Red Card Rule

[Thehardtackler 785]

I love comments like we have played this game for 160 years and it has worked with no red cards, to paraphrase one poster. As someone who moved here 15 years ago from the UK all I see is mindless tinkering with the game every year to no good effect. It is the players that make the game interesting, not the rules or the sanctions. I am not sure that red cards are the answer but I think the tribunal system is totally inconsistent and ineffective. This may provide a better outcome and discourage thuggery on the field. 

[Pates 9,686]

Red Card? No. 

I think the way Rugby Union does it is right. Sin bins with varying levels of severity and maybe perhaps a red card that removes them from the game. 

Question is do you simply leave him unavailable for the rest of the game or you make the team on the field a man down as well?

Perhaps sin bin takes then man off the field AND leaves the team a man down but only for say 5-10min? Is it game time or clock time?

Lots to consider but I think it should be introduced, Freo were down a man through an oppositions thuggish act. Only the day THEY were the only ones penalises. 

[John Demonic 5,933]

Red card would have been introduced if Alistair Lynched landed those punches in 2004 and Brisbane won as a result. As such, it wasn't, and so we wait for it to happen again in a GF.

Edited August 6, 2018 by johndemonic

[Supermercado 2,802]

Hope it's not administered by the same people who do the video review. I can only have this if it's in the strongest possible circumstances like this - not for in play collisions.

[DubDee 26,390]

The hard part is all the grey areas in footy. What do you do to the bloke that knocked Robbie Gray our in that dangerous tackle 2 weeks ago? He took ports best player out of the game

Red card? What if Gray came back on in 15 minutes?

[Demon Dynasty 17,135]

No need for red card.... solution is simple and avoids potential umpire error on the day, which could go against the offender on the day or the following week if incorrect and red card = auto missed week as per soccer...

1.  Player Sin bin...

       A.  Offending player (assuming he/she is spotted and reported by any umpire, including via off field replay) spends same 20 minutes off the field as effected player during the concussion test.

       B.  Following the concussion test, should the effected player fail to take the field for the remainder of the match then offending player is sin binned for the remainder of the match and is not to take the field at any stage.

Offending player to face any charges and tribunal as per usual under exisiting guidelines (no change in procedures or potential outcomes/penalties/fines).

End

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Rusty Nails

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,339]

I understand the intent and sentiment but we are assuming someone will know the line between when a red card is absolutely correct and when it is not a red card incident. I was watching On The Couch tonight where they said a hit like that will cost a fina one day. My view would be there is more chance an incorrectly awarded red card would.

If the AFL cant get it right whether a ball hits a post or not we now want them to absolutely decide whether someone should be sent off. How will they decide it? What needs to be sure? What is the basis? How quickly from the incident must it occur? Do we need to wait to see whether a player passes the concussion before the hit is considered red carded? Is the Cameron one red cardable even though it was in the contest? How can you be sure on intent. I like the idea but too many variables and a governing body that are not great at getting the grey things right. 

Leave the game alone.

Edited August 6, 2018 by big_red_fire_engine

[titan_uranus 25,211]

I'm in favour of it, but I agree with those who are concerned about how the AFL would implement it.

It can be done through video review, and only incidents which force players from the field for the rest of the game in contention for a red card. So it would be used exceptionally rarely. But, in cases like Gaff or Bugg, if you hit someone and they can't take any further part in the game, why should your team get the benefit of an extra rotation? Have that player sit the game out on the bench, leaving it 18v18 on the field and 21v21 including benches.

Whether the AFL could make that work is a legitimate concern, though.

[Deestroy All 14,266]

I haven’t read the thread so apologies if I repeat anyone’s thoughts. I just can’t believe so many are for it. 

You want to give these umpires, or AFL officials the power to send someone off? The same officials a majority of people have complained about getting [censored] wrong for 100 years. The same officials that in this technologically advanced world can’t decide if a ball went over a line or hit a post. 

The day they send someone off for what everyone else sees as a pure accident you’ll have a poll saying the red card has got to go. 

Leave the game alone ffs. 

[Hampton 22 519]

I challenge anyone here to not be in favour of a send off rule given what occurred to us in the 2000 GF. Essendon capitalised on having their players allowed to continue on field after committing severe, reportable acts. As a reminder, from The Age: ‘Michael Long's shuddering knockout of Troy Simmonds - which earned him a four-match ban -  and Dean Wallis served out his three-match penalty for striking Brad Green, a blow that resulted in the young Demon being taken to hospital’. 

[DV8 2,271]

2 hours ago, Pates said:

Red Card? No. 

I think the way Rugby Union does it is right. Sin bins with varying levels of severity and maybe perhaps a red card that removes them from the game. 

