It’s time to introduce a red card for dirty acts.

[jdstorm]

Okay so this thread is clearly in direct response to a Hawthorn player deliberately striking Jordan Ridley in the head.

Ridley went off Concust while hawthorn got to play a half of football with a 4-3 advantage on the bench after Langford went down.

The Hawthorn player will get 2-3 weeks suspension but that doesnt change the fact that any player who does that will give their team a distinct advantage.

A few years ago Ridley was also subject to another deliberate strike to the face by a Port Adelaide small forward and his jaw got broken.

Port won in a close game.

Unless the AFL overhauls the interchange system it’s a joke that you can deliberately take out one of your opponent’s best players and benefit from it that week

If Peter Wright got 4 weeks last year for protecting himself in a marking contest that should be a 6 week suspension.

Unnessecary intentional high contact causing injury can’t be tolerated

 

[lordbob]

You'd think if it were a deliberate strike, he would have hit him with a closed first?
Does this look like he's is deliberately about to strike him?

He hit him with the inside of his forearm, open palm. Was very clumsy of scrimshaw. It wasnt an attempt to smother like the comentators said. Looks more like he is trying to grab hold of him stop him running on and being apart of the play.

 

[Delisted]

I fink you concust

 

[Madas]

The Giinivan one to the throat was pretty shithouse
Should be a report
Would yellow card that one

 

[lordbob]

The Giinivan one to the throat was pretty shithouse
Should be a report
Would yellow card that one

when was that one? i must have missed it.

 

[jdstorm]

You'd think if it were a deliberate strike, he would have hit him with a closed first?
Does this look like he's is deliberately about to strike him?
View attachment 2249914
He hit him with the inside of his forearm, open palm. Was very clumsy of scrimshaw. It wasnt an attempt to smother like the comentators said. Looks more like he is trying to grab hold of him stop him running on and being apart of the play.
View attachment 2249915

Looks like his forearm straight to the face.

Again grabbing a player to prevent them being part of the play is a penalty. If a player is deliberately committing a penalty and concussion occurs causing an opposing player to miss the rest of the game then the team committing the offence shouldn’t get the advantage.

Also we have an insufficient intent rule in regards to taking the ball over the boundary or goal line. Doesn’t matter what he intended (although clearly in this case it was intentional) players shouldn’t be able to do this.

I guarantee if Ben McKay did this to Sicily and hawthorn played a man down most of the game you’d feel similarly. Which is the point.

 

[Vindicater]

Not wading I to the argument here but one question I do have.

Scrimshaw went off with a concussion later as well correct?

So if he gets a two week suspension for this hit does that start after his 12 day concussion protocols or what?

 

[Bald]

It was more awkward than it was malicious.

If a red card was introduced, this wouldn’t even get a yellow.

 

[HeHateMe]

Yeah I agree with the comments here it was a body check defenders do multiple times a game. Not a bump or a strike and not malicious.

But it was clumsy and caused a concussion which the game is cracking down on.

Won't argue if he gets suspended due to the concussion but also don't want the AFL to rule out the action with a potential to cause injury like with the bump.

 

[NeutralFan]

Closed fist and swinging arm seems pretty malicious. What point does it have as a 'football act'?

 

[Madas]

when was that one? i must have missed it.

Can’t remember sorry
3 rd quarter maybe
It was right in front of Essendons goal on the 50m line
Essendon player took a mark and Giinipig hit him in the throat , was a 50m penalty

 

[astrowizzle]

He chose to swing his arm and got him with the forearm to the head. Deserves to be scrubbed out. I've been and advocate for a card system for 50 years. You take someone out you sit out. Have a panel of game watchers that from video footage of any game can hand out the suspension and sit people out. Get rid of ò Christian and his dribble.

This was not a football act it was and e excuse to have a cheap shot at someone. If it was a footy act he would tackle between the shoulder and the hips and had every opportunity to do so

 

[Tugga27]

Poor form by Scrimshaw but that's never going to be a send off.

A send off would be for a punch or maybe a severe bump to the head.

 

[jdstorm]

It was more awkward than it was malicious.

If a red card was introduced, this wouldn’t even get a yellow.

It’s a red card in Rugby.

Doesn’t matter if intentional or not players have the responsibility not to hit other players in the head. Hit player in head. They go off injured. Your team has to play a player down.

It’s fair

 

[jdstorm]

Yeah I agree with the comments here it was a body check defenders do multiple times a game. Not a bump or a strike and not malicious.

But it was clumsy and caused a concussion which the game is cracking down on.

Won't argue if he gets suspended due to the concussion but also don't want the AFL to rule out the action with a potential to cause injury like with the bump.

In this case my issue is the injury caused.

I’m saying he deserves the send off because his action sent another player off.

If Ridley stays on it’s an 50 and we move on to the tribunal.

It’s the concussion and that the injured player had to go off that’s the issue

 

[Jim Prideaux]

It’s a red card in Rugby.

Doesn’t matter if intentional or not players have the responsibility not to hit other players in the head. Hit player in head. They go off injured. Your team has to play a player down.

