#AFL Round 20 Weekly Discussion Thread

[Ludwig]

I made a similar comment over on BF. I think it was very tactless from Simpson. He comes across as one of the less self-absorbed coaches (compared to the Scotts, for example, or Clarkson or even Lyon) but I think it sends out a strange message, especially when combined with his post match comments on Gaff's "intentionality".

It only missed be unintentional by the letter 'e'.

[Beerman]

I made a similar comment over on BF. I think it was very tactless from Simpson. He comes across as one of the less self-absorbed coaches (compared to the Scotts, for example, or Clarkson or even Lyon) but I think it sends out a strange message, especially when combined with his post match comments on Gaff's "intentionality".

OT. "Intentionality" refers to the ability of mental states to be about something and is an important concept in philosophy of mind. (Don't confuse it with "intension", which is a term which refers to the internal meaning of a word, similar to "sense" if you want to use the sense/referent distinction).

But we know what you mean

[Velour&Ruffles]

The first thing I thought when I saw the Gaff incident was: The next thing we'll see is Harry Cunningham king hitting someone.

There's too much of this off the ball gratuitous whacking in football. Even mild mannered Harry, who many of us have criticized for being too soft, is pushing players heads into the turf after a tackle. It seems like every player feels obliged to give and extra push or open hand hit at every stoppage of play. After the early 2017 incident where Callum Mills was targeted, every Swan feels he has to fly the flag, or show he's tough, by taking a cheap shot at an opposition player, and of course, opposition players are of a similar mindset. So it's a kind of physicality and aggression test within the actual game itself. The AFL permits this to continue with umpires only warning players if they are about to cross a line, and only a certain level of violence is deemed serious enough to warrant a fine and another level high enough to receive a suspension.

The AFL is complicit in creating an atmosphere where the Gaff type incident will happen every so often. I doubt if Gaff intentionally meant to hit him in the mouth. Gaff is swinging his arm, because if he hits Brayshaw in the shoulder then nothing will happen, only this time something goes wrong and he connects with the player's head.

I don't think the game will lose anything if all this gratuitous hitting, pushing and shoving went out of the game. You don't see Josh Kennedy getting involved in that sort of stuff. Brett Kirk never did, and when he was captain he insisted the team keep focus on the game instead of complaining about bad umpiring or retaliating against opposition players (Barry Hall excepted).

Is Tom Papley's constant pestering really necessary? Tom will probably never punch anyone in the face, but he sets a bad example for others, like Hayward and Ronke, who feel it necessary to push someone after every stoppage. And they are more likely to do something stupid, even if not intentional.

It's similar to when a country has a gun culture, like the US or South Africa. It creates an atmosphere where gun violence is a likely outcome and major incidents, like mass shootings, occur for no apparent reason than someone having a bad day or a brain snap.

I don't think the number of weeks Gaff is suspended really matters as far as a deterrent for similar incident in the future, just like the death penalty is not a deterrent for murder. If the AFL is serious about eliminating these incidents from the game, it has to clean up the game from the bottom and put an end to gratuitous low level violence outside of play. I think the game as a whole will become more open and entertaining because players can focus on playing the game instead of landing a cheap shot in someone's back just because they can get away with it.

Great comment. This is the bastard spawn of the Mitchell decision earlier this year. When you indulge crap like that it will go (horribly) wrong every now and again. It's simple - don't indulge it.

[MattW]

The first thing I thought when I saw the Gaff incident was: The next thing we'll see is Harry Cunningham king hitting someone.

There's too much of this off the ball gratuitous whacking in football. Even mild mannered Harry, who many of us have criticized for being too soft, is pushing players heads into the turf after a tackle. It seems like every player feels obliged to give and extra push or open hand hit at every stoppage of play. After the early 2017 incident where Callum Mills was targeted, every Swan feels he has to fly the flag, or show he's tough, by taking a cheap shot at an opposition player, and of course, opposition players are of a similar mindset. So it's a kind of physicality and aggression test within the actual game itself. The AFL permits this to continue with umpires only warning players if they are about to cross a line, and only a certain level of violence is deemed serious enough to warrant a fine and another level high enough to receive a suspension.

The AFL is complicit in creating an atmosphere where the Gaff type incident will happen every so often. I doubt if Gaff intentionally meant to hit him in the mouth. Gaff is swinging his arm, because if he hits Brayshaw in the shoulder then nothing will happen, only this time something goes wrong and he connects with the player's head.

I don't think the game will lose anything if all this gratuitous hitting, pushing and shoving went out of the game. You don't see Josh Kennedy getting involved in that sort of stuff. Brett Kirk never did, and when he was captain he insisted the team keep focus on the game instead of complaining about bad umpiring or retaliating against opposition players (Barry Hall excepted).

Is Tom Papley's constant pestering really necessary? Tom will probably never punch anyone in the face, but he sets a bad example for others, like Hayward and Ronke, who feel it necessary to push someone after every stoppage. And they are more likely to do something stupid, even if not intentional.

It's similar to when a country has a gun culture, like the US or South Africa. It creates an atmosphere where gun violence is a likely outcome and major incidents, like mass shootings, occur for no apparent reason than someone having a bad day or a brain snap.

I don't think the number of weeks Gaff is suspended really matters as far as a deterrent for similar incident in the future, just like the death penalty is not a deterrent for murder. If the AFL is serious about eliminating these incidents from the game, it has to clean up the game from the bottom and put an end to gratuitous low level violence outside of play. I think the game as a whole will become more open and entertaining because players can focus on playing the game instead of landing a cheap shot in someone's back just because they can get away with it.

