#AFL Round 20 Weekly Discussion Thread

[Markwebbos]

There are some interesting questions around this issue. Suppose a player in a marking contest knees another player in the head which cause serious brain damage or death. Would this come under the criminal code, and what would the charges be? Would the AFL be responsible for sanctioning an act that can cause grievous bodily harm?

A football game is an artificial environment where some unacceptable behaviour in the normal course of life doesn't pertain. There are a lot of parties responsible for creating the football playing environment. How responsible they each should be legally is not at all clear.

How would similar situations apply to motor racing, where a reckless or dangerous driving act causes serious harm to another driver?

I think in play / behind play is relevant to this. When a player takes the field, they accept they may be injured in a tackle, marking contest etc. That's part of the game. They consent to what in another context would constitute assault, which could include a blow to the head in a marking contest (missed spoil etc).

I don't think they consent to being punched when they are nowhere near the contest. However, until the game says all this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, its something of a grey area as it's still in the broadest sense "part of the game". It's goes on throughout the AFL. I'm with others on here who think that all this niggle behind play, jumper punches etc needs to be stamped out. Players need to know that off-the-ball stuff won't be tolerated.

[aguy]

I also hate all the niggle around the ground. The stuff that irks me the most is the push and shove for the minute prior to the bounce of the ball at the beginning of quarters esp the first quarter.

I watch a lot of footy and I noticed that this basically didn’t happen in a number of games this weekend. There was next to none prior to the Richmond Geelong game. And neither prior to the Swans Collingwood game ( that I noticed). Seemed that players simply took their position and jostled a little for front or back starting positions but they weren’t hitting or elbowing or shouldering.

I really was impressed and I wondered if it had been a decree from the afl ( after jones incident last week that he was fined for ) that they would come down hard on it.

[Beerman]

They kinda already have that, with intentional generally only applied in off the ball incidents. I realise there are some categories of on the ball incidents now classified as intentional (such as raising the elbow in a marking contest) but these are rare. And if someone punches another player with no intent to contest the ball, I think those should be pretty harshly dealt with too.

I think that, in general, penalties applied by the MRO/tribunal tend to be a little on the low side. I thought - at the time - that Hall's penalty was at the very lowest end of the acceptable range, and I thought an extra week or two for both Bugg and Cameron wouldn't have been out of order.

The "intentional" grading tries to achieve this, but I think it has a couple of problems (a) it requires officials to read the minds of players (b) it isn't clear enough to the players. How often do we hear an offender say afterwards "I didn't mean to hurt him"? I expect this is true - they didn't intend for that outcome to eventuate, but they DID intend to take their action (anticipating a different outcome). It's just too murky to drive behaviour.

Now these things can be cleared up (mens rea in criminal law and all that), but it would be clearer and more simple to have a well-defined, objective measure. It might work out much the same in terms of penalties, but be more effective in reducing offences.

Hall actually got 10 weeks, which I'm ok with - but it was discounted under the system at the time, which I don't think was right. I'd support an additional loading for repeat offenders, but discounts for good behaviour for intentional offences doesn't sit well with me. Cameron I have a bit more sympathy for because it was actually in play - 5 weeks seems about right.

[aardvark]

Neville Bruns who was knocked out by Leigh Matthews said on SEN this morning that Gaff should get 12 Months. Later this morning this happened.....Shannon Grant wins appeal against jail sentence for assaulting former partner - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[Hotpotato]

8 weeks for A. Gaff .

Who actually pays for 4 or more implants (irretrievable apparently) , oh and the broken jaw.
They come (the implants) at huge cost and take 6 months or more of prep.

Implants are more usual in yr 60s and 70’s, pretty awful to need them yr teens.

[liz]

8 weeks for A. Gaff .

Who actually pays for 4 or more implants (irretrievable apparently) , oh and the broken jaw.
They come (the implants) at huge cost and take 6 months or more of prep.

Implants are more usual in yr 60s and 70’s, pretty awful to need them yr teens.

I’d imagine the financial cost might be covered by club insurance. If not, presumably the Dockers ( or maybe the Eagles) will foot the bill.

