Hoops

NH: Gaff hit

Hall actually got 10, but back then the Tribunal allowed any early guilty plea to receive a 25% discount so he ended up on 7.

Oh, just to be clear, I made a point about something which is very important in all of this and that is how inconsistent the AFL is with such contact/striking events (among other rules and decisions).

I suspect most sports have an issue with being consistent in their policy and rule enforcement and interpretation.

So be it, but I still find it very frustrating...

@Red84, there should be other points of view, I would be first to encourage debate and disagreement, goodness knows how many times I am contrarian to the norm.

However, I am confused as to your stance, especially that you disagree with something in my post, because I can't seem to figure out where it is specifically that you disagree?

I am not against common sense rule changes that deal with issues identified as true causal factors.

I do have a hatred of rules being made that only deal with symptoms and reactionary hype.

I have no problems with the toughness and aggressiveness required to play these types of gladiatorial sports, however I do have a problem with tactics used which are completely outside of the rules of said sport.

You may be confusing toughness with thuggery, two very different things, I will suggest...

punches should be outlawed but I think the game also needs more spectacular thon maker style flying kicks. it does not seem right that a football code should have inferior kicking to basketball.

Have to respectfully disagree with Bear.

The AFL SHOULD attract the constant attention of its rule makers for the following reasons:

(1) The core elements that underpin Aussie Rules (and Ice Hockey as well) bring players closer to injury than other sports. There are heaps of turnovers and 50:50 contests. Teams have to be good at winning contested ball. If you can make your opposition fear you, you are well on the way to winning.

(2) Local culture and local history has a big impact on how the game is played. Soccer has FIFA, Basketball has FIBA. Game rules are influenced by different cultures and different values. There is not much culture variation in the history of the AFL. Its history venerates "tough guys" and fans laud acts of thuggery where they are seen as aiding victory.

Only when you get instances like the Gaff incident occurs - is the cozy consensus challenged.

Does it really have to be this way?

Is it a good thing that violence and physical intimidation are necessary ingredients to winning? Can it be toned down, allowing for other attributes (like skill and tactics) to become more important?

What is the justification for current rules allowing teams to gain a competitive advantage by engaging in violence and eliminating an opposition player from the contest? In Ice Hockey - a sport that venerates physical toughness - players who engage in stick abuse are removed from the field.

In rugby league - a pretty tough sport IMO - following a spate of spinal injuries, the tackler now has a duty of care to return his opponent safely to the ground if they lifted. Where is the duty of care in the AFL in allowing sling tackles and chicken wing tackles, resulting in heads being slammed into the turf?

One thing is certain in all of this uncertainty, that is the AFL's interpretations of their own rules, the match review committee and tribunal process are all inconsistent.

But then again, most sports are...

They only crow about these types of incidents when it becomes a knee jerk reaction to something serious happening, so now the focus has been on the symptoms and not the causes to these types of incidents for far too long.

Their whole ethos has moved towards a 'what was the resulting injury' instead of 'what was the action' and 'was it against the rules' to determine their stance and punishment.

The AFL community is spending endless time and effort trying to come up with crazy and useless ideas of how to 'fix the state of the game', yet they are missing the obvious for all their rhetoric.

As far as striking is concerned, outlaw it, any player who strikes another player with a clenched fist, anywhere (body, arm, head, whatever) gets one week immediately and that penalty increases with the severity of the strike (punch). Also, include the elbow as exactly the same penalty as neither a punch nor an elbow to another player is in the rules (it is outside of the rules).

Then do the following:

1. Limit interchanges to 10 per quarter, with the ability to save any not used towards the next quarter. (Yes, I am with KB on this issue, it isn't rocket science).

2. Interpret the rules properly and start paying the push in the back, the holding off the ball and grabbing of the arms etc... But just start officiating the bloody game the way it is supposed to be and stop allowing rugby play into our classic game of Aussie Rules Football.

3. Get rid of the silly ruck nomination system and allow free movement and third man up again. Blocking a player near the ball is allowed, if they call the holding off the ball the throw ins and ball ups will work themselves out.