Question is do you simply leave him unavailable for the rest of the game or you make the team on the field a man down as well?

Perhaps sin bin takes then man off the field AND leaves the team a man down but only for say 5-10min? Is it game time or clock time?

Lots to consider but I think it should be introduced, Freo were down a man through an oppositions thuggish act. Only the day THEY were the only ones penalises. 

Game time...

[Pates 9,686]

4 minutes ago, DV8 said:

Game time...

Yeah pretty much my thoughts as well because if you get a rolling maul or stoggages going 3min of game time can account for 5min clock time. 

Would be interesting to see the impact being a man down on the field for say 10min would have. I watch enough EPL to know that 10v11 can flip a game on its head, with our wide expanses covering that space a players leaves in the zone could be catastrophic for a team. Perhaps one of the reasons why the AFL is so reluctant to go this way. 

[DV8 2,271]

15 minutes ago, Pates said:

Yeah pretty much my thoughts as well because if you get a rolling maul or stoggages going 3min of game time can account for 5min clock time. 

Would be interesting to see the impact being a man down on the field for say 10min would have. I watch enough EPL to know that 10v11 can flip a game on its head, with our wide expanses covering that space a players leaves in the zone could be catastrophic for a team. Perhaps one of the reasons why the AFL is so reluctant to go this way. 

This is the main area the AFL need to fix, Re laws.  The whistle blows, the clock should STOP !   Not kick countdown needed.

"Clock On" should not happen, until the ball is disposed of...

 

A man down for 10,,,  would force players back I would imagine....    and the return of powerful marking big men.

 

[Skuit 10,031]

The game doesn't need any more subjective grey areas.

[monoccular 17,697]

21 hours ago, daisycutter said:

in the gaff case i don't think the umps saw it. did they give a free or report him? if not then a red card would be hard to give.

maybe i'm wrong and an ump did see it. anyone know?

Apparently not .... after all there were only 7 blind maggots watching the game. Maybe an argument for 36 maggots, so each player can be watched. 

[rjay 25,347]

9 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The game doesn't need any more subjective grey areas.

From Peter Schwab's article...

"Was it a deliberate punch? Was the recipient damaged by the blow? Could accurate medical advice be obtained quickly?Most viewers would have been able to answer all three without too many problems."

Hardly a grey area I would have thought...

[Skuit 10,031]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

From Peter Schwab's article...

"Was it a deliberate punch? Was the recipient damaged by the blow? Could accurate medical advice be obtained quickly?Most viewers would have been able to answer all three without too many problems."

Hardly a grey area I would have thought...

Sure, I trust the AFL to get simple things right.

[Guest]

Gill has come out and put the kybosh on this one.

With that out of the way, it's time to focus on what is really important like creating 18 meter goal squares, re-recording the club songs and playing games out of Shanghai. Because that's what the football world is demanding!

[leucopogon 1,519]

13 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

No need for red card.... solution is simple and avoids potential umpire error on the day, which could go against the offender on the day or the following week if incorrect and red card = auto missed week as per soccer...

1.  Player Sin bin...

       A.  Offending player (assuming he/she is spotted and reported by any umpire, including via off field replay) spends same 20 minutes off the field as effected player during the concussion test.

       B.  Following the concussion test, should the effected player fail to take the field for the remainder of the match then offending player is sin binned for the remainder of the match and is not to take the field at any stage.

Offending player to face any charges and tribunal as per usual under exisiting guidelines (no change in procedures or potential outcomes/penalties/fines).

End

 

My thoughts almost exactly. My only tweak would be that an AFL appointed (ie. objective) doctor makes the ruling on whether the affected player is fit to resume the field of play. 

Only concern I suppose would be the potential for gaming this system if say one of your stars (eg Dusty Martin) commits a borderline offence against a lesser player that could probably play on under  normal circumstances, but under the new ruling could take himself off for a dodgy concussion test, thus consigning the star offender to the sin bin. 

I still think the AFL should look at it. Would any of you had any qualms about Bugg being sin binned/ red carded for his hit last year? I know I wouldn't have.

[Lou C. Fur 1,009]

14 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

No need for red card.... solution is simple and avoids potential umpire error on the day, which could go against the offender on the day or the following week if incorrect and red card = auto missed week as per soccer...

1.  Player Sin bin...

       A.  Offending player (assuming he/she is spotted and reported by any umpire, including via off field replay) spends same 20 minutes off the field as effected player during the concussion test.

       B.  Following the concussion test, should the effected player fail to take the field for the remainder of the match then offending player is sin binned for the remainder of the match and is not to take the field at any stage.

Offending player to face any charges and tribunal as per usual under exisiting guidelines (no change in procedures or potential outcomes/penalties/fines).

