Andrew Gaff

[Cards13 9,117]

1 hour ago, Mr Steve said:

The title of this thread had taken on a whole new meaning. There is no way the AFL can give him the chance to come back for the Grand Final should West Coast make it so Minimum 7 weeks.

You honestly think the AFL would manipulate the outcome of the sacredness of the tribunal to suit some random desire for no negative press leading up the the grand final? 

Yeap ok I can see that happening. 

[Moonshadow 17,678]

2 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Many posters here are almost condoning Gaff's thuggery. 

More unfounded hyperbole 

[Jaded No More 68,976]

46 minutes ago, MurDoc516 said:

The red card system needs to be balanced. You can't have players being red carded because they accidentally bumped someone in the head and that guy is off for the game because of concussion. It needs to be done only for purposeful or terrible acts within a game (Gaff, Hall, Cameron and Bugg) and not for incidents like let's say the tackle on J. Smith on the weekend. However, knowing the AFL it will become a big controversy within a week of it being implemented.

I totally agree with you, and like with anything else, the AFL will [censored] it up no doubt.

The tackle on J.Smith is totally different, to someone being hit off the ball. It is an action within a game, and we see that sort of thing happen 100 times a game. If in post match the player is charged with rough conduct, that is a different matter that will need to be analysed by video evidence. 

I think generally it has to be used for any absolute acts of thuggery which will lead to a suspension beyond any reasonable doubt. So anything that happens off the ball that causes severe injury (not if someone gets a little tummy tap and drops like a sack of [censored] to draw a free), or anything that is done with absolute malice and not within the action of the game. 

And it should be judged and red cards awarded by the emergency umpire who should have in his/her disposal a monitor where they can view the incident in close up and then make a call. Usually when an incident like this takes place, severe injury occurs and the game stops. This will allow the emergency umpire to review the vision and decide if a red card is required. 

 

[Deefender 245]

The Dees already have the men required to win a premiership. They don’t need to go looking for the likes of Gaff, and in his case the attendant flak.

What is lacking remains above their shoulders only. Perhaps they turned a corner against the Suns on Sunday when they won a game ‘they should win.’

[Neil Crompton 5,786]

I think now that Gaff will resign with WC. He will feel he has let them down by his actions and will have to make amends.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Neil Crompton
Spelling

[Diamond_Jim 12,723]

1 minute ago, Jaded said:

I totally agree with you, and like with anything else, the AFL will [censored] it up no doubt.

The tackle on J.Smith is totally different, to someone being hit off the ball. It is an action within a game, and we see that sort of thing happen 100 times a game. If in post match the player is charged with rough conduct, that is a different matter that will need to be analysed by video evidence. 

I think generally it has to be used for any absolute acts of thuggery which will lead to a suspension beyond any reasonable doubt. So anything that happens off the ball that causes severe injury (not if someone gets a little tummy tap and drops like a sack of [censored] to draw a free), or anything that is done with absolute malice and not within the action of the game. 

And it should be judged and red cards awarded by the emergency umpire who should have in his/her disposal a monitor where they can view the incident in close up and then make a call. Usually when an incident like this takes place, severe injury occurs and the game stops. This will allow the emergency umpire to review the vision and decide if a red card is required. 

 

out of interest would you then restrict the team to 17 players on the field (this is what happens in soccer) or would you allow substitution ie use of the bench.

[Jaded No More 68,976]

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

out of interest would you then restrict the team to 17 players on the field (this is what happens in soccer) or would you allow substitution ie use of the bench.

No substitution. You [censored] up an opposition player, they are out for the game, you are out for the game. Then it's 17 a side, which is fair. 

My assumption that these red cards will only ever be activated when something extraordinary happens where a player is injured severely enough that there is no doubt they will not return to the field, like in yesterdays game. If someone gets a crude tackle and are getting assessed for concussion, that to me doesn't warrant a red card. 

[Crompton's the man 660]

37 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

You’ve got to love Lethal calling for police involvement. Wonder if there is a statute of limitations of the McMullin incident?

Is that the one where he ran past a first game Melbourne player who never played again?

 

If so pot kettle black 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,104]

6 minutes ago, Jaded said:

No substitution. You [censored] up an opposition player, they are out for the game, you are out for the game. Then it's 17 a side, which is fair. 

My assumption that these red cards will only ever be activated when something extraordinary happens where a player is injured severely enough that there is no doubt they will not return to the field, like in yesterdays game. If someone gets a crude tackle and are getting assessed for concussion, that to me doesn't warrant a red card. 