Good post. I do hope someone has a word to the three Swans players you mentioned - they don't need it in their game. Jones too.

[CureTheSane]

The whole red card debate is kinda funny to me.
What should happen, is that WC should have taken Gaff off as soon as they knew the severity of what he did.
For the good of the game, for the good of the actual game they are playing in, and to diminish potential retaliation and aggression.

The bigger issue is the time out of the game.
This really should be a chargeable offence (by law)
If this happened outside a nightclub, and was caught on CCTV, the offender would be found and charged.
I don't understand a society where this can be seen differently because it occurred during a game of football.

I'd give him 12 months.

And the AFL have a challenge, given that they seem to punish based on the result of the offence rather than the intent.
Will be interesting to see the wash up of this.

[liz]

Good post. I do hope someone has a word to the three Swans players you mentioned - they don't need it in their game. Jones too.

I fear this is the influence of Steve Johnson. I don't think Papley needs much encouragement but Ronke and Hayward seem like polite young men, not prone to get ahead of themselves. There was a recent interview with Ronke where he commented that Johnson had been instructing him to niggle opponents.

I wish the leadership group and/or other coaches would step in and provide a different message.

Buddy will sometimes - nay, often - throw his weight around a bit but at least his onfield exploits mean he's earned some right to heckle opponents when they make mistakes. The young guys certainly haven't. And while Buddy gets into some push and shove from time to time, he generally does it when his target is at least looking at him. The shoulder slam from behind that Papley is particularly keen on (and Hayward seems to be getting more fond of) is particularly unnecessary.

[stevoswan]

For some reason, a very old joke has entered my mind. "So, apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, what did you think of the play?"

It took me a few seconds but that is gold!!

[dejavoodoo44]

It took me a few seconds but that is gold!!

With its age, it may be more mould than gold. I doubt if it goes right back to 1865, but it could go close.

[Ludwig]

The bigger issue is the time out of the game.
This really should be a chargeable offence (by law)
If this happened outside a nightclub, and was caught on CCTV, the offender would be found and charged.
I don't understand a society where this can be seen differently because it occurred during a game of football.

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.

[Mr Magoo]

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.

What makes people think that they arent? - They may be loosely applied but there isnt some law in this country in the criminal code that says " but not if its on a footy field".

[KTigers]

I am not sure you can eliminate this sort of thing in a contact sport with no off-side rule, but I agree with the point and have expressed a similar view in the past.

I would actually like it to be privately, then publicly, addressed by the club. The club needs a mission statement that is beyond the idea of winning and losing (perhaps that exists now). The members could push for this. I would like to see the club as one that promotes diversity, acceptance, fairness and sportsmanship.

Rules that are enforced by the AFL are a negative reaction to what occurs, I would like a positive platform on which we stand, as a club. This would then be something that is lived by the coaching and playing group.

I must admit that I like the aggression and bravery of many of our players, but I despise acts of picking on those thought to be weaker or vulnerable. I particularly don’t like the “suck it” attitude when individual battles are won (i.e. holding the ball, after a goal is scored or when the opposition makes a mistake). We should aim to be better than this.

I agree. This thing of rubbing it in when an opposition player makes a mistake or loses a one-on-one contest is really annoying. It's mostly younger players doing it. You don't tend to see a quality senior player like a Kennedy or a Dangerfield doing it, but sometimes I wish they would tell some of the younger guys to pull their heads in. I get that it's very common, and the lowest common denominator rules a lot of the time, but maybe players could concentrate on the game and trying
to do things well rather than sledging an opposition player when he makes a mistake. I mean it's not as if most of our guys are ever more than ten or fifteen minutes away from making a mistake or losing a contest themselves.

[barry]

A red card would make no difference to gaff. As it is, he is likely to miss finals, a much worse outcome than being sent off in a h&a game. So even that disincentive didn't stop him.

[rb4x]

A red card would make a difference to Fremantle though as they were a player short on the rotations and West Coast were not. For Gaff type situations where the action is blatant and results in a player not being able to continue in the game i am totally in favour of a red card. By red card I mean that Gaff would have been removed from the game and replaced by one of the West Coast bench players. For a black card offence he would not be replaced and West Coast would have continued with 17 players on the field. I am not in favour of that yet. A lesser punishment would be a sin bin either with or without replacement which I am also not in favour of as I think it would overly complicate the game.

[RogueSwan]

I agree. This thing of rubbing it in when an opposition player makes a mistake or loses a one-on-one contest is really annoying. It's mostly younger players doing it. You don't tend to see a quality senior player like a Kennedy or a Dangerfield doing it, but sometimes I wish they would tell some of the younger guys to pull their heads in. I get that it's very common, and the lowest common denominator rules a lot of the time, but maybe players could concentrate on the game and trying
to do things well rather than sledging an opposition player when he makes a mistake. I mean it's not as if most of our guys are ever more than ten or fifteen minutes away from making a mistake or losing a contest themselves.

It's funny (not really) that pretty much all the good players on my son's team are the same. They clap when the opposition make a mistake, yell when someone is about to have kick etc. And it's not just his team either.
Still to waiting to see 18 stand a mark though :-)

[Ludwig]

What makes people think that they arent? - They may be loosely applied but there isnt some law in this country in the criminal code that says " but not if its on a footy field".

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?