It's very very simple, if you make contact to an opponent with your first, you get suspended for punching. Careless doesn't come into it, the only thing a player should be hitting with a close fist is the ball and if they can't do that then they don't deserve to be playing at that level.

Ironically junior footballers can all achieve this  when they want to.  Unfortunately stomach punches and head spoils are becoming more and more common in juniors as well.  

8 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...

 

Such empty words. Where are the journalists to call them out and read this statement back to them? Ask for an explanation. But no, it seems the journalists are beholden to the AFL for employment and part of the propaganda machine. (Re; the Cotchin debacle). What happened to freedom of speech and freedom of press in this country? ?

i like the concept of penalties being tied to the players match income, as others have said what is $2000 fine to some of these players. To make it more interesting  have a sliding scaled based on the severity of the action, a high impact hit 50% of your weekly salary, low impact 15% and the money goes to the charity  of the person you hits choice not the AFL. I was going to original suggest goes to the person you hit but that is just likely to result in a lot more annoying behavior by people hoping to get hit.

 

I seem to recall awhile ago Clayton Oliver giving someone a tap on the guts nothing hard and he was made an example of at the time. was he suspended for a game or given a fine. i cannot recall

17 minutes ago, Dame Gaga said:

Such empty words. Where are the journalists to call them out and read this statement back to them? Ask for an explanation. But no, it seems the journalists are beholden to the AFL for employment and part of the propaganda machine. (Re; the Cotchin debacle). What happened to freedom of speech and freedom of press in this country? ?

AFL and Freedom of Speech don't exist 

Ask Dale Lewis

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

AFL and Freedom of Speech don't exist 

Ask Dale Lewis

Could I ask you instead? I don't have Dale's number and would like to know what you are referring too

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

As I said previous was Ben Cunnington.

....another serial offender let off repeatedly, like Lynch, Hawkins, Burgoyne

1963, Ron Barassi on Roger Dean. Four weeks. 

By today's standards, Ron may have escaped any penalty. And Roger might have got a fine for staging!

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Ludicrous that this didn't warrant a suspension.  It's a terrible look for the game. Imagine Mums and Dads contemplating a winter sport for their 8 year old to take up, and we have this cowardice going (effectively) unpunished. Nibbler gets 4 weeks for a sling tackle - a penalty manufactured by the AFL's wish to stamp it out; their inaction here and with the gut punches says they're happy for this to continue. High profile players are idolised - they should if anything be held to a higher standard than the rank-and-file players, not protected. Pathetic. 

3 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Ok I got it now.  Geez Lynch is an annoying [censored].

Lynch knows he's not going to get suspended, and the worst that could happen is he gives away a free kick and a few bucks. The upside is if the defender retaliates he's bound to win the free kick and an easy shot on goal. I'd actually be surprised if he's not simply following coaches instructions with this rubbish.

6 hours ago, kev martin said:

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.

Does anyone believe that?

Kids didn't suddenly discover that sometimes people punch each other because of Tom Lynch. 

Nor is a junior coach suddenly going to decide to tell his players to punch the opposition. Just isn't going to happen.

The 'won't somebody think of the children' routine isn't a real problem. 

 

53 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Does anyone believe that?

Kids didn't suddenly discover that sometimes people punch each other because of Tom Lynch. 

Nor is a junior coach suddenly going to decide to tell his players to punch the opposition. Just isn't going to happen.

The 'won't somebody think of the children' routine isn't a real problem. 

 

Kids see things and copy them, although right now they are not allowed to play

So they are just seeing things!!

59 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Does anyone believe that?

Kids didn't suddenly discover that sometimes people punch each other because of Tom Lynch. 

Nor is a junior coach suddenly going to decide to tell his players to punch the opposition. Just isn't going to happen.

The 'won't somebody think of the children' routine isn't a real problem. 

 

100% happens, I used to umpire junior footy 10 years ago and the kids would say "the players on tv do it", these kids were 12-16 and thought it jumper punches and tummy taps were just apart the game. 
 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Does anyone believe that?

Kids didn't suddenly discover that sometimes people punch each other because of Tom Lynch. 

Nor is a junior coach suddenly going to decide to tell his players to punch the opposition. Just isn't going to happen.

The 'won't somebody think of the children' routine isn't a real problem. 

 

There are bastard kids out there.

I never said suddenly, I believe the change comes over if they move down that path, incrementally. 

I remember playing against a junior Port Melbourne side. A few chased our best player off the field after thumping him a few times. Scared too go to the change rooms.

No-one could stand up to them, adults or umpires.

If there are no consequences it can get bad.

There are some bad kids. The only thing they can do is physicality. Can't always lock em up.

Maybe you played in the wealthy leagues where all have aspirations.  

Kids are an example of there parents and there are some bad parents out there. 

 

On a sarcastic note, perhaps we could have a designated thug.

Plays 15 % of the game and pushes the boundaries. 

Club pays the fine and they accept the suspensions.

Could have a few, instead of the squad fillers.

Bring in Mad dog Muir. (King hit flower)

 

"Think of the children" is an issue for the AFL.

They do lots of marketing to them and there parents.

They want safe games and a family atmosphere. 

They need grass root players and volunteers. 

