1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Michael Christian has to go. 

(Home by 8pm)

?

4 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

 He could commit murder on field and get off.

No. I am sure he would be fined for that.

9 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Michael Christian has to go. 

and get....

Then again, the system totally backs him.

10 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Michael Christian has to go. 

Maybe the system has to change again. Why not separate the decision on guilt from the determination of penalty? It would be like a jury deciding whether a person is guilty while the judge imposes the sentence. I sometimes wonder under the current model as to whether the preferred penalty is determined first with the decision which is meant to lead up to the penalty "retrofitted" to suit the preferred outcome. Separating the process of determining guilt from the penalty might overcome any such concern. 

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

An even simpler fix would be to get rid of fines altogether and replace them with suspensions.

I would keep fines for umpire contact, melees and perhaps some other categories, though. Just abolish fines as a penalty for any offence involving violence such as punching, kicking, spitting, biting, head butting, etc. 

  

No thanks. The game is better when there’s a bit of leeway for players to be aggressive even if it’s stupid. 

I think the AFL could stamp it out by saying if a player is punched behind play, then they are are given a "free punch back" where they can retaliate with an equivalent hit, and avoid suspension on the basis that the other player punched them first. 

Simple.

Just now, PaulRB said:

I think the AFL could stamp it out by saying if a player is punched behind play, then they are are given a "free punch back" where they can retaliate with an equivalent hit, and avoid suspension on the basis that the other player punched them first. 

Simple.

The AFL would still play favourites in this "The Purge" like (look it up) scenario. The little guys would still get [censored] while the untouchables would still be untouchable.

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

The AFL would still play favourites in this "The Purge" like (look it up) scenario. The little guys would still get [censored] while the untouchables would still be untouchable.

You're probably right. But the idea of Watts chasing Vance to settle up one smack to the head, makes me laugh...

21 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I think the AFL could stamp it out by saying if a player is punched behind play, then they are are given a "free punch back" where they can retaliate with an equivalent hit, and avoid suspension on the basis that the other player punched them first. 

Simple.

But that punch they are retaliating for (from a prominent player) wasn't classified as a "real" punch, so the retaliatory punch (by a no-name player) is now deemed to be the first punch and therefore indictable. Given the players blatant abuse of the system, we will be doubling the penalty.

4 hours ago, sue said:

Good on the NRL, let's hope the AFL follows suit. True it is more difficult for society in general to have fines proportional to income since loads of rich people don't appear to make any money so their taxable income is vanishingly small.  But I'd still base fines on the last tax return which would cover a good fraction of the population and produce some equity.   Don't have to publish the fine if that is a privacy issue.  (Sorting out the tax dodging classes is a relatively difficult project.)

Understand the sentiment but disagree with using tax returns to means test fines. Income and means are not the same thing. If you were to construct a means test then wealth (assets) is a stronger indicator of someone's means than their income over a year.  Also, if I'm Tom Lynch and on $1 million per annum over 5 years I'd still be annoyed about a $2k fine, but agree that suspensions should be on the table for this sort of behaviour.

I think an underlying problem is that any suspension renders a player ineligible for the Brownlow and with betting it places the AFL under pressure to not suspend players where it impacts on Brownlow ranking. I'm not convinced that serious impact, non-intentional football acts that result in a suspension should render a player ineligible for the Brownlow, while at the same time acts similar to Tom Lynch should render a player ineligible as the are deliberate, non football acts that fit the very definition of unsportsmanlike behaviour.

7 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Understand the sentiment but disagree with using tax returns to means test fines. Income and means are not the same thing. If you were to construct a means test then wealth (assets) is a stronger indicator of someone's means than their income over a year.  Also, if I'm Tom Lynch and on $1 million per annum over 5 years I'd still be annoyed about a $2k fine, but agree that suspensions should be on the table for this sort of behaviour.

I think an underlying problem is that any suspension renders a player ineligible for the Brownlow and with betting it places the AFL under pressure to not suspend players where it impacts on Brownlow ranking. I'm not convinced that serious impact, non-intentional football acts that result in a suspension should render a player ineligible for the Brownlow, while at the same time acts similar to Tom Lynch should render a player ineligible as the are deliberate, non football acts that fit the very definition of unsportsmanlike behaviour.

While fines on the basis of wealth may look attractive, total wealth can’t be calculated without appraising and valuing properties of many kinds. And then you discover the offender can’t pay a fine without selling a house. While income can vary from the previous year it is easier to measure. 

your idea of not disqualifying from the Brownlow is a good one. If someone is rubbed out for many weeks for a really bad act then they won’t be getting any votes during that period anyway.   But we have to punish the act more than the outcome. 

