#AFL Round 20 Weekly Discussion Thread

[AnnieH]

In my opinion, he should have gotten longer. I really don't care how sorry he is.
Big blouse barry was given 10 weeks (7 weeks in a time where if you pleaded guilty, you got a 25% discount). Staker suffered a concussion only, albeit at the exact moment big blouse barry made contact).
The injury suffered in this incident was extraordinary. I don't believe the punishment fits the injury.

[Markwebbos]

Here's a story from yesterday about a 13 year-old being in court after assaulting an opponent.

Girl accused of Heathridge junior football attack blocked by court from playing, attending games - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

A 13-year-old girl accused of assaulting another teenager in a suburban football match, leaving her partially blind and with spinal injuries, has been blocked by a court from playing and attending games later this month...

The victim fell to the ground and the accused allegedly "mounted" her and punched her in the face five to 10 times. Team members pulled her off the victim, who was hospitalised with facial and spinal injuries.

The police prosecutor said she was left with "partial and potentially permanent blindness in her left eye". She also suffered significant injuries to her spine and had to wear a neck brace for eight weeks. She may require spinal surgery...

The accused's lawyer applied for a variation of bail conditions to allow the girl to play. The lawyer said the WA Football Commission had already dealt with the incident, imposing a two-month ban, and argued she should be free to resume playing once the ban had expired later in August. But the police prosecutor argued the existing bail conditions should continue, saying the conditions were set to protect other children in the sport.

Magistrate Stephen Vose said the WAFC suspension was a separate matter to the court process and his own deliberations. "It seems to me it's something that's going to require a significant penalty and significant counselling," Mr Vose said.

Bail was extended and the teenager is due to reappear in court on September 18.

[Ludwig]

I'm all for clarity in sporting rules, particularly at a professional level. It should be known what actions on the field will be subject to the usual criminal laws and which will be adjudicated within the system provided by the sports organisation.

I don't know if there is any law or special arrangement pertaining to possible criminal acts in the course of a sporting event. You would think there would have to be in a sport like boxing.

It would add a lot of additional ammunition to the usual commentary with speculation whether a particular act deserves a fine, a suspension or prison time.

There have been some comments on here to the effect that 'it was only a concussion' in comparison to Brayshaw's injuries. It's very possible a concussion can have longer and more severe health effects than a broken jaw, so it shouldn't be dismissed so lightly.

[KTigers]

I don't have any issue with more serious action being taken against the likes of Gaff, Hall, Bugg etc. If the most that can
happen to the person committing the assault is that they don't get to play a game (and let's remember it is a game) for a
month or two then they are getting off very lightly in the scheme of things. I'm sure Gaff is "devastated" and "in a really
bad place", and "all his thoughts are with Brayshaw" etc etc, but is feeling bad about it afterwards really
an actual penalty for his actions. It's not like the effects of getting hit in the head violently aren't pretty well known these
days. You have to wonder how many players from the "good old days" in the 60s and 70s are suffering now from coming into
contact with too many "swinging arms" in their playing days?

[chammond]

I'm all for clarity in sporting rules, particularly at a professional level. It should be known what actions on the field will be subject to the usual criminal laws and which will be adjudicated within the system provided by the sports organisation.

I don't know if there is any law or special arrangement pertaining to possible criminal acts in the course of a sporting event. You would think there would have to be in a sport like boxing.

The courts have always indicated that they are very reluctant to get involved with onfield sporting incidents. The general attitude is that anyone involved with competitive sports accepts the inherent risks, and incidents should be adjudicated by sporting bodies. The rare exception is when the incident is clearly outside the sport's normal activities, such as was alleged when Matthews (player of the century) took out Bruns off the ball.

Even a clenched fist punch could be a jumper punch or an arm punch that went astray, depending on your point of view. In Barry Hall's case, for example, he wasn't looking at Staker when he connected with his chin, and would've argued that he had no intention to injure. Definitely against the AFL rules, but probably not a crime. In the matter of the 13 y.o girl, she pinned the opponent down and repeatedly punched to the head - hard to argue that that was accidental or part of the hurly-burly of the game.

[goswannies]

Here's a story from yesterday about a 13 year-old being in court after assaulting an opponent.