[neilfws]

I guessed it would be 8-10. Thought they might go with 10 for the strong message. Anyway, that's his season, finals and a fair chunk of reputation rubbed out. Defence wanted 3...what a joke.

Anyway, that will fuel the Melbourne media circus through to the weekend when play starts again

[707]

Previous fists knocking people out have been 6 weeks. AFL is big on players being responsible for the outcomes of their actions so 6 weeks was never going to cut it.

8 weeks given the lifetime damage done to a young man is barely enough but will do in the circumstances. Clear message to players is don't clench a fist, ever!

Think the AFL is finally getting tough, as it should, on these non football actions.

His counsel saying these things start at 3 weeks was putrid and disappointing given the damage done.

[KTigers]

Previous fists knocking people out have been 6 weeks. AFL is big on players being responsible for the outcomes of their actions so 6 weeks was never going to cut it.

8 weeks given the lifetime damage done to a young man is barely enough but will do in the circumstances. Clear message to players is don't clench a fist, ever!

Think the AFL is finally getting tough, as it should, on these non football actions.

His counsel saying these things start at 3 weeks was putrid and disappointing given the damage done.

Three weeks! Seriously, these spuds will say anything as long as the meter is ticking. Either that or just too thick to realise how insulting asking for three weeks is.

[Hotpotato]

Many commentators especially former players saying Gaff (and Gaff enunciated it as well) meant to hit Brayshaw in the chest.

I’m sure Gaff is a decent fellow, however he looked Brayshaw in the eye and lined him up .
Brayshaw has substantial dental issues which will go on long long after 8 weeks.

Gaff is battered mentally but is injury free .
8 weeks is pretty lenient really.

[MattW]

I see that Gaff got 4 votes in the ACA award. I'm guessing that it was 4 from Simpson and none from Lyon; as Ross didn't seem to be all that impressed with Gaff, after the match.
If it was that way, then it's a somewhat tactless message from Simpson. Or maybe he's still trying to pretend that he didn't see the incident?

Lyon gave Gaff the 4 votes: 'There's no winners here': Lyon on Gaff ban - 'There's no winners here': Lyon on Gaff ban - AFL.com.au.

[CureTheSane]

AFLHQ must have trembled when this possibility was raised. Just the thought of lawyers getting access to the field of play is mind blowing. How many lawsuits will the AFL have to deal with for a whole range of issues? And what would the players think about facing possible felony charges every time they took the field? And maybe the players could be subjected to slander suits for sledging. It's a slippery slope.

I don't think the game can function if incidents on the field were subject to the laws of the land. But there is merit in your suggestion that there should be some legal threshold, like if a murder were committed on the field, then that would certainly come under Australian Law.

And what if he's been hit in the temple and dies?
Should Gaff then be subject to the laws of the land?
You can't pick and choose which incidents in society are subject to societies laws.
But clearly that is the way it is for now.

I often think of the person who has no interested in football, or any sport for that matter, and what their interpretation is.
It seems that because it's a part of sport there is some kind of hall pass in this area.

[RogueSwan]

I guessed it would be 8-10.

It needed to be that long to ensure he doesn't play again this year.
It is quite tough listening to Angus Brayshaw talk about the issue but it is worth it. AFL exchange podcast
BTW this is actually one of the better footy podcasts out there, surprising seeing as it comes from AFL Media.

[dejavoodoo44]

Lyon gave Gaff the 4 votes: 'There's no winners here': Lyon on Gaff ban - 'There's no winners here': Lyon on Gaff ban - AFL.com.au.

Bizarre (if the report is correct).

[Markwebbos]

And what if he's been hit in the temple and dies?
Should Gaff then be subject to the laws of the land?
You can't pick and choose which incidents in society are subject to societies laws.
But clearly that is the way it is for now.

I often think of the person who has no interested in football, or any sport for that matter, and what their interpretation is.
It seems that because it's a part of sport there is some kind of hall pass in this area.

No one was charged with anything when Philip Hughes was tragically killed playing cricket. I don’t think it was ever suggested. But I bet if he’d been hit in a brawl on the ground it would have been.