4. Stop inventing stupid knee jerk rules for the sake of some media blown up problem that does not exist, stop over reacting to all the hype and stop trying to fix something which is not that much broken as all the media hype suggests it to be! No zones, no more lines, no more attempts at limiting coaches in what they are implementing and leave the game alone to evolve naturally, the way it has for 150 bloody years.

You're welcome...

"Will likely get 8-10 weeks"

Good guess Phil


"Should be 4 week down to 3"

LOL NFI Cleareyes

"a lot of AFL people in the media are boofhead ex-players who scoff at punches to the gut as "pffft... nothing in that! get off the ground, stop sooking and play on""

Oh, you mean Shane Heal?

Identical bump then johnson*

Later in the game Michael Johnson lined Gaff up and he copped a fairly big hip and shoulder to the head that rattled him. Johnson received a $2000 fine for that. If Gaff wasn't so lucky and knocked out in the exact same/identical bump on Johnson would probably be suspended a couple of games.

https://youtu.be/vB1zC4Z4bQE

For example currently someone*

"The AFL have let most of the punching go on because it didn't cause injury but perhaps the actual action of punching someone needs to be what gets blokes suspended"

A huge problem with the AFL is they base punishments almost entirely off the outcome and not the action. They need to have punishments for actions, and then added punishment ontop of that for the outcome in extreme cases.

Especially when it comes to things like broken jaws, knock outs, etc, there is often a huge amount of luck involved in these kinds of injuries where you just happen to hit the exact right spot on that person to cause damage.

For example someone does what is deemed a dangerous tackle they may get a fine, someone else does an identical dangerous tackle but got unlucky and the opposition is knocked out they're looking at a couple of weeks on the sideline.

If Gaff did the exact same strike but got lucky and Brayshaw suffered basically no injury, it would hardly be talked about.

Forgot to throw in the old macho favourite "Come on, this is meant to be footy not basketball"

Another reason the AFL have let it go on is because they are piss weak from the top down, and will readily bend whichever way the breeze is blowing that day. Combine that with the fact that a lot of AFL people in the media are boofhead ex-players who scoff at punches to the gut as "pffft... nothing in that! get off the ground, stop sooking and play on" and you end up with where we are now.

This will not get you suspended the 2018 AFL, so it should be no surprise to anyone that one went wrong sooner rather than later given that there's virtually no discouragement by the league for this type of stuff:

The rules of the game kind of highlight the "coward punch" aspect of the incident. The fact that you can niggle and do certain things without the slightest thought that you might get a punch in the mouth leads to guys not having their hands up.
The NRL has gone a bit the same way since they banned punching, with more niggly stuff. When Curtis Scott from Melbourne lost his shit and retaliated against a known niggler and trash talker many in the media wanted to try and call that a "coward punch" as well. Loads of former players disagreed and said if you want to be a tough talker you need to have your hands up. "Talk shit get hit"

From footage I've seen in old days of the VFL/AFL it was more commonplace. Rarely happens now.

Red84, was going to mention Matthews too. Got done for GBH and fined by police, deregistered by the VFL. It was more amateurish back then so hardly a big penalty because he came back. Didn't affect his playing, coaching or media career either.

Gaff will have this over his head rest of career now. Be ironic if he leaves for St Kilda and get booed first game back in WA after WCE fans cheered him after the hit.

"I've had occasions at work where I got so worked up, I had a nose-bleed"


that comes as quite a shock to ..... nobody here

The Matthews hit on Bruns in 1985 can be seen here (at 1.24 mark).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyWs7_U5LDk

Matthews faced criminal charges at the time.

I believe it is the last time that a AFL/VFL footballer has faced a criminal charge from on field assault.

Prior to that it was the O'Dea hit on one of my favorite players John Greening in around 1972 which left Greening a mess thereafter.

There will come a day when someone is killed or is put in a wheel chair due to a an field assault and then, maybe then, idiotic traditionalists will stop defending such assaults as "part of the game".