Girl accused of Heathridge junior football attack blocked by court from playing, attending games - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

A 13-year-old girl accused of assaulting another teenager in a suburban football match, leaving her partially blind and with spinal injuries, has been blocked by a court from playing and attending games later this month...

The victim fell to the ground and the accused allegedly "mounted" her and punched her in the face five to 10 times. Team members pulled her off the victim, who was hospitalised with facial and spinal injuries.

The police prosecutor said she was left with "partial and potentially permanent blindness in her left eye". She also suffered significant injuries to her spine and had to wear a neck brace for eight weeks. She may require spinal surgery...

The accused's lawyer applied for a variation of bail conditions to allow the girl to play. The lawyer said the WA Football Commission had already dealt with the incident, imposing a two-month ban, and argued she should be free to resume playing once the ban had expired later in August. But the police prosecutor argued the existing bail conditions should continue, saying the conditions were set to protect other children in the sport.

Magistrate Stephen Vose said the WAFC suspension was a separate matter to the court process and his own deliberations. "It seems to me it's something that's going to require a significant penalty and significant counselling," Mr Vose said.

Bail was extended and the teenager is due to reappear in court on September 18.

What is wrong with children these days?! A 13 year old girl beats another senseless over football. 2 South Australian girls involved in separate school stabbing incidents last week. Back in my day ...

[Ludwig]

There is a quote from John Milton that I first saw in Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's 1988 book Manufacturing Consent, which has stayed with me since that time:


“They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness.”

I think this applies to the Andrew Gaff offense. If you create an environment which fosters this kind of behaviour, it's harsh for the football industry to crucify the rare out of character act. Yes, there has to be punishment for Gaff, because he did the deed, but it's more important to examine why these things happen in footy. They do happen in other contact sports, but it seems to far more rare. The AFL has to take a hard look at the playing environment and determine if it's best for the game.

[bloodspirit]

This come's from Criminal Law New South Wales, a service maintained by a legal publisher which summarises the principles applicable to criminal law in NSW:

Consent to the infliction of violence as ordinarily and reasonably contemplated as incidental to a sporting contest will ordinarily preclude the infliction of physical violence during the course of the game from constituting an assault. Players of intrinsically violent games are regarded as consenting to force of a kind and degree which could reasonably be expected to occur in the game. Also, "most organised sports have their own disciplinary procedures for enforcing their particular rules and standards of conduct. As a result, in the majority of situations there is not only no need for criminal proceedings, it is undesirable that there should be any criminal proceedings." In body contact sports, the law accepts that play will not always be conducted strictly in accordance with the rules, and players are regarded as submitting to some applications of force outside the rules, but not all of them. In such cases it may be a question of degree depending upon the circumstances. In R v Barnes [2005] 1 WLR 910, the Lord Chief Justice said of the defence of consent at [12]:

The fact that the participants in, for example, a football match, implicitly consent to take part in a game, assists in identifying the limits of the defence. If what occurs goes beyond what a player can reasonably be regarded as having accepted by taking part in the sport, this indicates that the conduct will not be covered by the defence.

A participant in a sport does not consent to being injured during the course of the game by any act which is not done in the legitimate pursuit of the objects of the game. An off-the-ball punch to the jaw in a rugby match will not be excused by the concept of consent. Consent is irrelevant to the intentional infliction of actual bodily harm or even more serious harm. In R v Barnes [2005] 1 WLR 910, Lord Woolfe CJ said at [15]:

In making a judgment as to whether conduct is criminal or not, it has to be borne in mind that, in highly competitive sports, conduct outside the rules can be expected to occur in the heat of the moment, and even if the conduct justifies not only being penalised but also a warning or even a sending off, it still may not reach the threshold level required for it to be criminal. That level is an objective one and does not depend upon the views of individual players. The type of the sport, the level at which it is played, the nature of the act, the degree of force used, the extent of the risk of injury, the state of mind of the defendant are all likely to be relevant in determining whether the defendant's actions go beyond the threshold.

A 2006 article "Criminal law and assaults in sport: an Australian and Canadian perspective" by Chris Davies in the Criminal Law Journal considers the subject of criminal liability for on-field violence in sport.

I'm not sure if that is all internally consistent but it gives an idea of the lay of the land.

