I reckon Ross Lyon gave 4 to Gaff

Edited August 6, 20186 yr by MSFebey

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Can someone enlighten me as to why we care about coaches votes in this instance?  Seems totally meaningless to me.

Because if IDee's logic is correct (as it seems to be to me, unless you think Lyons gave Gaff the 4 votes!) it throws light on the attitude of the WCE coach to this whole business.  Surely if we are going to discuss the overall issue, this is a relevant aspect.  Of course no one is forced to discuss it.

6 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Can someone enlighten me as to why we care about coaches votes in this instance?  Seems totally meaningless to me.

It’s very poor form. 1 guy gets votes from a coach, whilst his opponent is in hospital having his face reconstructed. 

Fairly straightforward i would have thought

1 minute ago, sue said:

Because if IDee's logic is correct (as it seems to be to me, unless you think Lyons gave Gaff the 4 votes!) it throws light on the attitude of the WCE coach to this whole business.  Surely if we are going to discuss the overall issue, this is a relevant aspect.  Of course no one is forced to discuss it.

Coaches votes have no relevance to the fairest, just the best. Gaff was clearly one of the best players on the day 

Just now, sue said:

Because if IDee's logic is correct (as it seems to be to me, unless you think Lyons gave Gaff the 4 votes!) it throws light on the attitude of the WCE coach to this whole business.  Surely if we are going to discuss the overall issue, this is a relevant aspect.  Of course no one is forced to discuss it.

I was just checking.  Again, I reckon it means nothing.  If Simpson gave him votes, then he gave him votes for the game he played, not the act of punching a bloke in the face.  Does anyone really think he condones his actions?  Of course not.  I don't think it's relevant at all.  Gaff will get his punishment, which is deserved, and then he goes about repairing his reputation in the days/weeks/months to come.  4 votes or not.

4 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Can someone enlighten me as to why we care about coaches votes in this instance?  Seems totally meaningless to me.

I mentioned it because (given the thread is about Gaff being OOC) it seemed interesting that Simpson (*assuming it wasn’t Lyon) went out on a limb with his votes. It’ll surely come up.

It might’ve been emotional, it might’ve been strategic, it might be club cultural.

Either way, you’d expect Gaff will now think about how to recover from this and that becomes a factor in his choice.

*for Moonie

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

It’s very poor form. 1 guy gets votes from a coach, whilst his opponent is in hospital having his face reconstructed. 

Fairly straightforward i would have thought

It's meaningless.  It only matters to those who want to make a mountain out of a molehill.  

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

It's meaningless.  It only matters to those who want to make a mountain out of a molehill.  

I disagree. I mentioned Bugg because although the MFC article @Pates kindly posted said he'd trained harder and proven himself to be fitter and stronger, he can't break into the team, not even close.

We ask these kids to play on the absolute edge, these incidents have an affect. If I were Gaff, I'd now stay at WC.
The votes are just a hint to a far more brutal culture that rightly or wrongly can help him return to his best.

11 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

It's meaningless.  It only matters to those who want to make a mountain out of a molehill.  

If you think it’s meaningless, fine. 

I am sure Mrs Brayshaw wouldn’t have the same opinion. 

Personally i think it stinks. But i am not you. 

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

If you think it’s meaningless, fine. 

I am sure Mrs Brayshaw wouldn’t have the same opinion. 

Personally i think it stinks. But i am not you. 

They'll be concerned with supporting their son and getting him back to full fitness.  Do you really think they'll be up in arms over the coaches votes?  Please.

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

If you think it’s meaningless, fine. 

I am sure Mrs Brayshaw wouldn’t have the same opinion. 

Personally i think it stinks. But i am not you. 

Pretty sure it's a coaches award, not a mum's award. Gaff was one of the best on ground & instrumental in setting up the win. Before the incident.

He will get a penalty, likely severe and he will deserve it

Doesn't deserve the crucifixion that's been going on in the last 24 hours bit no doubt it will continue

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

They'll be concerned with supporting their son and getting him back to full fitness.  Do you really think they'll be up in arms over the coaches votes?  Please.

They would be furious

1 minute ago, chookrat said:

They would be furious

I doubt they would be.  They probably don't even know he got 4 votes.

But hey, you guys can wave your fists and stomp your feet all you like.  Go ahead.  Gaff will get his just desserts from the tribunal and that's enough as far as I'm concerned.  

3 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

Pretty sure it's a coaches award, not a mum's award. Gaff was one of the best on ground & instrumental in setting up the win. Before the incident.