He'll probably get 8 weeks.

He deserves 12 I reckon. Half a season on the sidelines- no chance of finals, and a significant dent in his new contract seems about fair for a cowardly punch that left an opponent in such dire straits and potentially derails a career.

Whether it's out of character or not, fact is, he did it, it was very ugly, and it's a bad look for the game. These guys are considered role models in society- whether they like it or not. The AFL being too lenient would indeed run counter to the current focus on one punch assaults. This wider context needs to be factored into the penalty.

Good read on ABC- some backstory on Brayshaw's family is interesting

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-06/brayshaw-gaff-why-random-act-of-violence-is-shocking/10076978

Criminal charges would send a message. I'm not against it at all. The "stays on the field" thing isn't a helpful approach given the wider societal context mentioned above.

"I laugh...Bugg was more of a thug act! Both threw a punch off ball too the head. You are all trying to be mind readers, you can't. Judge the act, don’t label it. Just judge the act. 7 will be minimum"

The biggle between them had been going on for a while in the game and Brayshaw struck Gaff in the chest 30sec beforehand, I believe Gaff was trying to do the same and simply got it wrong. Does striking Gaff in the chest make Brayshaw a thug? No. I don't think Gaff getting it wrong should mean we class him a thug. If he intended to smash his jaw in then yeah he is a thug, but i don't think that was the case. He simply got it terribly wrong and will pay the price for his actions.

The problem with it is the AFLs allowance of 'jumper punches' and striking to areas like the chest and arms. They let these things happen weekly but as soon as you get the stomach or face its a suspension. It's pretty easy to cross the line (even accidentally) when you allow some forms of striking in the first place. I reckon leave the push and shove but any form of striking should be removed from the game.

Put Gaff before the FIBA panel, tell 'em his mum is a Philo and he'll get two weeks and a pat on the bum.

yeah that is one of the weirdest parts of the whole thing. talk about white line fever.

So it was a mate coward one punching another mate? What a sport.

I really wonder what impact this has on him as a free agent too. One of the most hated player's atm so not a great PR move to sign him. Reports of him getting offers of up to $1.2mil a year from Vic clubs (out of the eagles price range) you'd think his value takes a bit of a hit now. You also wonder how he would feel leaving west coast with that being his legacy in his last game for the club. I think his chances of staying an eagle may have increased after this

5-6*

As an Eagles fan I want him back asap, but at the same time I can see so much backlash if he was to get 5-7 and play in the GF especially if eagles won. Would almost be better imo for the eagle's if he is out until next season and not a distraction to the team.

"How do you see it compared to the Bugg/Mills one?"

imo the Bugg one was more of a thug act (more intent to strike the face I think), however the outcome of the Gaff incident was a lot worse. Will be interesting to see how the AFL rate it, especially since they put so much emphasis on the outcome rather than action. Will be around the 6 week mark imo if not more. Really is hard to judge with the AFL's inconsistency. If he got 5 i wouldn't be surprised, if he got 10 i wouldn't be surprised either.

I still don't reckon Gaff meant to hit him in the face. I think more shoulder/chest but the slight movement from Brayshaw as he swung put him off. He deserves a big punishment but i don't think he should be in the 'Thug' category that people are labeling. Heck he was even playing golf with Brayshaw a few days ago, i don't think a king hit to a mate is what he wanted, just a hit to the arm/chest to try put the kid in his place on the field. The whole outcome and the injuries as a result was a bit of a freak 'accident'. However Gaff was stupid for swinging in the first place and will pay for it.

Will get anywhere from 4-10 weeks, i reckon about 6.

We all do stupid mistakes and this is totally out of character for Gaff, but as they say, do the crime take the time. 10 weeks is appropriate.

"Should be 4 week down to 3"

LOL! If he got 5 he could count himself extremely lucky.
I think it's 6-8, and because hypothetically the Eagles could play in a GF in 7 weeks time, he won't get less than 7.

