. In the case of Andrew Gaff, after his incident with Brayshaw, Adam Simpson would have a responsibility to bench his player for the remainder of the game. If he failed to do so than West coast would face a heavy sanction from the afl, with the severity based on any fallout (retribution, etc.) from the player remaining on the ground. $20,000 per melee might motivate players and clubs to not bring the game into disrepute.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Totally agree on Cotchin I know I often say there's only one reality and alternate universes are pointless, but a fascinating thought to ponder would be what would have happened had it been Shiel who knocked out Cotchin? Do you reckon Shield would have gotten away with it? Or does the VFL do a Cameron Smith on him, after he chicken-winged Thaiday in the prelim and missed the 2008 grand final because of it? I think the relative size of GWS and Richmond played a big role too.
Cat
Roar Guru
Hasn't happened in 150+ years of footy, why the sudden fear of it now?
Lancey5times
Roar Rookie
What about the integrity of the GF when a team runs out with a plan to knock out the oppositions best player? Sure you will face a lengthy ban the following season but given you will get to keep all your players on the field why not take the ban and enjoy a flag?
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Wakelin and Lynch would have both been sent off. Now that would make that GF interesting.
Ben
Guest
Every major professional sport code around the world manages send offs just fine. Are mistakes made every now and then.... sure. There is no perfect system. But the arguments made by head in the sand AFL lovers are poor at best. It's pretty typical though...... a domestic professional code only with so many vested interests. Very much amateur hour within the AFL and always will be. Best example was drawn grand final which I attended in 2010...... absolutely laughable that 100000 people could not get a result on the day.
anon
Roar Pro
Works in every other sport. Players need to err on the side of caution. Or just go to the video ref in the rare instance the send off needs to be used.
anon
Roar Pro
What gets me is how everyone is worried about the integrity of a Grand Final. What if the umpire gets it wrong and sends someone off when they shouldn't have? What about the integrity of the result? The Grand Final is played every year in Melbourne regardless of seeding. The integrity of the result is compromised every time a higher seeding interstate team has to play at the MCG> Send offs and ejections work well in every other sport. Err on the side of caution and don't throw punches if you don't want to be sent off. People manage to control themselves in other sports.
Paul D
Roar Guru
How is that worse than a player incapacitating another player in the opening minutes? Also define “shouldn’t have been” - given a player would only be marched if another opposition player had been removed from taking further part in the game, I find it hard to believe such a situation would ever arise
Cat
Roar Guru
Imagine if a ref sends off a player who subsequently is ruled shouldn't have been. We're not talking about an errant free kick or a bad video review.
Lancey5times
Roar Rookie
Imagine the outcry if thIs incident happened in the Bombers/Hawks game and an Essendon player has his jaw broken, Hawthorn win by a kick with all their players on the pitch and the Bombers season is over.
penguin
Guest
Agree 100%. It is simple really, but traditionalists don't like it. Rub out blatant foul play. It also removes the retribution motive, and reduces the chance of a really bad crowd reaction.