There’s been a raging debate for the last two years over the introduction of red cards in the AFL, with the majority of discussion centred on levelling teams once a player has intentionally or recklessly injured an opponent.
Until West Coast and Fremantle played on Sunday afternoon, Tomas Bugg’s strike on Callum Mills and Jeremy Cameron’s two flying hits were the measuring sticks
The last act of serious violence on a football field, certainly in the last ten years, was Barry Hall’s strike on Brent Staker, in 2008. The incident left Staker’s family in a state of shock and ultimately derailed Hall’s time with the Swans.
State leagues and grassroots football have had red cards, and have used them before – Will Minson was famously sent off the ground for umpire contact in a 2015 VFL match for Williamstown.
Nevertheless, Andrew Gaff’s moment of extreme violence on Andrew Brayshaw has thrust the debate back to the top of the agenda.
Brayshaw underwent surgery for a broken jaw on Monday morning. The 18-year-old, Fremantle’s first pick in the 2017 AFL Draft, has been ruled out of the rest of the season, and will be unable to eat solid foods for the next four weeks.
The AFL’s response was for match review officer Michael Christian to send Gaff straight to the tribunal, with the highest grading possible for the strike, assessing it as intentional with severe conduct to the head.
Red cards and send-offs aren’t a new concept in sport – both major rugby codes have them, as well does football.
Former AFL umpires coach Hayden Kennedy said back in 2016 that umpires wouldn’t have a problem handing out red cards if it were necessary.
Ironically, the last time the red card debate erupted was for Tom Jonas’ late hit on Gaff, which ruled the Eagles midfielder out of the match with concussion. Jonas was likewise sent straight to the tribunal.
There’s always been resistance from the broader AFL community and AFL House about introducing a send-off rule, fearing it could be used inappropriately, or inconsistently applied.
But it’s more of a risk to leave a player who has committed an act of extreme violence out on the field, allowing opponents to square them up in retribution, as we saw on Sunday afternoon.
Owen Detrey
Guest
I LOVE AFL!!
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
agree
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Disagree
Justin Mitchell
Roar Guru
I think a few posters may have missed the point about send offs. Send offs are in the rule book, they're just not enacted upon for AFL matches. There is a yellow and red card system, similar to that used by international and continental codes, and certainly used at lower levels. Typically striking or attempted striking is a yellow card offence. Over the top violence is a red card offence, but even then as an umpire, you're under a tremendous amount of scrutiny for a send off, since the rules are actually set by the league. When I umpired at the WRFL, as umpires we were instructed that we don't red card anyone unless they kick, spit or stomp on another player, threaten them, strangle them or engage in violent behaviour, or become physical with an umpire, or threaten an umpire. It might sound like a lot, but given all the games I umpired, including senior games (well over a hundred), I can count on 1 finger the number of times a red card was given in a match I was involved in. If we look at some of the recent reportable offences: Bugg - red card - striking Cameron - yellow card - charging/engaging in rough conduct Gaff - red card - striking Jonas - yellow card - striking Why are Bugg and Gaff red where Jonas is yellow? Both players engaged in violent, off the play behaviour and it was not in play. Jonas' hit - while late, is still arguably in play. Even then, the AFL may set precedent and rule that even with a send off rule, striking is categorically ruled out.
MQ
Guest
At the moment, officials can't even work out if the ball has hit the post despite multiple TV angles. The last thing I would want is that any official has the power to send off any player for what they think they have seen. Let the Tribunal continue dealing with such matters in a considered matter, as has happened for 100+ years.
MQ
Guest
The umps have never had the authority at the highest level of the game to order players off the field, and my preference is that it remains thus. If something untoward happens, we have a tribunal system to deal with it.
Ray Hammond
Roar Rookie
No red cards! Just make sure the tribunal does its job properly. Tougher free kicks for unwarranted harsh pushing might help also.
Cat
Roar Guru
If we are having a 3 man panel judge the entire situation at the moment I suppose we no longer need the MRO or tribunal to rehear it at a later date. They've already skipped due process and found him/her guilty so no need. I imagine this process would need to take some time to make sure they get it right so anything happening in the last quarter may go 'unpunished'. So this 'solution' would only be helpful for part of the game and in limited situations.