I think that's where the AFL has resisted the urge for a red card system. It's far too big a penalty to be a man down on field. The opposition still has 18 on the field, they just have one less rotation, so I think it makes more sense to say the carded player is out of the game leaving the offending team a rotation down also.

[chook fowler 19,744]

3 minutes ago, Crompton's the man said:

Is that the one where he ran past a first game Melbourne player who never played again?

 

If so pot kettle black 

That’s him. He went on to become a doctor 

[Diamond_Jim 12,723]

8 minutes ago, Jaded said:

No substitution. You [censored] up an opposition player, they are out for the game, you are out for the game. Then it's 17 a side, which is fair. 

 

It would be 18 v 17 on the field

[Diamond_Jim 12,723]

2 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I think that's where the AFL has resisted the urge for a red card system. It's far too big a penalty to be a man down on field. The opposition still has 18 on the field, they just have one less rotation, so I think it makes more sense to say the carded player is out of the game leaving the offending team a rotation down also.

being down a player in soccer is an enormous loss as well but they manage for far lesser offences

[sue 9,247]

There's a lot to be said for clamping down on the ridiculous jumper punching and pushing and shoving at the first bounce especially.  Award a few free kicks and it will stop pretty soon.   One could argue that all that poking the bear relieves frustration and hence reduces the likelihood of a Gaff incident, but one would be fooling oneself.

 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,104]

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

being down a player in soccer is an enormous loss as well but they manage for far lesser offences

Agreed, and it's amazing how many teams still manage a win a man down.

I don't think it would be the same in AFL, but we'll never know until it happens. Would be very interesting.

[Damo 3,447]

they could have red carded 6 GWS players against the Blues then. Still won by 90+ points.

[McQueen 17,867]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

@Bobby McKenzie I have just read every one of @McQueen's posts on the topic. You made this up. In fact he specifically states he does not condone the actions.

Best you just withdraw your statement for the fake news it is and apologise to McQueen. 

Thanks, jnrmac. To be honest I didn't even realise I'd been labelled as a supporter of thuggery.

I stopped reading that particular poster a long time ago when all the unhinged and emotional Jack Watts debate was raging.

[SFebes 4,884]

2 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Thanks, jnrmac. To be honest I didn't even realise I'd been labelled as a supporter of thuggery.

I stopped reading that particular poster a long time ago when all the unhinged and emotional Jack Watts debate was raging.

McThuggery 

[Jaded No More 68,976]

27 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

It would be 18 v 17 on the field

How so?

The player who got hit is out, and the player who hit him, is also out. So each team is a player down.

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,360]

3 minutes ago, Jaded said:

How so?

The player who got hit is out, and the player who hit him, is also out. So each team is a player down.

 

No.

The offending team is down a man on the field. If Gaff was Red Carded yesterday then Meth Coke do not get the chance to replace him. 17 men for the rest of the game. 

[Neil Crompton 5,786]

5 minutes ago, Jaded said:

How so?

The player who got hit is out, and the player who hit him, is also out. So each team is a player down.

 

Each team would be a player down from their 22. But on field it would be 18 vs 17.

[old dee 24,028]

49 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I think now that Gaff will resign with WC. He will feel he has let them down by his actions and will have to make amends.

NC If that happens it will a first in AFL football. His Manager will not have a bar of it.

He will be at the WCE next year IMO.

He might feel he owes them for the results of the hit.

Much more likely than him resigning IMO.

[Jaded No More 68,976]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

No.

The offending team is down a man on the field. If Gaff was Red Carded yesterday then Meth Coke do not get the chance to replace him. 17 men for the rest of the game. 

Correct. Nobody gets to replace a player, not the team who lost a player to the injury (Freo), or the team that lost a player for offending (West Coast). 

[Neil Crompton 5,786]

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

NC If that happens it will a first in AFL football. His Manager will not have a bar of it.

He will be at the WCE next year IMO.

He might feel he owes them for the results of the hit.

Much more likely than him resigning IMO.

OD it was my spelling. I said resign, but meant he will re sign with the eagles. So we agree

[Sir Why You Little 37,360]

3 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Correct. Nobody gets to replace a player, not the team who lost a player to the injury (Freo), or the team that lost a player for offending (West Coast). 

Freo could bring on a player to replace Brayshaw. But Meth Coke are down to 17

[Demonland 73,952]

Brayshaw Brothers and Gaff all played golf together last week.