In the wake of Andrew Gaff’s one-hit punch on Fremantle’s Andrew Brayshaw on Sunday afternoon, the football world was lining up to condemn the Eagle for his actions, which left Brayshaw with a broken jaw and four displaced teeth.
Social media commentary centred around the likely suspension Gaff would receive, but mostly on the extent to which his good character should play a role in his time on the sideline, and in the way the act should be treated by the footy public.
In the 175 games he’s played, Gaff has never put a foot wrong, both on and off the field. He’s a well-respected player, which makes Sunday’s act all the more difficult to comprehend.
He hit Brayshaw off the ball, straight to his jaw, with no obvious provocation (not that this excuses his actions) – from what we’ve seen over Gaff’s career, it was an act completely out of character.
That’s where the debate raging over the introduction of a send-off rule, harsh sanctions, and even possible criminal charges – floated by a Perth lawyer – becomes interesting. At the heart of this debate is to what extent a person’s character should count in both their tribunal sentencing and public perception.
Condemnation for Gaff’s actions was swift, with the majority arguing that his previous good record should count for nothing, given the severity of Brayshaw’s injuries.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
In the ‘real world’, assessments of character play a role in court cases. Judges take into account the accused’s remorse, as well as their past behaviour, when deciding on an appropriate sentence. For the more horrific crimes, this may not have a massive impact on the outcome, but in many cases, this assessment can reduce a sentence.
While at the discretion of the judge to decide how much of an impact it has, the principle is there to ensure that people who have shown themselves as decent do not have their life ruined by one misguided act.
Consideration is also given to the ability of the accused to be rehabilitated, and their likelihood of reoffending – those whose actions were dangerous, but silly, and who are unlikely to reoffend, are often given a less harsh penalty to enable them to serve their time and then move on with their lives.
In this respect, the AFL’s tribunal system shows that character assessments are inherent in football. Until last season, player’s records were taken into account when deciding on suspension penalties – a player with a previously ‘bad’ record (i.e. one who had been suspended previously) would receive a higher penalty than a player for whom the offence was a first. That was changed by the AFL this season to include fines for lesser offences and misdemeanours, rather than suspensions, and regardless of previous behaviour.
Andrew Gaff (Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)
The precedent for Gaff’s type of actions is six or so weeks – in the Tom Bugg-Callum Mills incident last year, where Bugg’s punch to Mills’ head left the latter with concussion, Bugg was suspended for six matches, with his lawyer arguing that his immediate remorse and guilty plea should play a role in his suspension.
However, Bugg had a reputation as a serial pest and, having previously been suspended for lesser acts when the Mills incident occurred, public commentary centred around Bugg’s proclivity to be involved in stupid or dangerous on-field acts.
In Gaff’s tribunal defence last night, his lawyer spent the first ten minutes listing all of Gaff’s sporting and academic achievements, noting that his client had never received a citation of any kind, at any level. Gaff also had ten written character references – yet the public commentary still seems to condemn his actions in rather black and white terms.
In the end, Gaff received an eight-week suspension, the equal-longest suspension of the past decade, but at the lowest end of the ‘severe’ and ‘intentional’ scale.
Will this penalty set a precedent, where character considerations are given less weight than the consequence of the act, or the act itself?
anon
Roar Pro
It's 8 games he's missing. It's like being grounded by a parent. He's not being sentenced to a spell in prison. You probably have lost all perspective on life if you think it's equitable to the gruesome head injuries he inflicted in his brutal one punch assault. Do that in the stands and he'd be in custody or on bail right now.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Nah, eight weeks is fine. A couple more would've been good, but eight is still a hefty punishment. He's missing out on a finals series, and a potential grand final. That's a lot that'll weigh on Gaff throughout the next few months. Missing out on a first game or two at a potential new club can't be a good feeling, either. I felt uncomfortable with the victim speak too, I won't lie. It happens everywhere though, so I'm not too surprised. I do feel he was genuinely sorry though, and he'll regret this for a long, long time.
User
Roar Rookie
Ahh the AFL wanted 8-12 and the lowest option was given, indicates that Grace did his his job as did Nisbett. I shudder thinking what may have transpired if you where counsel, it would be a companion piece for what you think would be a good career move for gaff. Jon in all seriousness where you employed as a Keystone cop anytime in your working life?