End

 

That's fair. Offender returns to play only if victim does. Fair in a Grand Final too.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Demonia

[DV8 2,271]

On 8/6/2018 at 11:58 AM, DV8 said:

NOPE.   no red cards/yellow cards, of any sort.

 

A Sin bin, Yes.    With proviso's.

If a player has been knocked out or severely injured maliciously, off the play, and leaves the ground unable to return,  the perpetrator should be 'SinBinned' for a matching time of the victim.  Which could end up in weeks of the season.

 

Or, If a player has given a jumper punch dropping the opponent, or been overly abusive to an umpire, he could be given 5 mins in SinBin.

The Team plays one down, for the period.

 

In the case of a 'SinBin', for a player victim who has been removed straight from the ground and not through the interchange gate, the perpetrator also sits the match out, but a Substitute player can enter the game to even the numbers.

.

 

14 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

No need for red card.... solution is simple and avoids potential umpire error on the day, which could go against the offender on the day or the following week if incorrect and red card = auto missed week as per soccer...

1.  Player Sin bin...

       A.  Offending player (assuming he/she is spotted and reported by any umpire, including via off field replay) spends same 20 minutes off the field as effected player during the concussion test.

       B.  Following the concussion test, should the effected player fail to take the field for the remainder of the match then offending player is sin binned for the remainder of the match and is not to take the field at any stage.

Offending player to face any charges and tribunal as per usual under exisiting guidelines (no change in procedures or potential outcomes/penalties/fines).

End

 

 

14 minutes ago, Demonia said:

That's fair. Offender returns to play only if victim does. Fair in a Grand Final too.

 

[ManDee 7,346]

The send off rule would manage itself. Players would not risk the penalty and coaches would not tolerate it. It may never be enforced. I am for it. I was the 2000 gf and if in force then I don't  think the violent acts would have happened. Sitting by the pool in Penang time for a Tiger.

Edited August 7, 2018 by ManDee
Typo

[Demon Dynasty 17,135]

2 hours ago, leucopogon said:

My thoughts almost exactly. My only tweak would be that an AFL appointed (ie. objective) doctor makes the ruling on whether the affected player is fit to resume the field of play. 

Only concern I suppose would be the potential for gaming this system if say one of your stars (eg Dusty Martin) commits a borderline offence against a lesser player that could probably play on under  normal circumstances, but under the new ruling could take himself off for a dodgy concussion test, thus consigning the star offender to the sin bin. 

I still think the AFL should look at it. Would any of you had any qualms about Bugg being sin binned/ red carded for his hit last year? I know I wouldn't have.

That is the one and only obvious weakness I can see leuco.  And a very good solution.  It all sounds too sensical for the AFL though.

[monoccular 17,697]

17 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

No need for red card.... solution is simple and avoids potential umpire error on the day, which could go against the offender on the day or the following week if incorrect and red card = auto missed week as per soccer...

1.  Player Sin bin...

       A.  Offending player (assuming he/she is spotted and reported by any umpire, including via off field replay) spends same 20 minutes off the field as effected player during the concussion test.

       B.  Following the concussion test, should the effected player fail to take the field for the remainder of the match then offending player is sin binned for the remainder of the match and is not to take the field at any stage.

Offending player to face any charges and tribunal as per usual under exisiting guidelines (no change in procedures or potential outcomes/penalties/fines).

End

 

 

3 hours ago, leucopogon said:

My thoughts almost exactly. My only tweak would be that an AFL appointed (ie. objective) doctor makes the ruling on whether the affected player is fit to resume the field of play. 

Only concern I suppose would be the potential for gaming this system if say one of your stars (eg Dusty Martin) commits a borderline offence against a lesser player that could probably play on under  normal circumstances, but under the new ruling could take himself off for a dodgy concussion test, thus consigning the star offender to the sin bin. 

I still think the AFL should look at it. Would any of you had any qualms about Bugg being sin binned/ red carded for his hit last year? I know I wouldn't have.

 

2 hours ago, Demonia said:

That's fair. Offender returns to play only if victim does. Fair in a Grand Final too.

All sounds good, though should it be totally outcome related?    A king hit is a king hit (poor term I know as nothing noble about it).

And the sin binned player should not be replaced - ie the offending team plays one short.

But it would have to be blatant stuff, as there are some 'line ball' things like the Moloney Bartell "incident" where contact wasn't even made but Moloney was ousted.

[monoccular 17,697]

Whether it is introduced or whether it is not, one thing is certain - Gil and SHocking will find some way to stuff it up. 

The antithesis of the Midas touch - everything they touch turns to ? 

THE worst AFL (mis)management team in the long and once proud history of the game.