Col from Brissie
Roar Guru
Gene, I have on a few occasions on this topic suggested the AFL could have a 3 man panel at AFL House with access to all games taking place. If an umpire thinks an incident where a player has been concussed or is no longer able to continue should be looked at he can refer it to the Panel to adjudicate if a send off is warranted. Once a decision has been made then the umpire is informed and the appropriate action is taken. The game does not have to stop to wait for the decision to be made. In the Gaff situation where the umpires did not see the incident it would have been seen by the Panel because of all the replays shown of the incident and they would make an adjudication and inform the umpires. Is it perfect - I doubt it but certainly better than one team being down a player because an opposition player decided to whack someone.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
An eye for an eye is my policy. I love the Ice Hockey sin bin rules. No sport does it better.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
My mistake. I thought you were inferring the opposition remove a player also to make it 21 vs 21 in the event of a red card. Come to think of it, if a red card system were introduced, I can't think of too many circumstances where a player being carded wouldn't be as a result of incapacitating another player. I guess thumping the ump...maybe, but outside that? I think a sin bin would be better, much like Ice Hockey. They somehow turn a negative into a positive with their sin bin rules.
rederee
Guest
Red card is a no brainer and following the send off no replacement player allowed Surely the punishment dished out to those who transgress the rules should be swift and meaningful And even more so the victim should be rewarded for such transgressions That is exactly how the free-kick and 50 metre rulings work Naysayers who want to put up spurious arguments to defend the present system really don't get the concept of sport as they defend a system where a hit-man can knock out anyone he wishes should the importance of the game dictate such actions. Trying to think of the word for that!
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Goal and Boundary umps can make reports, apparently they didn't see it either.. I'm still amazed that over 50,000 people didn't see it happen.
Brian
Guest
Gene loves to argue even in the face of overwhelming evidence he will keep posting his nonsensical point
Brian
Guest
That's surprising in itself, don't we have 10 umpires at a game. At the very least the goal or boundary umpires should be empowered to go hang on field umpire stop the play and award a free kick and 50m
John
Guest
We don't need a red card system
Paul D
Roar Guru
So because we haven’t achieved perfection we shouldn’t strive for incremental improvements? Things are more accurate than they were. TV cameras are picking up incidents that in the past would have just been called goal/no goal in the heat of the moment and the decision would have stood. Life would have gone on. In many ways I prefer that side of things, mainly because I don’t think the obsession with perfection is healthy or even human. I think it contributes heavily to the unfair criticism umpires cop, such as what you have levelled here. Your argument now has devolved to the point where you’re saying that because we haven’t achieved perfection on the ruling of touched behinds we should continue to allow players to commit acts of foul play on the field – because apparently in your eyes the rights of one hypothetical player who might get sent off (in circumstances you have not even outlined or can even describe so far, using a real world example) outweighs the rights of players who are being targeted with violent acts of thuggery in part because players know there is no immediate consequences for their actions. Honestly Gene if this was a fight you’d have been given the ten count some hours ago. Your posts on this Gaff business have demonstrated this clearly
Cat
Roar Guru
And how have all those tv reviews and multiple camera angles helped to get goals 100% accurate?
Adam
Roar Guru
I don't think a concussion test would be necessary when someone is taken to hospital with a busted jaw with blood pouring out of him. No one is suggesting that it is a send off for a reportable offence. Rather, it would be a send off in instances where someone's reckless or intentional conduct has resulted in a game ending injury. It would only occur after video review to ensure that the injury did in fact result from the illegal behaviour and only then would someone be "sent off" and taken out of the 22 rotation. I'm not the biggest AFL fan admittedly and I'll probably get told how I don't understand "tradition" but times change and you have to eventually get real about it. There's plenty of sports that go away from tradition for player safety reasons. Baseball, a game that was established in a similar era has outlawed a number of actions because of player safety concern, you can no longer charge a catcher or leave the base path to break up a double play these were aspects of the game that people loved and was part of the game's fabric until 2014 for the catchers rule and 2016 for the sliding rule. So 150 years of tradition gone. For the right reasons as well. But hey tradition stumps player safety.
JamesH
Roar Guru
We're not a committee, Cat. The fact that we haven't all sat down and agreed upon the precise way it would work doesn't mean the general concept is invalid. That's John Howard's anti-republic scare campaign all over again. If and when the AFL shows some appetite to implement a card system then I'm sure there will be a whole lot of debate about the ins and outs of the proposed system. PS I'm sure what Paul is talking about is a general rule where the send-off applies if the opposition player can't return to the ground due to the injury sustained, whether that be concussion or something else. It would be a bit silly if getting your face smashed in without being concussed was a loophole.