User
Roar Rookie
Mate Australia is far from Syria so please forgive me for laughing at your violence statement. I'm happy you've probably lapped up the Sudanese violence epidemic the liberal party has been spewing but fact is Australia is a extremely safe country where no matter where I am I am extremely happy walking the streets with my wife at any time of day. Nice try, kudos and a golf clap but the picture you've painted is that of middle class male fearful of the big bad world which personally I am conflicted, is it sad or concerning that you are this way? At this moment sad is leading the way
Jon Boy
Guest
Every one knows Gaff has been always a ball player and a good bloke that is why he probably only got 8 the majority of people would agree it could have been 10-12 . Nisbett and Grace did not help, i am sure he will return to his best and wish him well.
User
Roar Rookie
Unfortunately ttf it seems you and I are among the few that has a rounded understanding of society and the mechanism in place to keep it civil, we also seem to be the only ones with an understanding of combative sports and how a person may react. Watching the incensed attitudes soften today has been hilarious as have reading views disparaging of the victims father's own considered statements. I look forward to watching the mighty wce play the Richmond tigers in the gf mate, that is something you and I should consider comfortable at this point of the season.
Cat
Roar Guru
Once again your infantile state bias is showing. Should Cotchin have been suspended? Yes. Is the incident anywhere near the order of Gaff’s indiscretion? No, not even close.
Angela
Guest
What sort of sledging (verbal niggling) goes on in AFL? I'm thinking of Dave Warner and the sledging about his wife when he had to be held back from doing serious damage by his team-mates I know that DW was a sledger par excellence however it seems to me if a bridge is crossed especially if it gets personal things can get very out of control. I think the sledging/niggling whatever that goes on in all sports is risky and, in many instances, appalling. Thinking also of Kyrios's comments to Wawrinka about his girlfriend. Is this also what goes on in AFL? And if so how can it be stopped? It doesn't surprise me that in the heat of the battle certain comments might elicit a damaging response. Not making excuses nor suggesting that this is what happened in this case. Just wondering...
Raimond
Roar Guru
Once again, the attitude toward Gaff is different to a Victoria-based player. Gaff can't be allowed to play in Finals, but Cotchin can't even be fined for rough conduct, because you can't deny a bloke the chance of playing in a GF for one of Melbourne's biggest clubs.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
You digress, as is your want. I was referring to blocks which you said were good tactics. Your tantrum is a smokescreen. Angry Cat?
Cat
Roar Guru
So why does Richmond hold and scrag off the ball so much if it isn't a good tactic? I'll answer for you, its because for every one you get pinging on there's a dozen you get away with, that makes it a good tactic ... at least until there is a crack down (which never lasts) and then teams adjust as they always do.
anon
Roar Pro
Bugg must have gone to the wrong high school.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Yet free kicks are awarded against blocks all the time. e.g. in ruck contests, marking contests, etc. So not always good tactics. Whatever suits your argument though, hey?
Cat
Roar Guru
I wouldn't make it a priority but sure, at times it gets to be too much. It is a physical game though. The cheap shots, punches and strikes need to go, but blocking someones space, leaning on them etc is just good tactics.
AshleyH
Guest
Ok, but do you agree the continual harassment, punching, elbowing etc of players who are not in possession should be addressed?
Cat
Roar Guru
You can copy and paste this to as many threads as you like, you are still way off the mark. Gaff himself testified he wasn't trouble by Brayshaw's checking.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Whilst I largely agree, prepare for a lambasting!
AshleyH
Guest
I hope the AFL and its umpires take some responsibility for Andrew Gaff’s eight-week suspension. Maybe now they will understand what can happpen when star players are continually punched, pushed, elbowed and shoved while off the ball. The unfair treatment handed out to players like Gaff, Fyfe, Ablett, Mitchell etc has gone on for too long and it is no surprise when something like Gaff’s hit on his opponent took place. Why are umpires allowing players to be pushed after marking, jostled after scoring and constantly harassed when not in possession of the ball? All these things are an ugly part of the game. If a player doesn’t have possession he shouldn’t be touched. It’s an easy policy to implement and would help eliminate retaliation.
JamesH
Roar Guru
We need to be a bit careful stating that players are suspended on outcomes, because it's not actually true. The outcome (injury) is a factor in determining the level of impact, which is one of the three factors the MRO considers. The real problem with the system (aside from relying on the judgement of only one man) is that the nature of the offence is not factored in. As of now, the three factors are: Intent - accidental, careless or intentional Impact - negligible, low, medium, high or severe Contact - body or head/groin All of these little jumper punches and niggley body blows are only fines because they are graded as intentional, low and body (unless they hit the head). Surely though, these are worse for the game than some other incidents attracting the same gradings - say, a trip? The fact that players are intentionally punching each other in a game should be alarming for the AFL. Yet, under the current system a player can land as many of these little punches as they want and only ever get fined.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Out in the community I think the expression is 'one-punch attack'.