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

[HeHateMe]

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

I don't think the action was a dog act if that makes sense, was a clumsy body check if no injury I don't think we even look at it again tbh but with the concussion AFL might need to take note.

As a side note though Ridley looks like he might have issues with concussion he's going to need to manage as well moving forward. He did get wacked in the chin by the forearm but I don't think everytime that happens a player gets concussed.

 

[astrowizzle]

If you make high contact and the player can't return to the field nor can you. Why did the r team that causes a team to be a player down have that advantage for the game.
Instead of a serve t off how about the they get to bring a fresh player into the game of ours deemed an illegal act

 

[jdstorm]

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.

I agree with you that the goal should be to clean up the game without fundamentally altering how the game is played.

outcome matters a lot in the AFLs review system and what I’m suggesting is that if dangerous tackles lead to a concussion outcome then it shouldn’t benefit the infringing team.

It’s why you can still bump (shoulder charge) but if you choose to bump it has to be clean. I think expanding that to include an in game penalty so the team that’s wronged isn’t significantly disadvantaged is a reasonable and sensible change.

What happened to Ridley was to me a front on bump (with a swinging arm) analogous to the Maynard on Brayshaw bump but far less severe. That bump turned a final and arguably won the pies a flag. It was also deemed very unfair at the time.

If an Essendon player had knocked Watson out in the first quarter would you think it fair that hawthorn spent a half down a player after the headclash?

As for scrimshaw and suspensions. He should be suspended. We aren’t going to agree on length.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I agree with you that the goal should be to clean up the game without fundamentally altering how the game is played.

outcome matters a lot in the AFLs review system and what I’m suggesting is that if dangerous tackles lead to a concussion outcome then it shouldn’t benefit the infringing team.

It’s why you can still bump (shoulder charge) but if you choose to bump it has to be clean. I think expanding that to include an in game penalty so the team that’s wronged isn’t significantly disadvantaged is a reasonable and sensible change.

What happened to Ridley was to me a front on bump (with a swinging arm) analogous to the Maynard on Brayshaw bump but far less severe. That bump turned a final and arguably won the pies a flag. It was also deemed very unfair at the time.

If an Essendon player had knocked Watson out in the first quarter would you think it fair that hawthorn spent a half down a player after the headclash?

As for scrimshaw and suspensions. He should be suspended. We aren’t going to agree on length.

There will be a cost to the rule you want implement though, and the outcome will have to be separate if a card system comes into play. So to go back to the Watson example, if you bring in cards, it won’t matter if he is concussed, a red card offence is a red card offence regardless of outcome.

It wasn’t a bump, it was a late tackle/block, clumsy as it may have been there was no malice. However, the outcome was very unfortunate and as such I imagine Scrimshaw will have at least a fine and possibly a few weeks off.

Incidentally since you mentioned it, how many weeks do you think it should be?

 

[jdstorm]

There will be a cost to the rule you want implement though, and the outcome will have to be separate if a card system comes into play. So to go back to the Watson example, if you bring in cards, it won’t matter if he is concussed, a red card offence is a red card offence regardless of outcome.

It wasn’t a bump, it was a late tackle/block, clumsy as it may have been there was no malice. However, the outcome was very unfortunate and as such I imagine Scrimshaw will have at least a fine and possibly a few weeks off.

Incidentally since you mentioned it, how many weeks do you think it should be?

I think in this particular case there should be an off field official that administers an outcome based send off:

I don’t love the idea of a card based system because I wouldn’t want yellow cards. I think that would change how people attack contests and would see players trying to draw penalties on players on a yellow. The incident is either severe enough for a send off or just a 50 and play on. I’d rather a 150m penalty as an intermediate penalty than a yellow card.

In my mind it was a front on bump with a swinging arm to the head and then scrimshaw pushed him to the ground. The play resulted in a concussion.

So I’d say non contested situation. high impact, severe injury.

If Peter Wright gets 4 weeks for bracing himself from a player running into his leading path and that leading to a severe injury. I think Scrimshaw should get more than that. Swinging arm to the head = 4-6 weeks

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I think in this particular case there should be an off field official that administers an outcome based send off:

I don’t love the idea of a card based system because I wouldn’t want yellow cards. I think that would change how people attack contests and would see players trying to draw penalties on players on a yellow. The incident is either severe enough for a send off or just a 50 and play on. I’d rather a 150m penalty as an intermediate penalty than a yellow card.

In my mind it was a front on bump with a swinging arm to the head and then scrimshaw pushed him to the ground. The play resulted in a concussion.

So I’d say non contested situation. high impact, severe injury.

If Peter Wright gets 4 weeks for bracing himself from a player running into his leading path and that leading to a severe injury. I think Scrimshaw should get more than that. Swinging arm to the head = 4-6 weeks

First point, the off field official won’t be able to adjudicate on concussions as in the case of Ridley they aren’t immediate/require an HIA - on that alone the idea is sunk - in Union the initial card (pre tribunal) is for the act not the outcome.

Second point, he won’t get 4-6, if he is sanctioned it’ll be 2-3.

 

[jdstorm]

First point, the off field official won’t be able to adjudicate on concussions as in the case of Ridley they aren’t immediate/require an HIA - on that alone the idea is sunk - in Union the initial card (pre tribunal) is for the act not the outcome.

Second point, he won’t get 4-6, if he is sanctioned it’ll be 2-3.

