A.F.L Thread

[pasag]

10 would be about right, imo.

Anyways, back to the most important footy news of the week - enjoyed the Age sport front page today:

In the last 309 days Australians have elected a government, signed the Kyoto protocol, apologised for the stolen generation and beaten India in a cricket series. But only now has anyone seen Carlton win a footy game.

 

[Johnners]

Because nothing is really that clear cut on ground level at real time, that's why we have proper tribunals analysing things propely after the game. Anyways, this is going in circles, as you can tell I'm very strongly opposed to giving umpires any type of power that can send a player off the field.

Also as a side point and not the primary reason I'm opposed to it or anything, if we have the possibility of players getting sent off for this sort of stuff then I guarantee you we'll start seeing a rash of players get little taps and falling over themselves in an effort to get the opposition player sent off.

Because unlike this case, the indiscretion isn't always so bleeding obvious. If we introduce a sending-off rule, and the umpire gets it wrong the consequences for the team whose player was sent off incorrectly are far more serious - and will happen more often than clear-cut cases like Hall/Waters - than if there is no way for the umpires to send the player off in the first place.

For every incident like this, there are probably 10 far less clear cut indiscretions where giving the umpire too much power will only result in teams being a man down because of an umpiring mistake, and god knows Mick Malthouse whinges enough about umpiring decisions as it is.

History has shown that in sports currently using a send off rule, far more often than not, players are sent off because they deserve to be, as opposed to being unfairly sent off. Things might not be so clear cut at ground level all the time, but with the stupendous amounts of replays and technology available today, it's really not that hard to determine who was the guilty party, and how severe an incident was in a very short space of time. You can't tell me that for 90% of the time, you don't know who was at fault in an incident after seeing 2-3 replays. In any case, if there's so much doubt, no-one is going to sent off. It's not like you're going to see players being sent off every 2nd match, you'd be lucky to see more than 5 people sent off in a season.

As for players diving, quite simply, a send off rule isn't going to see players sent off because someone has taken a dive if you use a replay system.

Anywho, as you said, this is just going round in circles, but afaic, something does need to be done because it's ludicrous that a team can gain an advantage due to foul play (even if it is only for 1 match).

 

[Matteh]

Re: the simulation point, have seen the likes of Fev last season go down looking for a hands in the back free. Wouldn't be a leap in logic to see similar sorts of things happening for sending offs, although with the amount of cameras at games of all sports these days if you're faking it you soon get picked up.

 

[pasag]

...something does need to be done because it's ludicrous that a team can gain an advantage due to foul play

No, nothing needs to be done because it's not a widespread problem. Just because it happened here doesn't mean we have to start making knee jerk changes to the rules that have the potential to do so much more damage than any attempt to fix a more or less non existent problem in the wider AFL.

 

[mikeW]

Give him 6 so he can play in the WC vs Sydney re-match.

 

[Hoggy31]

Was at the West Coast/Swans game last night, **** Barry Hall is a ****. I have to say that I thought the same stuff Clapo and Jakovich were saying about the rules of the game, though it's clearly a difficult issue to come up with a solution to - like most things, it'll have its supporters and its detractors and probably just end up being debated for a while without any measure of change before everyone forgets the incident and it dies away (until someone else does it again.) Nevertheless, it still doesn't change the fact that Barry Hall is a woeful wanker - those who know the way the tribunal works seem to think he can only get 4-6 weeks, but the incident was so repulsive that you'd think Hall will be eating his weetbix with a heavy dose of regret for the next two months. Staker did nothing to provoke even the first two wild attempts let alone the one flush on the jaw, and with Hall's rap sheet and decade plus of experience in the game, a return before round 13 would be a surprise (and an injustice.) What a ****, gone.

This is the yearrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[vic_orthdox]

No, nothing needs to be done because it's not a widespread problem. Just because it happened here doesn't mean we have to start making knee jerk changes to the rules that have the potential to do so much more damage than any attempt to fix a more or less non existent problem in the wider AFL.

Bingo.

 

[Johnners]

No, nothing needs to be done because it's not a widespread problem. Just because it happened here doesn't mean we have to start making knee jerk changes to the rules that have the potential to do so much more damage than any attempt to fix a more or less non existent problem in the wider AFL.

The point you quoted was referring to more than just sending players off tbh, and I really don't see it as a non-existent problem. Players may not be on the receiving end of such ridiculous actions like those of Barry Hall on the weekend every week, but from what I've noticed, I think it would be safe to say that there is 1 player taken out of a game due to foul play over the course of say 3 rounds. Whilst I think that you would only use a send off rule in the extreme examples (see Hall/Staker), I don't see how allowing teams to bring on another player due to foul play, is going to be detrimental to the wider AFL.

Anywho, I'll stop cluttering up the thread now, because I think we've ascertained that we don't agree

 

[Smudge]

Seven weeks for Hall then, according to the TV news.

Sounds about right.

 

[Johnners]

Sounds about 3 weeks short imo.

 

[Jono]

Intentionally over 6 to avoid the WC rematch IMO, and whilst it would have been good viewing, its the right move.

I would have given him 10 as well Clapo. Its disgusting thuggery.

 

[mikeW]

Intentionally over 6 to avoid the WC rematch IMO, and whilst it would have been good viewing, its the right move.

I would have given him 10 as well Clapo. Its disgusting thuggery.

Agree with all your points...

 

[Josh]

Intentionally over 6 to avoid the WC rematch IMO, and whilst it would have been good viewing, its the right move.

I would have given him 10 as well Clapo. Its disgusting thuggery.

Indeed.

 

[James90]

Would have given him 16 myself. Disgraceful act.

 

[Mr Casson]

Intentionally over 6 to avoid the WC rematch IMO, and whilst it would have been good viewing, its the right move.

I would have given him 10 as well Clapo. Its disgusting thuggery.

I think there was just a hint of making the penalty longer than his likely recovery too, which by the sounds of it will be around 6 weeks.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Actually saw the game between the Swans and WCE, 2nd ever AFL game, thought it was pretty good ITBT. Not sure how long the ban Barry Hall got compares to what someone would have got in Premiership Rugby Union, which is more my sport.

Is Eurosport UK the only channel that shows AFL?

 

[Mr Casson]

Actually saw the game between the Swans and WCE, 2nd ever AFL game, thought it was pretty good ITBT. Not sure how long the ban Barry Hall got compares to what someone would have got in Premiership Rugby Union, which is more my sport.

Is Eurosport UK the only channel that shows AFL?

I dunno how it works in the UK but I've heard you can get it on Setanta.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, don't get on Setanta, he's hopeless. His brother Aisake's even worse.

 

[Jono]

Lol, wonder if they'll get that.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I would have given him 10 as well Clapo. Its disgusting thuggery.

Isn't there a part of you that thinks that, moral indigination aside, it was a quality haymaker, tho? Great shot, for mine. Refreshing change from all the handbaggery one sees in association football.

I dunno how it works in the UK but I've heard you can get it on Setanta.

Yeah, Setanta carry games live (NRL too, as it goes), but it's a premium channel that costs over & above. I already pay £38 per month for my Sky package & refuse to cough up another tenner for it.

Lol, wonder if they'll get that.

Yeah, but only because I had a holiday in Ireland last year. The O'Hailpins & Begley are pretty big news over there. Dunno if they're any good, like, but...