I’ve said it for years but the action and intent should be punished, not the outcome.

Players can control their actions but not the outcome.

I thought the afl were sick of the behind little punches and wanted to cut it out. 

I bet if that was sparrow or lockhart that did that they would have been suspended. 

This [censored] with rules, penalties, tribunals, review committees, consistency, favouritism , etc etc has been going since I was a kid ( and no doubt) before that!!!

I’ve just given up on it !

the lynch one was a good opportunity to make a statement especially as the impact was directly a richmond goal

the game was only decided by 2 goals and if a free was paid it would have been around the centre line where the ball was. could have easily been a 2 goal turnaround

6 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

"I think a change is required. Clearly the deterrent of fines is not stopping on-field punching in various forms and we want to stamp that out," he said.

"It's unusual (to make rule changes mid-season), but we're going to. We don't want punching to continue. We're unequivocal about that and we'll make that really clear to the players and clubs.

"We'll make a change that gives the MRP the right equipment in their classification to ensure sanctions are now matches compared to fines."

AFL to suspend players for gut, jumper punches

This was 3 years ago...

 

That was the rule of the week 3 yrs ago

Ridiculous that you refer to it now. You know the focus only lasts a week and marquee players from big clubs are immune regardless

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

That was the rule of the week 3 yrs ago

Ridiculous that you refer to it now. You know the focus only lasts a week and marquee players from big clubs are immune regardless

---

About time somebody posted the actual guideline ty Jnr!  ...

ref:  " (the 2003 official rules of Vlad) AFL guidelines on off the ball incidents Clause 3:  Guideline 5.6

section B (subjection) S 

Edited August 19, 20204 yr by Rusty Nails

4 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Free Kick Richmond

Bernie Vince was punched a few years ago and was throwing up after it

No penalty as I remember 

The AFL are corrupt

I remember that one, it was Cunnington that punched him.  It was pretty obvious and pretty darn hard and if ever there was a case for suspending a player for a gut punch, the was it.  Mind you Bernie was the kind of player to do this to others as well, so I think it was somewhat a case of what goes around comes around.

Altough as others have said, guts like Bernie, Lewis and Hogan all got weeks at the tribunal/match review for silly little things like this playing for us.

Edited August 19, 20204 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

No thanks. The game is better when there’s a bit of leeway for players to be aggressive even if it’s stupid. 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "aggressive". I abhor any sort of violence on field. I don't even like the unnecessary pushing and shoving and certainly anything more than that, such as punching or hitting should be stopped. The easiest way to stop it is to suspend perpetrators. Fines will have no effect.

7 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

"I think a change is required. Clearly the deterrent of fines is not stopping on-field punching in various forms and we want to stamp that out," he said.

"It's unusual (to make rule changes mid-season), but we're going to. We don't want punching to continue. We're unequivocal about that and we'll make that really clear to the players and clubs.

"We'll make a change that gives the MRP the right equipment in their classification to ensure sanctions are now matches compared to fines."

AFL to suspend players for gut, jumper punches

This was 3 years ago...

 

I am 100% sure that the next time a Demon does anything like that it will be a suspension.

Didn't Hawkins get off yet again just a few weeks ago?

4 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Free Kick Richmond

Bernie Vince was punched a few years ago and was throwing up after it

No penalty as I remember 

The AFL are corrupt

And didn't Cuddington get off a few more times after that?  Did he have the goat photos of Christian?

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I’ve said it for years but the action and intent should be punished, not the outcome.

Players can control their actions but not the outcome.

Exactly - Burgiyne's two slam tackles were far more aggressive than ANB - the concussion there was opurely accidental.

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I guess it depends on what you mean by "aggressive". I abhor any sort of violence on field. I don't even like the unnecessary pushing and shoving and certainly anything more than that, such as punching or hitting should be stopped. The easiest way to stop it is to suspend perpetrators. Fines will have no effect.

The ridiculous push and shove before the bounce would stop very quickly if frees were given (though I know which one would be picked out in a MFC game).

 

Great example for the junior footballers.

I can see the tall junior forwards emulating Lynch and there coaches telling them to push the limits.

Great look for the AFL development and the families who want to protect the boys and girls who play.

Back to the 70's and 80's.

8 hours ago, brendan said:

I’m really starting to like Mitch Robinson

AFL hard man rips into glory-hunting Tiger: ‘Went to a good team for success’

 

I must be slow or just having a bad day, but what is Mitch referencing?  

11 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

I must be slow or just having a bad day, but what is Mitch referencing?  

3 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Lynch is no better than the dopey schoolyard bully. Grow up you overpaid ego tripper.

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Whether it's a parking fine or failing to wear a mask in Victoria, fines don't vary based on an individual's income.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/