Why wouldn’t an off field official be able to deliver an outcome based send off? Each sport has its own unique challenges and writes their rules accordingly.

Pretty simple if a player is ruled out of the game due to concussion an official goes and looks at the incident and if it’s determined to be severe enough the player is taken off the field at the next stoppage.

If the afl isn’t going to change the interchange rules to have injuries effect the game less this is to me an almost nessecary option

 

[HairyO]

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?

12 days of concussion, then 3 days for funsies. His suspension starts 15 days after the 3rd moon following the Autumnal equinox.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Why wouldn’t an off field official be able to deliver an outcome based send off? Each sport has its own unique challenges and writes their rules accordingly.

Pretty simple if a player is ruled out of the game due to concussion an official goes and looks at the incident and if it’s determined to be severe enough the player is taken off the field at the next stoppage.

If the afl isn’t going to change the interchange rules to have injuries effect the game less this is to me an almost nessecary option

Because concussions aren’t necessarily immediate. With a card you can only punish the act not the outcome.

 

[jdstorm]

Because concussions aren’t necessarily immediate. With a card you can only punish the act not the outcome.

I think the outcome is of great importance because the issue is teams benefiting in match from plays that will get them suspended.

i think there should be both an immediate send off option but also an outcome based option.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

What's more dirty? A clumsy tackle, or diving onto the head of a player who is on the ground (can't remember who was involved, but it was a hawthorn player in defence, essendon fans lost it at the free being paid).
Was a deliberate knee "disguised" as an attempt at the ball

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I think the outcome is of great importance because the issue is teams benefiting in match from plays that will get them suspended.

i think there should be both an immediate send off option but also an outcome based option.

Your suggestion is inherently unfair

 

[hawkman]

Didn’t Ridley come back on and then got subbed at half time?

 

[Donakebab]

Scrimshaw rightly cops a three week ban, but it's not the kind of incident where I'd be dishing out a red card.

 

[lordbob]

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

Except it wasnt a closed fist. see screen shot above. Was careless and caused concussion. No problem with him getting weeks, but stick to the facts.

 

[lordbob]

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

Why not use it for every impact that causes injury? tackle someone and fall on their ankles, slide into a tackle bump someone and they injure their shoulder. why stop at concussion?

 

[lordbob]

I agree with you that the goal should be to clean up the game without fundamentally altering how the game is played.

outcome matters a lot in the AFLs review system and what I’m suggesting is that if dangerous tackles lead to a concussion outcome then it shouldn’t benefit the infringing team.

It’s why you can still bump (shoulder charge) but if you choose to bump it has to be clean. I think expanding that to include an in game penalty so the team that’s wronged isn’t significantly disadvantaged is a reasonable and sensible change.

What happened to Ridley was to me a front on bump (with a swinging arm) analogous to the Maynard on Brayshaw bump but far less severe. That bump turned a final and arguably won the pies a flag. It was also deemed very unfair at the time.

If an Essendon player had knocked Watson out in the first quarter would you think it fair that hawthorn spent a half down a player after the headclash?

As for scrimshaw and suspensions. He should be suspended. We aren’t going to agree on length.

Where was this post when M Lloyd took out brad sewell?

 

[lordbob]

What's more dirty? A clumsy tackle, or diving onto the head of a player who is on the ground (can't remember who was involved, but it was a hawthorn player in defence, essendon fans lost it at the free being paid).
Was a deliberate knee "disguised" as an attempt at the ball

Frost was the hawks player

 

[jdstorm]

Your suggestion is inherently unfair

I would say it’s intentionally harsh rather than inherently unfair.

Players always have the option not to strike other players in the head if they wish for their team not to be penalised.

The current system is inherently unfair where the infringing team winds up with a significant competitive advantage in the game the incident occurs and are only disadvantaged in future games against different opposition to the value of whoever the replacement player is.

If it’s a fringe 22 player committing the infringement it has basically no downside for the infringing team.

Where was this post when M Lloyd took out brad sewell?

That was 20 years ago. We know more about concussions now. What I remember of that game is long gone.

Why not use it for every impact that causes injury? tackle someone and fall on their ankles, slide into a tackle bump someone and they injure their shoulder. why stop at concussion?

Because there isn’t a body of research showing that a broken ankle or dodgy knee leads to a lifetime of mental health risks, and a higher likelihood of violence directed towards yourself and others.

 

[HeHateMe]

Scrimshaw rightly cops a three week ban, but it's not the kind of incident where I'd be dishing out a red card.

No problem with something like this being outcome based when head contact is involved.

Don't like the idea of the action being taken out of the game as it's something that happens every game multiple times by multiple players normally it's just a reaching arm that slows the player down. The frequency it could cause concussion would be incredibly low. So none of this potential to cause injury suspension.

Scrimshaw probably needs to address his technique though with a front on arm to the chest having the potential to slip high if executed poorly.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Umpires will abuse it.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

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.

Deliberate strike? Ridley ran into Rioli's trailing arm...

 

[Devington]

Umpires will abuse it.

Intentionally and through incompetence. I have little faith in the umpiring fraternity, and even less in the blokes directly above them.

 

[astrowizzle]

Where was this post when M Lloyd took out brad sewell?

I would have been for it.

 

[boncer34]

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

Exactly this, though I think he was more trying to get him in the chest to stop him rather than grabbing but stopping him from the next contest was the intent.

Have no idea how the commentators thought it was a smother.