It’s fair

Which rugby?

 

[jdstorm]

Which rugby?

Both.

State of origin. Leagues flagship event got wrecked 10 minutes into the series a few years ago due to high contact and NSW having to play down a player for 70 minutes.

That’s an extreme punishment and I’m not advocating playing players short on the field but a short bench is a punishment that fits the crime

 

[Bald]

It’s a red card in Rugby.

Doesn’t matter if intentional or not players have the responsibility not to hit other players in the head. Hit player in head. They go off injured. Your team has to play a player down.

It’s fair

You think if they introduced the red card system they would use it on non-intentional acts? Lol.

 

[jdstorm]

You think if they introduced the red card system they would use it on non-intentional acts? Lol.

insufficient intent is a key part of AFL language.

Puts the onus on players not to kick the ball out of bounds.

Easy enough to apply the same language to concussions.

Hitting a player in the head shows insufficient intent not to and if they go off concust your off as well. Pretty simple

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Both.

State of origin. Leagues flagship event got wrecked 10 minutes into the series a few years ago due to high contact and NSW having to play down a player for 70 minutes.

That’s an extreme punishment and I’m not advocating playing players short on the field but a short bench is a punishment that fits the crime

I very much doubt it would be in League. In Union, maybe, but probably not.

In Union there is a key difference though - the action they are trying to stop is players standing too high when tackling, so this maybe, might get looked at. The tackler standing tall to limit the chance of an offload is what they have deemed problematic, and as such, contact to the ball carrier head is deemed to be the fault of the tackler including g in cases of head clashes. However, this would be on the very minor end of what they look at, and would most likely be called play on.

On the flip side however, a sling tackle wouldn’t rate a mention in Union.

 

[jdstorm]

I very much doubt it would be in League. In Union, maybe, but probably not.

In Union there is a key difference though - the action they are trying to stop is players standing too high when tackling, so this maybe, might get looked at. The tackler standing tall to limit the chance of an offload is what they have deemed problematic, and as such, contact to the ball carrier head is deemed to be the fault of the tackler including g in cases of head clashes. However, this would be on the very minor end of what they look at, and would most likely be called play on.

On the flip side however, a sling tackle wouldn’t rate a mention in Union.

Does the AFL not have a similar issue with concussions and having any contact to the head of a ball carrier being the defenders responsibility is a fair thing to apply to the AFL as well.

I’m not saying red card for the act. But if a player can’t return due to concussion and the ball wasn’t in dispute at the time the incident occurred the tackler/defender should have the onus put on them to tackle safely.

Where it gets complicated in afl is when the ball is in dispute. I don’t have a great answer for that. Perhaps the team with possesion is protected. Perhaps both sides have a duty of care to others and themselves and going into contests recklessly when hit should lead to both players getting suspended (similar to a double technical in basketball)

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Does the AFL not have a similar issue with concussions and having any contact to the head of a ball carrier being the defenders responsibility is a fair thing to apply to the AFL as well.

I’m not saying red card for the act. But if a player can’t return due to concussion and the ball wasn’t in dispute at the time the incident occurred the tackler/defender should have the onus put on them to tackle safely.

Where it gets complicated in afl is when the ball is in dispute. I don’t have a great answer for that. Perhaps the team with possesion is protected. Perhaps both sides have a duty of care to others and themselves and going into contests recklessly when hit should lead to both players getting suspended (similar to a double technical in basketball)

The AFL probably does have a similar issue, but the fundamentals of the game are such that if they were to adopt a Union style Crackdown a huge amount of tackles would get looked at. As an example from last nights game, pretty much every tackle on Nick Watson would be have the potential for TMO intervention. The height of the player does not matter in Union, the tackler must get lower.

I’d say it would alter the game in a way that I’m not comfortable with.

What happened to Ridley was unfortunate, and Scrimshaw may cop a few weeks - if he does I’ll say he’s unlucky but thems the brakes so to speak.

 

[Bald]

insufficient intent is a key part of AFL language.

Puts the onus on players not to kick the ball out of bounds.

Easy enough to apply the same language to concussions.

Hitting a player in the head shows insufficient intent not to and if they go off concust your off as well. Pretty simple

Yes - which is why we pay free kicks and once it is reviewed potentially suspensions, but you aren't going to send a player off based on something that looks clumsy and awkward, it'd strictly be for things that are obviously deliberate. Pretty simple.

 

[Kappa]

Is afl the only major team sport without a send off rule for extremely dirty play? Can’t believe anyone with a brain would argue that the afl shouldn’t have it for punches and stuff. Punching an opponent out cold should NOT give you an advantage for the rest of the match

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Is afl the only major team sport without a send off rule for extremely dirty play? Can’t believe anyone with a brain would argue that the afl shouldn’t have it for punches and stuff. Punching an opponent out cold should NOT give you an advantage for the rest of the match

For straight up dirty acts - punch to the head level, I agree. Anything else, I dont think the juice would be worth the squeeze.