With a violent game they lose them.

I am amazed about the Lynch non suspension, purely from a family perspective. 

I like boxing but AFL has changed. Possibly even for the worst. The Biffo was very emotive. 

The suburban game still has thugs, no cameras and plenty of cheap shots.

 

Your sarcasm is not appreciated.

I have a right to my own opinion without you isolating me suggesting I am the only one with this passing thought.

You sanctimonious fool.

Edited August 19, 20204 yr by kev martin

17 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

One of the codes (is it the NRL?) fines players a proportion of their pay. In that way, imposing fines is equitable.

That would make a mountain of sense, but I also guarantee the big name players would massively opposite it. 

One of the things the MRP used to have which I really agreed with was the reprimand system essentially meaning if you continue cheap shots then you get fined. Under that old system, Tom Lynch would be out for a week for repeated low grade offences. So too would Burgoyne have been suspended for repeated dangerous tackles. To me that just makes sense.

I remembered thinking the same thing when Ablett got away with his cheap shots last year. 

Edited August 19, 20204 yr by Pates

12 hours ago, FritschyBusiness said:

Could I ask you instead? I don't have Dale's number and would like to know what you are referring too

That may be when Lewis said that a large percentage of players were using drugs. 

He was lambasted and then ostracised by nearly all. 

Later of course the many Eagles' issues came to the fore, and then it was a question of how far and deep was this issue

 

12 hours ago, gs77 said:

Ludicrous that this didn't warrant a suspension.  It's a terrible look for the game. Imagine Mums and Dads contemplating a winter sport for their 8 year old to take up, and we have this cowardice going (effectively) unpunished. Nibbler gets 4 weeks for a sling tackle - a penalty manufactured by the AFL's wish to stamp it out; their inaction here and with the gut punches says they're happy for this to continue. High profile players are idolised - they should if anything be held to a higher standard than the rank-and-file players, not protected. Pathetic. 

Getting flashbacks to another tiger. Is anyone else reminded of Rance on Watts.

Do Tigers practice this at training ?

15 hours ago, Demonised said:

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

Thanks @Demonised. This is a very interesting article. I can't imagine any political party here proposing such a system because of their fear of the mainstream media owned by wealthy families who, one would expect, would oppose such a scheme. However, the AFL doesn't have to worry about that and could easily introduce something similar with respect to the size of fines it chooses to impose on players whether it's for on-field or off-field indiscretions.   

9 hours ago, FritschyBusiness said:

100% happens, I used to umpire junior footy 10 years ago and the kids would say "the players on tv do it", these kids were 12-16 and thought it jumper punches and tummy taps were just apart the game. 
 

How little aggression would we have to have in the game for teenage boys not to copy something? Strip AFL right back to soccer and basketball with red cards and there’d still be kids getting in to it.

And do the parents care? I coached junior footy and the parents had 2 concerns: their kid getting a kick and concussions. I never once had a parent concerned about push and shove and a bit of extra.

1 hour ago, Dee-lusional said:

 

Getting flashbacks to another tiger. Is anyone else reminded of Rance on Watts.

Do Tigers practice this at training ?

Rance got two weeks, very similar incident IIRC. 

Edited August 20, 20204 yr by Ethan Tremblay

16 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

How little aggression would we have to have in the game for teenage boys not to copy something? Strip AFL right back to soccer and basketball with red cards and there’d still be kids getting in to it.

And do the parents care? I coached junior footy and the parents had 2 concerns: their kid getting a kick and concussions. I never once had a parent concerned about push and shove and a bit of extra.

Gut punching is different to a bit of 'push and shove' and it's pretty clearly not part of the 'aggression' that is natural to the game.

The 'it's going to happen anyway' argument is a massive cop out. People are going to speed anyway, so why bother having speed limits?

3 hours ago, Dee-lusional said:

 

Getting flashbacks to another tiger. Is anyone else reminded of Rance on Watts.

Do Tigers practice this at training ?

Hah... yes it's pretty similar.  Maybe Lynch is trying his hardest to fit in.  To Rance's slimmest credit, he immediately recognized he had done the wrong thing and wore Viney's ...er ...rebuttal without retaliation, whereas Lynch's action is very much an opportunistic whack off the ball, which he casually jogs away from.

 

18 hours ago, Dame Gaga said:

 What happened to freedom of speech and freedom of press in this country? ?

Freedom of speech is not and never has been guaranteed in this country as per our Constitution 

Hardwick has become my least favourite coach bringing what those dirty flogs did in the 2000 grand final into this.

18 hours ago, jnrmac said:

AFL and Freedom of Speech don't exist 

Ask Dale Lewis

 

6 hours ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

That may be when Lewis said that a large percentage of players were using drugs. 

He was lambasted and then ostracised by nearly all. 

Later of course the many Eagles' issues came to the fore, and then it was a question of how far and deep was this issue

Lewis was a Swans player that tried to alert the AFL and wider community to the big drug culture amongst some in the AFL. From memory it was around the time of the 2000 season.

He  was ostracised by the AFL who promptly swept it under the carpet, ensured Lewis never worked in the AFL industry again and of course it led to the infamously tainted premiership of West Coast amongst others