The crazy thing is they are not calling it a coward punch, they are calling it a 'king hit'

AFL web site, multiple news sites.

Disgraceful considering how long ago they changed the term to coward punch in order to not approve of such a pointless and defenseless act.

Only weeks ago the AFL ( I mean Channel 7 news web sites) were saying how the Phillo / boomers melee was a blight on the game and the real loser was the game. Here they are now streaming stacks of articles saying that it is out of character and won't affect the guys trade value.

Not once (only read two articles but seen many article headings) have they said that this sort of contact should not happen within their 'great game'

As somebody said, Neanderthal sport which needs to move with the times and stamp out the embarrassing pushing and shoving that server little to the games outcome.

And no, I am not an AFL supporter and don't watch games. But given how this event is pasted across the media today I can't avoid it. No sport is without its issues, but this is one that should be easy to eradicate as as certainly don't want my son playing a game where he can potentially have his teeth knocked out for minding his own business 100m away from the action.

No wonder there is a one punch coward problem in this country. They are learning it from the AFL.

In general the AFL really doesn't help their own cause when it comes to how inconsistent they are with these things, and the way they love "taking a stand" on things but then also totally cave on their own stances when they become slightly inconvenient.

On this occasion though, it ain't a grey area.
But I think the AFL would be better off if they weren't so contradictory about how they see punching in general. Maybe Brayshaw might still even have his teeth if it was more ingrained in players that clenching their fist and hitting someone is a no-no at all times.

I don't understand the inconsequential roughness of AFL. What's the point of it?

Players are used to it, and do it "just because". How does it lead to more point production or defence?

Completely agreed, and this kind of stuff happens at all levels of footy and considered "part of the game". It adds nothing and is frankly embarrassing to watch at times grown men carry on like 15 year olds.

The idea that because its a contact sport this stuff cant be helped is equally false. Rugby Union in comparison does a great job with disciplining players who step out of line with this kind of "harmless" stuff. The governing body has to demand a higher standard and bring in sanctions to match, but the old boys of AFL would rather the game disappeared that go "soft"

And the Phillipino guy was justified because his stickers were taken away remember.

That was really horrific to watch.

The suggestion of criminal charges are ludicrous. If I sling tackle someone and concuss them in the street I'd also be facing charges so the idea that Gaff should face some sort of legal action is ridiculous and a very slippery slope which UI'm not sure we want to go down.

There is a pretty clear difference between a tackle gone wrong and a punch. One is part of the game, the other is not.

The AFL better hope Brayshaw is able to come back and have a good career. Imagine if complications from this result in him never playing again or playing very little. Could there be a civil case against Gaff, the Eagles or even the AFL for night providing a safe working environment. Loss of potential earnings could be in the millions.

Continuing from above.. it will never happen because you can't have some issues becoming legal and some not. Intent is only part of the law and the result is important. If a dangerous tackle is laid and a head is driven into the ground resulting in at best a concussion and at worse spinal damage or something? What happens then? Is the player charged with grievous bodily harm???

Can't have it both ways is why it won't happen

And thats it. Due to the pressure from the footy establishment to leave it on the field, the kid won't dare press charges for fear about being labelled and blacklisted. The establishment don't want guys crimminally charged for stuff that happens on the footy field - Gaff is a "good bloke" after all.

Yeah it brings up 2 things for mine.

1. How the AFL still doesn't have some sort of send off system is amazing. I understand some in football have concerns about how it is used (ie, gets used to send off players in cases with some ambiguity) but in cut and dry cases like this there has to be a method to send players off.

2. Criminal charges. As mentioned above, how is this different to an assault on the street or in the stands? This isn't a criticism unique to AFL, but whenever something like this happens the standard footy talking heads trot out the "what happens on the field stays on the field" tripe. This was assault which has caused significant damage to another person.

He should never play again. Disgusting.
I do that in my work place, I'm deregistered and working at Coles.

Disgusting hit that has no place in sport IMO

BUT, to suggest that criminal actions etc be inserted into the world of sport is laughable. There is no chance this happens.