He will get a penalty, likely severe and he will deserve it

Doesn't deserve the crucifixion that's been going on in the last 24 hours bit no doubt it will continue

Absolutely he does. What happened in the previous 2 Quarters is COMPLETELY irrelevant once that jaw was smashed in two. 

I can’t believe some of the comments i am reading today. 

“Poor Andrew Gaff is being crucified”

No solid foods for a month...

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Absolutely he does. What happened in the previous 2 Quarters is COMPLETELY irrelevant once that jaw was smashed in two. 

I can’t believe some of the comments i am reading today. 

“Poor Andrew Gaff is being crucified”

No solid foods for a month...

Who said that?  I'd love to see the context, rather than just a quote.

6 hours 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. 

Agreed RE what warrants and what doesn't warrant.  The issue is it will be used for accidents,  that won't warrant. 

Also if the poster red carded can't be replaced it will be 21 v 21, including the interchange,  but 17 v 18 on the field.

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

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

Statistically,  you are better off giving away a red card to save a certain goal than letting the goal get scored,  as long as it isn't in the first 15 minutes (or something close to that).

I don't think this is manageable in AFL. Our game doesn't allow us to play one less forward and count attack,  because there is no offside rule.  (I can't think of an international sport with a send off rule where there aren't some form of player positional/movement restrictions).

How would this play out if they enforced minimum players in the zone at stoppages?

I still want Gaff at the club.  If he contributes to us winning a flag (which he certainly would) I'm willing to forgive a brain fade.  We've all had one.  

Go Dees.

14 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

Pretty sure it's a coaches award, not a mum's award. Gaff was one of the best on ground & instrumental in setting up the win. Before the incident.
 

Gaff may have been the very best on the ground.  But if the coach had any decency he would have ignored his performance and left him out of the votes.

edit to add:  And if you disagree then you should attack Lyon for offering a biased vote by not giving Gaff at least 1 vote.  Would you?

Edited August 6, 20186 yr by sue

 

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Who said that?  I'd love to see the context, rather than just a quote.

Look through the threads and on Facebook 

many people have said he is being treated to harshly, which is a joke in itself. 

It should be classed as assault

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

 

Look through the threads and on Facebook 

many people have said he is being treated to harshly, which is a joke in itself. 

It should be classed as assault

Which people?  I'd love to see which thread on here has people saying he's been treated harshly.

I don't have Farmbook either so I don't get to see what the 9 year old trolls are posting on every article that gets put up.

As far as I can tell, no one here has said he is being treated harshly.  No one.  

I'd still love Gaff at the Dees.

49 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I was just checking.  Again, I reckon it means nothing.  If Simpson gave him votes, then he gave him votes for the game he played, not the act of punching a bloke in the face.  Does anyone really think he condones his actions?  Of course not.  I don't think it's relevant at all.  Gaff will get his punishment, which is deserved, and then he goes about repairing his reputation in the days/weeks/months to come.  4 votes or not.

Absolutely.  The incident has zero to do with awarding votes for the game.

In fact, if Simpson thought he was the second best player on the ground he'd be compromising the award by not giving him votes.

It's called integrity.  This isn't a best and fairest award, this is a best award.

3 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Is there a huge difference?  I think not. You seem to be having trouble dismounting from your high horse.

I really can’t see the connection here. I’m assuming I’m one of the other posters who ‘condoned’ this and if not then I apologise. Since when is questioning motive suddenly condoning this behaviour? I’ve heard 3 people in the media tonight say the same thing in that he probably didn’t mean to have the impact that he did and I doubt they are going to get hung out like us!

It doesn’t change things much, if it does it might save him from being labeled a total thug but that’s about it. I’ve said the following numerous times in the forum today as well: Andrew has made a monumental mistake and will have a long way to go to win back trust. These mistakes are not forgotten easily. 

55 minutes ago, sue said:

Because if IDee's logic is correct (as it seems to be to me, unless you think Lyons gave Gaff the 4 votes!) it throws light on the attitude of the WCE coach to this whole business.  Surely if we are going to discuss the overall issue, this is a relevant aspect.  Of course no one is forced to discuss it.

its not a best and fairest vote though is it - it was who did you as a coach deem to be most influential on the ground today...

Simpsons or less likely Lyon is well within their rights to vote that way... irrespective of what occurred. It's not supporting what happened, its removing that incident and looking through a more objective lens....

9 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Absolutely.  The incident has zero to do with awarding votes for the game.

In fact, if Simpson thought he was the second best player on the ground he'd be compromising the award by not giving him votes.

It's called integrity.  This isn't a best and fairest award, this is a best award.

So Lyon compromised his vote then?  Or will you say Lyons just didn't rate him?  Fairies at bottom of my garden too.