[Nico]

In my opinion, he should have gotten longer. I really don't care how sorry he is.
Big blouse barry was given 10 weeks (7 weeks in a time where if you pleaded guilty, you got a 25% discount). Staker suffered a concussion only, albeit at the exact moment big blouse barry made contact).
The injury suffered in this incident was extraordinary. I don't believe the punishment fits the injury.

Agree, Should have got at least 12 weeks,

I believe Ken Boyd got 12 weeks for knocking out John Nicholls after he was kicked in the jatz crackers at a centre bounce, Chased him to the forward pocket and belted him and he wasn't reported,

I have been against thuggery on the field since I saw Leigh Matthews play. His excuse was he just went after an opposition jumper.

[goodie3shoes]

Gaff is a disgrace but some Weagles supporters are SICK !

My viewing of that game showed the Eagles supporters cheering Gaff every time he touched the ball after the coward punch.
If Gaff did this off the field , he would have a criminal charge whether he was ' going for the chest' or not. At least a late night thug in Kings Cross might have the ' excuse' of booze or drugs.
It did appear,in fairness, that there was a short period of disbelief/quietness/guilt in the crowd.
But then the @@@@ started. Scum supporters cheering every touch by Gaff and even a standing ovation when he went to the bench.

But they have a history of being low scum.
Look at the way they led the unrelenting booing against Goodes.
These supporters are low arseholes that make Pies, Saints,Tigers... supporters look like angels.
Shame on you WEAGLES,you surely are better than this.

[CureTheSane]

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.

Obviously very different unless there is some evidence that the ball was bowled with the intent of hitting him there.

- - - Updated - - -

It should be known what actions on the field will be subject to the usual criminal laws and which will be adjudicated within the system provided by the sports organisation.

Gobsmacking that this would need to be said (to me)

I don't know if there is any law or special arrangement pertaining to possible criminal acts in the course of a sporting event. You would think there would have to be in a sport like boxing.

That would be weird. And boxing is a good point.

I'd suggest that in 20 years there may not be any boxing, just like there may not be any more zoos.

[KTigers]

My viewing of that game showed the Eagles supporters cheering Gaff every time he touched the ball after the coward punch.
If Gaff did this off the field , he would have a criminal charge whether he was ' going for the chest' or not. At least a late night thug in Kings Cross might have the ' excuse' of booze or drugs.
It did appear,in fairness, that there was a short period of disbelief/quietness/guilt in the crowd.
But then the @@@@ started. Scum supporters cheering every touch by Gaff and even a standing ovation when he went to the bench.

But they have a history of being low scum.
Look at the way they led the unrelenting booing against Goodes.
These supporters are low arseholes that make Pies, Saints,Tigers... supporters look like angels.
Shame on you WEAGLES,you surely are better than this.

You have wonder what it takes to get a person to the point in their life where they cheer a guy who just hit another player
in the manner Gaff hit Brayshaw. Do they do it because the person next to them is doing it? Do they do it because they
think footy has gone soft and hitting other players 50m off the ball heralds a return to what they imagine was the good
old days of footy? Were they standing behind the door when the brains were handed out? Who knows. This sort of
aggressive knownothingness is always out there, and it can be disappointing when you realise you have something in
common (an interest in footy) with these people.

[stellation]

A family member is a keen Dockers fan and was at the game, he said Eagles fans he knew at work were justifying the cheering the following week by saying it was an attempt to drown out the boos of Dockers fans. He said his instant response was along the lines of "Weren't Eagles fans the ones that ramped up the booing of Adam Goodes? Why was it fine for him to hear it, but not okay for Gaff when he'd just clocked some unexpecting kid?", which they couldn't provide a response to (apart from one of his friends apparently trying "I didn't boo Goodes").

[AnnieH]

It's a bad situation.
Wet coke fans are the WORST.
Poor Goodesy. They still don't think they did anything wrong.

[mcs]

A family member is a keen Dockers fan and was at the game, he said Eagles fans he knew at work were justifying the cheering the following week by saying it was an attempt to drown out the boos of Dockers fans. He said his instant response was along the lines of "Weren't Eagles fans the ones that ramped up the booing of Adam Goodes? Why was it fine for him to hear it, but not okay for Gaff when he'd just clocked some unexpecting kid?", which they couldn't provide a response to (apart from one of his friends apparently trying "I didn't boo Goodes").

Why does not of that surprise me in the least. Wet Toast truly have some feral fans within their fan base, no doubt about it.